The GP Consultation Reimagined

A tale of two houses

Martin Brunet

• Publisher: Scion Publishing
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN: 9781911510598
• eBook ISBN: 9781911510666
• Topic: Médecine
• Subtopic: Médecine familiale et médecine générale

A new and creative way of thinking about the consultation in primary care, for both trainees and practising GPs

The book features a unique Two Houses model to help the reader move away from completing a series of tasks to focusing on the two key objectives at the heart of every consultation:

• Working out what matters (The House of Discovery)
• Deciding with the patient what to do about it (The House of Decision)

Using the rich metaphors contained within these houses, the book explores common pitfalls that can beset those who are learning the craft of consulting in primary care, and encourages the reader to fill their toolbox with the skills needed to develop their own patient-centred consultation style.

The GP Consultation Reimagined is based on the author's experience of teaching communication skills over 10 years as a GP Training Programme Director.

"This book will not teach you to improve your consultations. That is its great merit. Instead, it will encourage you to learn how to consult better." From the Foreword by Roger Neighbour

Chapter 1

The GP consultation in the ICE age

A personal journey in the consultation

My own experience of communicating with patients was firmly rooted in the hospital model. Apart from a rather disorientating five-week placement in general practice as a final-year medical student, I learnt everything in a hospital setting, following my house officer year by pursuing a path into general medicine, including two years as that most pitied of hospital creatures, the medical registrar. I enjoyed my interactions with patients, and it was the loss of this front-line contact as I became more senior that led to me ‘seeing the light’ and heading into general practice. Before making this transition I liked to think that I was a reasonably empathetic hospital doctor who valued good communication, but when I started GP training the idea that I should actively ask patients what they thought, or what they wanted, was nothing short of a revelation to me.

At no point did it occur to me to ask my patient what he thought

Even now I cringe as I remember a patient whom I saw over a number of months in a medical clinic. He suffered from debilitating headaches, and, while I remember nothing at all of the clinical scenario, I can still see the frustration on his face as, time and again, he came back to tell me that my previous great idea for treating his headaches had proven no better than the last one, and he was still in pain. At no point did it occur to me to ask him what he thought, what he was hoping we might do next, or to consider that his headaches might be anything other than a clearly defined clinical condition. No one had taught me to think differently, and I completely lacked the skills to navigate medically unexplained symptoms. Learning for the first time how to enquire about someone’s ideas, concerns and expectations (ICE), hearing about the difference between illness and disease, and learning that taking an holistic approach could help me to understand the unique experience of illness my patient was living through, was like having scales fall from my eyes. It was exciting, frustrating and bewildering as I started to see medicine differently and learnt to adapt to this new way of interacting with patients. Part of me was angry that I had never been taught this before, while I was also disappointed in myself for not working more of it out on my own, but mostly I lapped it up, and tried hard to adapt to this new way of thinking.

I loved learning about consultation models – I was mercifully free from the pressure to learn them for an examination. This is not the case for current GP trainees who have to study the models in the abstract for their Applied Knowledge Test as part of the Membership of the Royal College of General Practitioners (MRCGP) examination, something I believe has destroyed much of the interest trainees might have had in their heritage. We stand on the shoulders of giants, but the requirement to name these giants in a multiple choice exam has, regrettably, reduced their wisdom to mundane facts to be learnt today and quickly forgotten. The time to learn about the consultation is not with a textbook and a set of past papers, but in the hot seat with the patient, where, inspired by what you have learnt in theory, you see what actually works in practice. I remember one consultation ending with my patient standing up, saying to me, “And am I happy? No!” and walking out before I had a chance to answer – there was a lot of learning from that one! Like all trainees before me and after, I have had the predictable retort to my clumsy attempt to find out their ideas about their illness, “Well, I don’t know, aren’t you meant to be the doctor?”. And yet I had unmistakable triumphs along the way that only occurred because I had tried something new, such as patients who told me that they were worried about something which was so left field and medically bizarre that I would never would have thought of it, or so embarrassing that they never would have mentioned it without being given space to express their fears.

However, I struggled to remember the consultation models. The hospital model was easy – there was only one model, it had a clear structure and every time you wrote up your notes you recorded each of the headings so that mere repetition drummed them home; and I had spent the last nine years doing it time and again. Now there were more consultation models than I could count, and the headings were often nebulous, like ‘Establishes Rapport’ – how exactly do I know when I am doing that? How do I know when it is done and I can move on to the next bit? I could remember parts of several models – ICE from Pendleton1 and Safety-netting from Neighbour2 stood out in particular – but I could not remember the rest. Was that because they weren’t important, or were they just too obvious to remember, or was I just not good at them? I could remember aspects of some others, like ‘Flash Points’ and ‘The Doctor as Drug’ from Balint3, but these didn’t seem like a model you could follow at all, more an observation of some of the apparently random things that might – or might not – happen in a consultation.

