PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Almas Dossa
AU  - Lisa C Welch
TI  - GPs’ approaches to documenting stigmatising information: a qualitative study
AID  - 10.3399/bjgp15X685273
DP  - 2015 Jun 01
TA  - British Journal of General Practice
PG  - e372--e378
VI  - 65
IP  - 635
4099  - http://bjgp.org/content/65/635/e372.short
4100  - http://bjgp.org/content/65/635/e372.full
SO  - Br J Gen Pract2015 Jun 01; 65
AB  - Background Complete medical documentation is essential for continuity of care, but the competing need to protect patient confidentiality presents an ethical dilemma. This is particularly poignant for GPs because of their central role in facilitating continuity.Aim To examine how GPs manage medical documentation of stigmatising mental health (MH) and non-MH information.Design and setting A qualitative sub-study of a factorial experiment with GPs practising in Massachusetts, US.Method Semi-structured interviews (n = 128) were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were coded and analysed for themes.Results GPs expressed difficulties with and inconsistent strategies for documenting stigmatising information. Without being asked directly about stigmatising information, 44 GPs (34%) expressed difficulties documenting it: whether to include clinically relevant but sensitive information, how to word it, and explaining to patients the importance of including it. Additionally, 75 GPs (59%) discussed strategies for managing documentation of stigmatising information. GPs reported four strategies that varied by type of information: to exclude stigmatising information to respect patient confidentiality (MH: 26%, non-MH: 43%); to include but restrict access to information (MH: 13%, non-MH: 25%); to include but neutralise information to minimise potential stigma (MH: 26%, non-MH: 29%); and to include stigmatising information given the potential impact on care (MH: 68%, non-MH: 32%).Conclusion Lack of consistency undermines the potential of medical documentation to efficiently facilitate continuous, coordinated health care because providers cannot be certain how to interpret what is or is not in the chart. A proactive consensus process within the field of primary care would provide much needed guidance for GPs and, ultimately, could enhance quality of care.