Abstract
Objetivo
Identificar a los pacientes «de trato difícil» (PD), describir su perfil y las opiniones y vivencias que generan en los médicos que los atienden.
Diseño
Estudio descriptivo transversal. Metodología cuantitativa-cualitativa. Emplazamiento. Centro de salud urbano. Participantes. Los PD seleccionados diariamente del total de pacientes atendidos en 6 consultas de atención primaria, entre marzo y mayo de 2001. Se identificaron mediante los criterios diagnósticos de Ellis (pacientes que provocan nudo en el estómago al leer su nombre en el listado) y O’Dowd (pacientes capaces de producir distrés, malestar).
Método
Se recogió información sobre los PD visitados, número de visitas realizadas por PD, edad, sexo, clasificación, estudios, ocupación, estructura familiar y comorbilidad. Se utilizó la clasificación de Groves modificada (pasivodependiente, exigente-agresivo, manipuladormasoquista, negador-autodestructivo, somatizador, emotivo-seductor). Analizamos las opiniones que generan a partir del discurso producido en un grupo de discusión (9 médicos del centro y un moderador).
Diseño
Se seleccionó a 82 pacientes (prevalencia del 0,7% [el 2,3% de las consultas realizadas]), de los que el 67,1% eran mujeres. La edad media era de 57,8 años (DE, 15,2). Predominó la paciente pasiva-dependiente (41%), con estudios primarios (62%), jubilada (35%), casada y con hijos (35%), con dos o más patologías médicas (74,4%) y al menos una psiquiátrica (40,2%).
Los sentimientos que predominantemente generan en los médicos son irritabilidad y frustración. La mayoría coincide en que estos pacientes son escasos pero ocasionan un impacto emocional intenso, cree que sus habilidades y estrategias para manejarlos son limitadas y considera necesaria formación específica para mejorarlas.
Conclusiones
Aunque cuantitativamente los PD no se consideran un problema relevante, provocan un gran desgaste emocional. Se consideran necesarios formación/entrenamiento específicos en entrevista clínica dadas las dificultades que presenta su manejo.
Palabras clave: Paciente difícil, Atención primaria, Estudio cualitativo
Abstract
Aim
To identify difficult («heartsink») patients (DP), describe their profile, and report the opinions and experiences they evoke in physicians who see them.
Design
Descriptive, cross-sectional study based on quantitative and qualitative methods.
Setting
Urban health care center.
Participants
Difficult patients were selected daily from among all patients seen in six primary care practices during the period from March to May 2001. Patients were identified according to the diagnostic criteria of Ellis (patients who cause a knot in the stomach when their name appears on the list of patients with an appointment that day) and O’Dowd (patients who cause distress or discomfort). Method. Information was obtained on the number of DP seen, number of visits made by DP, age, sex, type of DP, level of education, occupation, family structure and comorbidity. Type of DP was determined with a modification of the Groves classification (dependent clinger, entitled demander, manipulative help-rejecter, self-destructive denier, somatizer, emotive seducer). We analyzed the opinions DP generated by examining the discourse produced during a discussion group session with 9 physicians from the participating health center and a moderator. Results. A total of 82 DP were identified (prevalence .7%, i.e., 2.3% of all visits). Most (67.1%) were women. Mean age was 57.8 years (standard deviation 15.2 years). Dependent clinger patients predominated (41%). Most patients had primary-level education (62%), about one-third were retired (35%), and about one-third were married and had children (35%). Most had two or more medical diagnoses (74.4%), and many had at least one psychiatric diagnosis (40.2%).
The feelings these patients evoked most often in physicians were irritability and frustration. Most physicians agreed that these patients are rare but have a severe emotional impact. Physicians believe that the skills and strategies they have to help them manage these patients are limited, and consider specific training necessary to improve them.
Conclusions
Although DP are not a relevant problem in quantitative terms, they cause considerable emotional distress. Specific training in clinical interviewing is felt to be necessary given the difficulties in managing these patients.