What was magical about the Opening Gambit and the Curtain-raiser was that I didn’t have to do anything other than observe them

I gravitated towards Neighbour, partly because I enjoyed his writing, but also, I am sure, because he only had five points for me to remember – Connecting, Summarising, Handing Over, Safety-netting and Housekeeping, and the last one of those didn’t even happen during the consultation, so that left just four to worry about. I loved (and still do) his interest in the very first part of the consultation, that part of Connecting that he called the Opening Gambit and the Curtain-raiser. What was magical about these two concepts was that I didn’t have to do anything other than observe them; they didn’t involve a question or an action I had to take and were entirely the patient’s responsibility. The Opening Gambit is the well-rehearsed opening line the patient has planned to say – like “It’s my back again, doctor” or “I think I’m cracking up”, while the Curtain-raiser is the random comment that might pop out more spontaneously – such as “I usually see Dr Patel” or “You’re running late”. I found the patient frequently gave me useful information in these one-liners, if I learned to notice it, and loved the fact that I didn’t have to worry about whether or not this would happen – the patient would say these things whether I wanted them to or not.

Much as I felt inspired by Neighbour, however, I struggled to ‘follow’ his model. I usually had a stab at safety-netting, but would frequently forget to summarise, or I would think about summarising, but it just wouldn’t seem appropriate – do you really need to summarise when all you’ve done is check a mole that is entirely benign, or done a pill check with someone who is completely happy with their contraception? And how did I incorporate ICE, when it seemed important, but wasn’t overtly part of Neighbour’s model?

Consulting in the ICE age

And so we come to ICE. Since Pendleton and colleagues first raised the idea that doctors should endeavour to find out the ideas, concerns and expectations of the patient in 1984, this concept has probably influenced the practice of the consultation more than any other; usually for the better, but sometimes for the worse. That’s why the title of this first chapter is The GP consultation in the ICE age, because it has become part of the established order and, like most good ideas, it has been both used and abused over the years. Most medical students have heard of ICE, even if they have never heard of Pendleton, and most GP trainees recognise its importance. As a concept, it has a great deal of merit – it has to be a fundamentally good objective to find out what the patient is thinking. If the patient has an idea of what the problem is, the doctor can best work with or challenge this idea if they know what the patient is thinking; where the patient is worried about what is going on with their body, the doctor can only relieve their concern – or share that they are concerned too – if they know what it is; and if a patient has a clear idea of what they expect to happen next and the doctor shows no signs of doing it, then that can lead to a very dysfunctional consultation indeed.

I am a great believer in ICE, but have also encountered many frustrations with it. The Clinical Skills Assessment (CSA) of the MRCGP has to shoulder some of the blame here. For those unfamiliar with the delights of the CSA, this exam is probably the single most stressful experience of a GP trainee’s whole career. The trainee is required to see thirteen simulated patients in a row, with each ‘patient’ being an actor playing out a particular scenario, and each consultation being closely observed and marked by an unsmiling examiner, complete with clipboard and pen. While it is certainly important to assess a trainee’s clinical skills, and the CSA is not the worst way of doing this, it is a major factor in why trainees take less interest in the historical consultation models than they used to – because ultimately the model they all want to perfect is not a consultation model at all, but the how-to-get-through-the-CSA model. It is a shame, since simply learning good general consultation skills will get any decent trainee comfortably through the exam, but it is understandable nevertheless and a powerful, if depressing, example of how assessment can drive learning. While there is not a tick box on any CSA marking sheet for ‘has done ICE’, the exam does expect the trainees to demonstrate that they have managed to elicit the patient’s health beliefs in some way, and this has sometimes led to the practice of ‘ICE for ICE’s sake’. If ICE becomes an objective in itself, it can easily become formulaic and stilted, or the trainee uncovers useful information, but then fails to do anything with it – it is like listening with a stethoscope and ignoring your findings, or asking someone what they want for their birthday and then getting them something completely different.

Rosamund Snow, the BMJ Patient editor, eloquently describes what it is like to “be ICE’d” in this way in a short but powerful essay in the BMJ4. She understands why doctors might want to find out this information, but wonders whether anyone has ever asked patients how such questions sound, or might make them feel. She describes how being asked what you think is wrong with you can either feel like the doctor has no idea themselves, or that they know exactly what is going on and are testing you in some complex game where only they know the rules. Her short paper is unsettling, and an important read for anyone trying to grasp the noble principles behind ICE, without handling it so clumsily that the patient gets stung.

