What patients consider to be a ‘good’ doctor, and what doctors consider to be a ‘good’ patient
ABSTRACT Background: From a patient's point of view, an ‘ideal’ doctor could be defined as one having personal qualities for interpersonal relationships, technical skills and good intentions. However, doctors' opinions about what it means to be a ‘good...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Lenguaje: | English |
| Publicado: |
Sociedad Médica de Santiago
2020
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-98872020000700930 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | ABSTRACT Background: From a patient's point of view, an ‘ideal’ doctor could be defined as one having personal qualities for interpersonal relationships, technical skills and good intentions. However, doctors' opinions about what it means to be a ‘good’ patient have not been systematically investigated. Aim: To explore how patients define the characteristics of a ‘good’ and a ‘bad’ doctor, and how doctors define a ‘good’ and a ‘bad’ patient. Material and Methods: We surveyed a cohort of 107 consecutive patients attending a community teaching hospital in February 2019, who were asked to define the desirable characteristics of a good/bad doctor. Additionally, a cohort of 115 physicians working at the same hospital was asked to define the desirable characteristics of a good/bad patient. Responses were subjected to content analysis. Simultaneously, an algorithm in Python was used to automatically categorize responses throughout text-mining. Results: The predominant patients' perspective alluded to desirable personal qualities more importantly than proficiency in knowledge and technical skills. Doctors would be satisfied if patients manifested positive personality characteristics, were prone to avoid decisional and personal conflicts, had a high adherence to treatment, and trusted the doctor. The text-mining algorithm was accurate to classify individuals' opinions. Conclusions: Ideally, fusing the skills of the scientist to the reflective capabilities of the medical humanist will fulfill the archetype of what patients consider to be a ‘good’ doctor. Doctors' preferences reveal a “paternalistic” style, and his/her opinions should be managed carefully to avoid stigmatizing certain patients' behaviors. |
|---|