METHODS: An exploratory qualitative study was conducted on patients who had been visited during the 2012/2013 academic session. Purposive sampling was done to select adult participants from varying ethnicities and ages from the list of patients. In-depth interviews were conducted at the participants' homes and were audio recorded. The transcripts of these interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: A total of nine in-depth interviews were conducted. Four main themes were identified from thematic analysis: 1) Perceived meaning of the visit; 2) Perceived benefits and risks; 3) Past healthcare experiences; 4) Availability for visits. The home visits meant different things to different participants, including a teaching-learning encounter, a social visit, a charitable deed or a healthcare check-up. The benefits and risks of accepting unknown students to their homes and sharing their health issues with them had been weighed prior to participation. Prior experience with healthcare services such as gratitude to healthcare providers or having a relative in the healthcare profession increased their receptivity for involvement. Lastly, enabling factors such as availability of time would determine their acceptance for home visits.
DISCUSSION: Patients agree to participate in medical education activities on a voluntary basis for various reasons. Providing good healthcare service and sufficient preparation are crucial to increase patient receptivity for such activities.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.
SETTING: This study is part of a larger national study on the perception of the Malaysian public healthcare professionals on FMSs.
PARTICIPANTS: PHCPs from three categories of health facilities, namely hospitals, health clinics and health offices.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Qualitative analysis of written comments of respondents' expectation of FMSs.
RESULTS: The participants' response rate was 58% (780/1345) with an almost equal proportion from each public healthcare facility. We identified 21 subthemes for the 623 expectation comments. The six emerging themes are (1) need for more FMSs, (2) clinical roles and functions of FMSs, (3) administrative roles of FMSs, (4) contribution to community and public health, (5) attributes improvement and (6) research and audits. FMSs were expected to give attention to clinical duty. Delivering this responsibility with competence included having the latest medical knowledge in their own and others' medical disciplines, practising evidence-based medicine in prehospital and posthospital care, better supervision of staff and doctors under their care, fostering effective teamwork, communicating more often with hospital specialists and making appropriate referral. Expectations ranged from definite and strong for more FMSs at the health clinics to low expectation for FMSs' involvement in research; to mal-expectation on FMSs' involvement in community and public health programmes.
CONCLUSIONS: There were some remarkable differences in expectations on FMSs from the three different PHCPs. These ranged from being clinically competent and administratively available for patients and staff at the health clinics, to mal-expectations on FMSs to engage in public health affairs. Relevant parties, including FMSs themselves, could take appropriate self-improvement initiatives to enhance public practice of family medicine and patient care.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NMRR ID: 08-12-1167.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.
SETTING: This study is part of a larger national study on the perception of Malaysian public healthcare professionals on FMSs (PERMFAMS).
PARTICIPANTS: PHCPs from three categories of health facility: hospitals, health clinics and health offices.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Qualitative analyses of written comments of respondents' general impression of FMSs.
RESULTS: The participants' response rate was 58.0% (780/1345), with almost equal proportions from each public healthcare facility. A total of 23 categories for each of the 648 impression comments were identified. The six emerging themes were: (1) importance of FMSs; (2) roles of FMSs; (3) clinical performance of FMSs; (4) attributes of FMSs; (5) FMS practice challenges; (6) misconception of FMS roles. Overall, FMS practice was perceived to be safe and able to provide effective treatments in a challenging medical discipline that was in line with the current standards of medical care and ethical and professional values. The areas of concern were in clinical performance expressed by PHCPs from some hospitals and the lack of personal attributes and professionalism among FMSs mentioned by PHCPs from health clinics and offices.
CONCLUSIONS: FMSs were perceived to be capable of providing effective treatment and were considered to be important primary care physicians. There were a few negative impressions in some areas of FMS practice, which demanded attention by the FMSs themselves and the relevant authorities in order to improve efficiency and safeguard the fraternity's reputation.