[A reflection group's experience in handling difficult clinical encounters]

We present the experience of a reflection group to evaluate whether the methodology carried out helps health professionals to understand difficult encounters and improve their professional satisfaction and communication with the patient.

We followed a cognitive restructuring methodology with a written record in order to analyze difficult encounters with patients, first individually and then followed by comments in the reflection group.

Difficult encounters mainly involved: requests felt to be inappropriate, questioning of professional competence, and unexpected change of doctor. The emotions arising, before and after "rethinking", changed in intensity in a significant way (p<0.001). Irrational thoughts were grouped in 9 types of cognitive distortions, with the most frequent being "emotional reasoning" and "control fallacies". The majority of constructive explanatory patterns that emerged after "rethinking" were related to the need for improving communication. The group recognized many positive contributions. Neither the surveys used to evaluate occupational burnout, nor the survey designed for the evaluation showed significant differences, comparing the beginning and end of the work.

The joint use of a cognitive-behavioral methodology in the framework of a reflection group is mutually complementary, and enables group work without the need for professional direction. Written reflection and work with irrational thoughts and "rethinking" with the perspective of group comment is an experience that is applicable in the context of Primary Care and helps in handling difficult encounters.