Negotiating refusal in primary care consultations: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND

How GPs negotiate patient requests is vital to their gatekeeper role but also a source of potential conflict, practitioner stress and patient dissatisfaction. Difficulties may arise when demands of shared decision-making conflict with resource allocation, which may be exacerbated by new commissioning arrangements, with GPs responsible for available services.

OBJECTIVES

To explore GPs' accounts of negotiating refusal of patient requests and their negotiation strategies.

METHODS

A qualitative design was employed with two focus groups of GPs and GP registrars followed by 20 semi-structured interviews. Participants were sampled by gender, experience, training/non-training, principal versus salaried or locum. Thematic content analysis proceeded in parallel with interviews and further sampling. The setting was GP practices within an English urban primary care trust.

RESULTS

Sickness certification, antibiotics and benzodiazepines were cited most frequently as problematic patient requests. GP trainees reported more conflict within interactions than experienced GPs. Negotiation strategies, such as blaming distant third parties such as the primary care organization, were designed to prevent conflict and preserve the doctor-patient relationship. GPs reported patients' expectations being strongly influenced by previous encounters with other health care professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings reiterate the prominence of the doctor-patient relationship in GPs' accounts. GPs' relationships with colleagues and the wider National Health Service (NHS) are particular of relevance in light of provisions in the Health and Social Care Bill for clinical commissioning consortia. The ability of GPs to offset blame for rationing decisions to third parties will be undermined if the same GPs commission services.