PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

H P Jung

Publications and source records attributed to H P Jung.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2002

Comparison of patients' and general practitioners' evaluations of general practice care.

OBJECTIVES: To compare patients' and general practitioners' (GPs') evaluations of the quality of general practice care. DESIGN: Written surveys among patients and GPs. SETTING: General practice in the Netherlands. SUBJECTS: 1772 patients (from 45 GPs) and a random sample of 315 GPs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' and GPs' evaluations of 23 aspects of general practice care and GPs' perceptions of patients' evaluations using a 5 point scale. RESULTS: The response rate was 88% in the patient sample and 63% in the GP sample. The patients' ratings of care were significantly more positive (mean 4.0) than those of the GPs (mean 3.7) as well as GPs' perceptions of patients' evaluations (mean 3.5) (p<0.001). The overall rank order correlations between the patients' evaluations, GPs' evaluations, and GPs' perceptions of the patients' evaluations were 0.75 or higher (p<0.001). Patients and practitioners gave the most positive evaluations of specific aspects of the doctor-patient relationship ("keeping patients' records and data confidential", "listening to patients", and "making patients feel they had enough time during consultations") and aspects of the organisation of care ("provide quick service for urgent health problems" and "helpfulness of the staff (other than the doctor)"). The aspects of care evaluated least positively by patients as well as by GPs were other organisational aspects ("preparing patients for what to expect from specialist or hospital care" and "getting through to practice on the telephone"). CONCLUSIONS: GPs and patients have to some extent a shared perspective on general practice care. However, GPs were more critical about the quality of care than patients and they underestimated how positive patients were about the care they provide. Furthermore, specific aspects of care were evaluated differently, so surveys and other consultations with patients are necessary to integrate their perspective into quality improvement activities.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2000

Patients in Europe evaluate general practice care: an international comparison.

BACKGROUND: Patients' evaluations can be used to improve health care and compare general practice in different health systems. AIM: To identify aspects of general practice that are generally evaluated positively by patients and to compare opinions of patients in different European countries on actual care provision. METHOD: An internationally-validated questionnaire was distributed to and completed by patients in 10 European countries. A stratified sample of 36 practices per country, with at least 1080 patients per country, was included. A set of 23 validated questions on evaluations of different aspects of care was used, as well as questions on age, sex, overall health status, and frequency of visiting the GP. RESULTS: The patient sample included 17,391 patients in 10 different countries; the average response rate was 79% (range = 67% to 89%). In general, patients visiting their general practitioner (GP) were very positive about the care provided. For most of the 23 selected aspects of care more than 80% viewed care as good or excellent; in particular, keeping records confidential, GP listening to patients, time during consultations, and quick services in case of urgent problems were evaluated positively. Patients were relatively negative about organisational aspects of care. The evaluations in different countries were largely similar, with some interesting differences; for instance, service and organisational aspects were evaluated more positively in fee-for-service health systems. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in Europe are positive about general practice but improvements in practice management in some countries are requested. More research is needed to study the complex field of differences in expectations and evaluations between countries with different health systems.

Culture↗
PubMed1999

McCune-Albright syndrome: clinical and molecular evidence of mosaicism in an unusual giant patient.

Molecular genetics recently uncovered the mystery of the protean picture of McCune-Albright syndrome by identification of the somatic gain of function mutations in the GNAS1 gene. Here we present an adult patient with fibrous dysplasia and an endocrinopathy resulting in unusual giant height. The clinical diagnosis in the patient could be confirmed by molecular investigations in tissues involved in the process of fibrous dysplasia.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1999

Effect of mailed reminders on the response rate in surveys among patients in general practice.

Randomized trials were performed in Denmark and The Netherlands to determine the effect of mailed reminders on the response rate in surveys among patients in general practice. In both countries, general practitioners handed out questionnaires to 200 adult patients who came to visit them. An intervention group of 100 patients received reminders at 3 weeks after the visit, whereas a control group of the remaining 100 patients did not receive reminders. The response rate was significantly higher in the intervention groups than in the control group in The Netherlands (86% versus 55%, respectively) but not in Denmark (87% versus 81%, respectively). Mailed reminders can improve the response rate in surveys related to a general practice, but they are not effective in all situations.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

Which aspects of general practitioners' behaviour determine patients' evaluations of care?

