Pros and cons of PGP-MP

Patient

Pros

• Patients feel they have a comprehensive record to refer to later, helping them remember what was discussed during the consultation.
• Patients can share the PGP-MP with family and friends, enabling them to support following the medical recommendations agreed with the GP.

Cons

• The PGP-MP can initially seem complex, with numerous details. However, I have never met a patient who found the plan to be complicated. The PGP-MP is written in straightforward language, presented as a simple leaflet. This has always been a theoretical concern I have considered when developing PGP-MPs.

GPs

Pros

• The PGP-MP helps GPs structure recommendations for managing the patient's health condition. 
• The PGP-MP helps alleviate time pressure for general practitioners (GPs) during consultations by enabling them to efficiently document the plan agreed upon with the patient. Instead of creating a plan from scratch, the GP can utilise a pre-set PGP-MP and customise it for the specific case.
• The PGP-MP will assist in future consultations for colleagues who may see the patient later. By presenting a clear plan with milestones, the PGP-MP helps to avoid unnecessary repeat investigations or medications that have already been attempted.
• While all GPs have access to medical records and can review past treatment plans, having a PGP-MP enhances the consultation process. By reviewing the PGP-MP, GPs can quickly identify information already communicated to the patient, reducing the need for repetitive explanations. This allows them to concentrate on new information that the patient may require.
• Recording the PGP-MP in the Medical Records (MR) allows anyone reviewing the records to see the information communicated to the patient. This helps both clinical and non-clinical staff better assist the patient with any future inquiries. 
• Additionally, the PGP-MP can serve as a medico-legal document in cases involving discussions about medical negligence

Cons

• Creating PGP-MP templates may be seen as wasted energy, since the old-style pf consultation was good enough and the GP does not see any real reason to change it.
• The GPs who do not use the PGP-MP may say that it contains some simple explanations that make a consultation record too long. They may argue that a long consultation note makes it difficult for other clinicians to skim and scan it. I totally agree with this argument, but I cannot help thinking about consultations that use very long templates, with the important information practically “hidden” between so many lines. I do not name any template, but I am sure all GPs are aware of the very long templates that actually have not that much new information beyond what is revealed by the intermediate or final diagnosis, which is revealed at the beginning of the template itself.

The following "cons" relate more to the partners.

• The partners may consider that if any of the GPs use the PGP-MP, it creates a precedent, and the patients will expect the other GPs to offer them a similar PGP-MP. This will put the other GPs in a problematic position, as they do not offer PGP-MP to their patients. I am very aware of this “coons” that theoretically can be a real problem. Practically, I cannot say how likely the Pts who receive a PGP-MP are to expect the other GPs to produce a PGP-MP for them after future consultations.

Kind request - Request for Contributions on "Pros and Cons"

         Dear GPs (including trainees), I am seeking your experience to identify any additional pros and cons for the chapter titled "Pros and Cons."  Please email your contributions to the address in the "Contact" section.