title: What makes up good consultations? A qualitative study of GPs' discourses.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  In medical literature, several principles that define 'good consultations' have been outlined. These principles tend to be prescriptive in nature, overlooking the complexity of general practitioners (GPs)' perspectives of everyday practice. Focusing on perspectives might be particularly relevant, since they may affect decisions and actions. Therefore, the present study adopts a bottom-up approach, analyzing GPs' narratives about 'good' and 'bad' consultations. We aimed at describing the range of discourses GPs use in relating on their practice.
  
  
  METHODS
  Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 Belgian GPs. By means of a qualitative analysis, the authors mapped patterns in the interview narratives and described the range of different discourses.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Four discourses were identified: a biomedically-centered discourse, a communication-focused discourse, a problem-solving discourse and a satisfaction-oriented discourse. Each discourse was further specified in terms of predominant themes, problems the GPs prefer to deal with and inherent difficulties. Although most participants used elements from all four discourses, the majority of the GPs relied on an individual set of predominant discourses and focused on a limited number of themes.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This study clearly indicates that there is no uniform way in which GPs perceive clinical practice. Each of the participants used a subtle mix of different criteria to define good and bad medical consultations. Some discourse elements appear to be rooted in medical literature, whereas others are of a more personal nature. By focusing on the limitations of each discourse, this study can shed new light on some of the difficulties GPs encounter in their daily practice: being confronted with specific problems might be an effect of adhering to a specific discourse. The typification of different discourses on consultations may function as a framework to help GPs reflect on how they perceive their practice, and help them manage some of the challenges met in daily practice.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychoanalysis and Clinical Consulting, Ghent University, H, Dunantlaan 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium. Kaatje.Vanroy@UGent.be
authors.forename: Kaatje
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Van Roy
authors.forename: Stijn
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Vanheule
authors.forename: Myriam
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Deveugele
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D001530:Belgium; D002983:Clinical Competence / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D003657:Decision Making; D058006:General Practice / Q000592:standards*; D058005:General Practitioners / Q000523:psychology*; D006123:Group Practice / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D007722:Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; D006801:Humans; D007407:Interviews as Topic; D008875:Middle Aged; D018802:Patient-Centered Care / Q000379:methods; D010817:Physician-Patient Relations; D011331:Private Practice / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D036301:Qualitative Research; D012017:Referral and Consultation / Q000592:standards*