This qualitative study explored those behaviours of a general practitioner which were used by patients in their evaluations of 14 aspects of general practice care. Thirty patients were interviewed immediately after visiting their general practitioner. Interview transcripts were analyzed by two authors, who independently marked general practitioners' behaviours used by patients. Then, these text fragments were categorised into task or affective behaviours according to an existing taxonomy of doctor behaviour in consultations. The results showed that patients reported using task oriented behaviours when they evaluated task oriented aspects of general practice care. However, when they evaluated affective aspects they reported using both affective behaviours and task behaviours, although the latter to a lesser extent. The evaluations of "tell you all you wanted to know about your illness", "explain the purpose and the course of the treatment", "pay attention to your feelings" and "kind and attentive" are clearly linked to specific general practitioners' behaviour. Therefore, evaluations of these aspects can be interpreted straightforwardly. Evaluation of the aspects "GP understands you", "having faith in your GP" and "were you involved in decisions about your medical treatment?" were based on a large variety of physician behaviours which may lead to interpretation problems. Thus, this study gives some important considerations for a better understanding of patients' evaluations of general practice care.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

A systematic review of the literature on patient priorities for general practice care. Part 1: Description of the research domain.

To make health care more responsive to patient needs, insight into patient priorities is needed. A systematic literature review, using electronic and manual searches, was made of studies on patient priorities with regard to primary health care. Data-extraction was performed by two researchers, followed by systematic analyses of study features. 57 studies were included. The aspects of care and methods used showed a wide variation. Aspects most often included were "informativeness", "humaneness" and "competence/accuracy". Based on an analysis of 19 studies, the following aspects were seen by patients as most important in more than 50% of the studies that included them: "humaneness", "competence/accuracy", "patients' involvement in decisions", "time for care", "other aspects of availability/accessibility", "informativeness", "exploring patients' needs", "other aspects of relation and communication" and "availability of special services".

Adult↗
PubMed1997

What makes a good general practitioner: do patients and doctors have different views?

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) are expected to be responsive to patients' expectations, but patients and doctors may have different views on what constitutes good general practice care. AIM: To elicit areas of controversy as well as areas of mutual agreement between the opinions of patients and GPs with regard to good general practice care. METHOD: A questionnaire, distributed to 850 patients and 400 GPs, measured which of 40 aspects of general practice care were given priority. A second questionnaire, distributed to 400 different GPs, measured the GPs' perception of the priorities of patients. RESULTS: The priority rank order of all 40 aspects was highly correlated for patients and GPs (0.72), as was the rank order of aspects for patients and the perception of them by GPs (0.71). Nevertheless, when comparing the priorities of patients and GPs, 23 out of 40 aspects differed significantly (P = 0.00125) in their rank number. Similarly, when comparing the priorities of patients with the perception of them by GPs, 23 aspects differed significantly. CONCLUSIONS: There is great similarity between the priorities of patients and those of GPs. GPs are quite capable of assessing most of the priorities of patients. However, potentially controversial areas of general practice care do exist.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1996

[Sterile cover for the microscope in ENT operations].

Complete sterile covering of operating microscopes for ENT operations has been achieved using sterilizable cases of stainless steel, which offer the following advantages: Quick and easy application to different types of microscopes. Considerable cost savings. Significant waste reduction.

Equipment Design↗
PubMed1994

[Lengthening, axial correction and segmental reconstruction of the extremities using the distraction method].

Between 1988 and 1992 lengthenings axial, corrections and reconstructions have been performed by distraction on lower arms, upper and lower legs in 25 patients because of deviations in length due to either congenital or acquired (multiple cartilaginous exostoses, posttraumatic conditions, congenital pseudarthrosis deformations or defects (fibula-defect, amnion-band-complex, amputation). On the average elongation amounted to 4 cm for an average installation time of the fixator system of 22 weeks and a mean duration of 25 weeks for the adaptation to full strength. Problems arose in the form of soft tissue infections at the rod perforation sites, the necessity for secondary interventions because of early fractures and for corrections of the fixator respectively. Complications compromising the expected goal of treatment did not occur. Consideration of the biological principle of distraction is essential whereas the type of fixator-system is of only minor importance.

Adolescent↗