Abstract
IntroductionThe present study assessed the opinion of general practitioners (GPs) concerning their relationships with intensivists.MethodsAn anonymous questionnaire was mailed to 7,239 GPs. GPs were asked about their professional activities, postgraduate intensive care unit (ICU) training, the rate of patient admittance to ICUs, and their relationships with intensivists. Relationship assessment was performed by using a graduated visual analogue scale (VAS) ranging from 0 (dissatisfaction) to 100 (satisfaction). A multivariate analysis with stepwise logistic regression was performed to isolate factors explaining dissatisfaction (VAS score, < 25th percentile).ResultsTwenty-two percent of the GPs (1,561) responded. The median satisfaction score was 57 of 100 (interquartile (IQ), 35 to 77]. Five independent factors of dissatisfaction were identified: no information provided to GPs at patient admission (odds ratio (OR) = 2.55 (1.71 to 3.80)); poor quality of family reception in the ICU (OR = 2.06 (1.40 to 3.02)); the ICU's family contact person's identity or function or both is unclear (OR = 1.48 (1.03 to 2.12)), lack of family information (OR = 2.02 (2.48 to 2.75)), and lack of discharge report (OR = 3.39 (1.70 to 6.76)). Three independent factors prevent dissatisfaction: age of GPs ≤45 years (OR = 0.69 (0.51 to 0.94)); the GP is called at patient ICU admission (OR = 0.44 (0.31 to 0.63)); and GP involvement in treatment decisions (OR = 0.17 (0.07 to 0.40)).ConclusionsConsiderable improvement in GP/intensivist relationships can be achieved through increased communication measures.
Highlights
The present study assessed the opinion of general practitioners (GPs) concerning their relationships with intensivists
The nearest intensive care unit (ICU) were within 25 km of the working city for 90% of GPs, whereas university hospitals were within that range for only 54% of GPs
The present study shows that GP/intensivist relationships should be improved
Summary
The present study assessed the opinion of general practitioners (GPs) concerning their relationships with intensivists. The GP is the sole medical practitioner who knows the patient's history and his or her way of life. This information could be of particular interest for therapeutic and ethical decisions. Intensivists reported contacting designated GPs after patient admission. The lack of informative letters at patient admission and the lack of contact between GPs and intensivists do not reflect good practice. In a postal survey sent from an emergency department to 380 GPs, 147 (39%) responders reported deficiencies in the discharge information and substantial difficulties in accessing outstanding investigation results [9]. Adequate communication between emergency departments and GPs (using a referral letter) has been shown to be cost effective, with $2,600 saved per month [11]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
