This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Mark B. Mengel, MD, MPH
University of Oklahoma College of Medicine Oklahoma City

JAMA. 1989;261(3):379-380.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—

Dr Zinn's¹ article describes the importance of physicians evaluating their own emotional response to patients. This self-analysis would no doubt lead to improvements in their relationships with patients and might even improve their quality of patient care, although this hypothesis has not been empirically demonstrated. Dr Zinn mentioned two ways physicians could engage in such self-analysis: (1) keep a diary of situations that were particularly emotionally charged or where mistakes in diagnosis and treatment were made and (2) share experiences with colleagues through peer consultation. While those approaches are clearly useful, two other recently developed alternatives exist that could also be helpful to physicians interested in self-analysis.

In the 1950s, Michael Balint formed a group of general practitioners who met monthly to discuss difficult cases. These meetings were designed so that one practitioner would present a difficult case in some depth using the group of practitioners . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?