Key words: Difficult patient, Primary care, Qualitative study
Bibliografía
- 1.Wilson D.G. Heartsink patients. Br Med J. 1988;297:857. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Jewell D. I do not love thee Mr. Fell… Techniques for dealing with «heartsink» patients. Br Med J. 1988;297:498–499. doi: 10.1136/bmj.297.6647.498. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Gerrard T.J., Riddell J.D. Difficult patients: black holes and secrets. Br Med J. 1988;297:530–532. doi: 10.1136/bmj.297.6647.530. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.John C., Schwenk T.L., Roi L.D., Cohen M. Medical care and demographic characteristics of «difficult» patients. J Fam Pract. 1987;24:607–610. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Hahn S.R., Thompson K.S., Wills T.A., Stern V., Budner N.S. The difficult doctor-patient relationship: somatization, personality and psychopatology. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47:647–657. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(94)90212-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.James E., Groves M.D. Taking care of the hateful patient. N Engl J Med. 1978;298:883–887. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197804202981605. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Ellis C.G. Making dysphoria a happy experience. Br Med J. 1986;293:317–318. doi: 10.1136/bmj.293.6542.317. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Powers J.S. Patient-physician communication and interaction: a unifying approach to the difficult patient. South Med J. 1985;78:445–447. doi: 10.1097/00007611-198504000-00021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Clements W., Haddy R., Bachstrom D. Managing the difficult patient. J Fam Pract. 1980;10:1079–1083. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Jackson J.L., Kroenke K. Difficult patient encounters in the ambulatory clinic: clinical predictors and outcomes. Arch Int Med. 1999;159:1069–1075. doi: 10.1001/archinte.159.10.1069. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Hahn S.R., Kroenke K., Spitzer R.L., Brody D., Williams J.B., Linzer M. The difficult patient: prevalence, psycopathology and functional impairment. J Gen Intern Med. 1996;11:191. doi: 10.1007/BF02603477. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Schwenk T.L., Márquez J.T., Lefever R.D., Cohen M. Physician and patient determinants of difficult physician-patient relationships. J Fam Pract. 1989;28:59–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Crutcher J.E., Bass M.J. The difficult patient and the troubled physician. J Fam Pract. 1980;11:933–938. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Blay Pueyo C. Actuación ante los pacientes de trato difícil. FMC. 1996;3:243–249. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Sanz Carrillo C., García Campayo J., Montón Franco C. Dificultades en la relación médico-paciente en somatizadores (y II). Relaciones del profesional y tipos de relación. Med Clin (Barc) 1999;112:147–150. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Borrell F. Manual de entrevista clínica. Doyma; Barcelona: 1989. [Google Scholar]
- 17.O’Dowd T.C. Five years of heartsink patients in general practice. Br Med J. 1988;297:528–530. doi: 10.1136/bmj.297.6647.528. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Buzzaqui Echevarrieta A., Uris Sellés J. El grupo de discusión. Una herramienta para la investigación en atención primaria. FMC. 1997;4:421–433. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Fernández de Sanmamed M.J. Introducción a la investigación cualitativa. FMC. 1995;2:23–42. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Peiró R. El grupo de discusión en el entorno sanitario. Quaderns de salut pública i administració de serveis de salut n.º 8. Institut Valencia d´Estudis en Salut Pública; 1996. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Taylor S.J., Bogdan R. Introducción a los métodos cualitativos de investigación. Paidós Studio; Buenos Aires: 1992. [Google Scholar]
- 22.Íñiguez Rueda L. Investigación y evolución cualitativa: bases teóricas y conceptuales. Aten Primaria. 1999;23:496–502. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Mathers N., Jones N., Hannay D. Heartsink patients: a study of their general practitioners. Brit J Gen Pract. 1995;45:293–296. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Westhead J.N. Frequent attenders in general practice: medical, psychologic and social characteristics. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1985;35:337–340. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Couteray M.J.F., Carwen M.P., Dave D., Robinson J., Stern M.J. Frequent attendance in a family practice. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1974;24:251–261. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Wanosher L. The returning patient. A survey of patients with high attendance rates. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1966;11:166–173. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Semmence A. Chronic users in a general practice. A preliminary study. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1969;17:304–310. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]