One big failing with asking ICE-related questions is that the returns are not that great

Far more common than seeing ICE done badly, however, is not seeing it done at all. Again and again I have seen excellent trainees simply not make any attempt to find out what the patient is thinking. My frustrated response to this has been to work harder at teaching ICE, but perhaps it is better to try to understand why our trainees find it so difficult in the first place. My suspicion is that if I were to watch my own practice, I would also be disappointed by how well I use ICE; perhaps it is not just a lack of effective teaching that underpins this. Are doctors (myself included) just not interested in what their patients are thinking, or are there other reasons why an effective attempt at ICE is not the norm? I think there are several reasons for this, and the first is simply the overwhelming challenge that general practice poses, especially at the start of training. The breadth of clinical knowledge required, the pressure to come up with any plan at all – especially as a single clinician rather than when operating as part of a wider clinical team in a hospital setting – can be so great that the trainee is just relieved when they themselves have an idea of what might be happening and can think of a plan to deal with it. Is it any wonder that finding out the patient’s health beliefs might get squeezed out in the process?

Once the trainee gains in confidence, these stresses will recede; they often develop excellent skills at patient-centred medicine, and will sometimes use ICE, but not always – why is this? Pressures of time probably play a large factor, but one big failing with ICE is that, frankly, when asking a direct ICE-related question, the returns are not that great – by which I mean that most patients don’t have a neatly defined idea, concern or expectation, and very few indeed have a clear idea on all three.

It doesn’t take much skill to refine your question and avoid the impression that you have no ideas yourself; for example:

“Before I make any suggestions, did you have any thoughts about what we might do next?”

“I’m always interested in what you are thinking, did you have any thoughts about where we might go with this?”

The problem is that, although questions like these do work reasonably well, even then people will often answer with, “No, not really”. They may have an expectation of something, but they are not sure what; or they might be worried that if they make a suggestion then that is what they will get, whether or not it is the best option and they don’t want to colour the doctor’s views; or maybe they don’t want to appear stupid with a daft idea, or seem like a worrier and give the doctor the wrong impression. And it matters if a question has a low return rate – because the doctor learns to stop asking it. There seems a world of difference between ICE that comes out naturally in the back and forth of a responsive conversation between doctor and patient, based on active listening and close attention to cues and non-verbal hints, and a more forced, unsolicited enquiry.

There is much more to patient-centred consulting than simply eliciting ICE

Finally, many of our consultations just don’t seem to ‘require’ ICE; very simple conditions and routine check-ups may not warrant an in-depth enquiry into health beliefs, so we learn to ask about ICE only in the more complex cases, or where we suspect there is a hidden agenda – but then get out of the habit of doing it, so may forget about it when it would be more useful. This is even more true when it comes to follow-up appointments and routine reviews – how does ICE work when someone comes for their blood pressure check-up? It may have a role, clearly, but it is not as straightforward as when a patient attends with a classic presenting problem. Indeed, talking to a trainee recently, she said how different it was consulting having got the CSA exam out of the way. The ‘CSA model’, she explained, only really applies when a patient first presents with a new problem, and so much of what she was now doing was much more ‘real’ than that: such as appointments spent mostly listening to what it is like to live with long-standing, seemingly insoluble problems; chronic disease management; or journeying with someone through a period of depression, bereavement or a protracted illness. She is absolutely right; the artificial emphasis on consultations that ‘fit’ the CSA does little to prepare the trainee for so much else that can occur in the GP consultation, and threatens to strip the joy of consulting in the process.

Part of what I hope to cover in this book addresses my concern that ICE, while very worthy, is too narrow a definition of what a patient may be thinking, and of what really matters – there is much more to patient-centred consulting than simply eliciting ICE. So, while trying to do ICE well will always be a skill worth developing, I think we need something simpler, something easier to grasp and more applicable to any and every consultation, and something that won’t be so dependent on the health literacy of the patient – it’s a tall order!

---

1. Pendleton, D., Schofield, T., Tate, P. and Havelock, P. (1984) The Consultation: an appr...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title
• Dedication
• Full Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Foreword
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• About the author
• 1. The GP consultation in the ICE age
• 2. Two Houses – a new model for the consultation
• 3. The GP toolbox
• 4. Entering the House of Discovery
• 5. Popping the bubble
• 6. Exploring the basement
• 7. Finding dry rot
• 8. Tending the garden
• 9. A house with two wings
• 10. The High Tech Room
• 11. Optional Rooms
• 12. Room
• 13. Empty Rooms, Hidden Rooms and Locked Rooms
• 14. Forecasting the future
• 15. Putting it into practice
• 16. The Two Houses guide to passing the CSA
• 17. Consulting in the 21st century