Dataset Information

General practitioners' role in cancer care: a French-Norwegian study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In cancer care, a GP's work is rarely defined clearly. Our aim was to assess GPs' work with cancer patients in France and in Norway, where the roles of the GP and the organization of the system are rather different.

Findings

A questionnaire with 40 closed-ended questions about GP involvement in diagnosis, treatment, follow-up and terminal care was constructed and mailed to samples of GPs. The patients had seen the doctor at least once over the past year. In France 1679 and in Norway 386 individual patient questionnaires were completed. GPs have a major role in the diagnosis of cancer, and this role varies according to cancer type. The GPs participated actively in different phases of follow-up after cancer treatment. Low response rates do not allow direct comparison between countries, but higher PSA screening rates in France seem to increase the percentage of patients diagnosed after screening rather than after a clinical suspicion. Interaction between GPs and specialists during cancer treatment and follow-up was important in both countries.

Conclusion

Both in France and in Norway GPs participate actively in cancer care. Early clinical diagnosis is a challenge. More research is needed about how GPs can improve their early diagnostic work. Organisational issues may influence cancer responsibilities for the GP, and national health systems should be challenged to look at possible new roles for GPs in cancer care. Medical training, both pre- and post-graduate, should prepare doctors for collaboration between primary and secondary care, particularly important in cancer care.

SUBMITTER: Demagny L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2761931 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundModern palliative care focuses on enabling patients to spend their remaining time at home, and dying comfortably at home, for those patients who want it. Compared to many European countries, few die at home in Norway. General practitioners' (GPs') involvement in palliative care may increase patients' time at home and achievements of home death. Norwegian GPs are perceived as missing in this work. The aim of this study is to explore GPs' experiences in palliative care regarding their involvement in this work, how they define their role, and what they think they realistically can contribute towards palliative patients.MethodsWe performed focus group interviews with GPs, following a semi-structured interview guide. We included four focus groups with a total of 25 GPs. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. We performed qualitative analysis on these interviews, inspired by interpretative phenomenological analysis.ResultsStrengths of the GP in the provision of palliative care consisted of characteristics of general practice and skills they relied on, such as general medical knowledge, being coordinator of care, and having a personal and longitudinal knowledge of the patient and a family perspective. They generally had positive attitudes but differing views about their formal role, which was described along three positions towards palliative care: the highly involved, the weakly involved, and the uninvolved GP.ConclusionGPs have evident strengths that could be important in the provision of palliative care. They rely on general medical knowledge and need specialist support. They had no consensus about their role in palliative care. Multiple factors interact in complex ways to determine how the GPs perceive their role and how involved they are in palliative care. GPs may possess skills and knowledge complementary to the specialized skills of palliative care team physicians. Specialized teams with extensive outreach activities should be aware of the potential they have for both enabling and deskilling GPs.

Project description:We aimed to evaluate the prevalence of burnout among French general practitioners in private practice and to study the risk and protective factors of burnout. A nationwide cross-sectional study was conducted with French GPs working in a private practice in France who were asked to fulfil an internet questionnaire. We used the secure internet application REDCap®. Exclusion criteria were only working in a hospital, substitute doctors, and internship students. There was a putative sample size of 88,886 GPs. We retrieved the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), occupational characteristics (type of installation, emergency regulated shifts, night shifts, university supervisor, weekly hours worked, seniority), and personal characteristics such as age, gender, marital status, and number of children. We included 1926 GPs among the 2602 retrieved questionnaires. A total of 44.8% of French liberal GPs were experiencing burnout, with 4.8% (95%CI 3.9-5.9%) experiencing severe burnout. The risk factors of severe burnout were male gender (RR = 1.91, 95%CI 1.15-3.16), working in a suburban area (5.23, 2.18-12.58), and having more than 28 appointments per day (1.95, 1.19-3.19). Working more than 50 h weekly showed a tendency to increase the risk of severe burnout (1.55, 0.93-2.59, p = 0.095), with a significant increase in the risk of low and moderate burnout (1.31, 1.02-1.67 and 1.86, 1.34-2.57, respectively). Protective factors were mainly resident training, which decreased the risk of both low, moderate, and severe burnout (0.65, 0.51-0.83; 0.66, 0.48-0.92; and 0.42, 95%CI 0.23-0.76, respectively). Performing home visits decreased the risk of severe burnout (0.25, 0.13-0.47), as did group practice for intermediate level of burnout (0.71, 0.51-0.96). GPs are at a high risk of burnout, with nearly half of them in burnout, with burnout predominantly affecting males and those between the ages of 50 and 60 years old. The main risk factors were a high workload with more than 28 appointments per day or 50 h of work per week, and the main protective factors were related to social cohesion such having a teaching role and working in a group practice with back-office support.

Project description:Background Repeated studies of working hours among Norwegian regular general practitioners (RGPs) have shown that the average total number of weekly working hours has remained unchanged since 1994 and up until 2014. For both male and female RGPs, the mean total weekly working hours amounted to almost 50?h in 2014. In recent years, Norwegian RGPs have become increasingly dissatisfied. They experience significantly increased workload without compensation in the form of more doctors or better payment. A study from the Norwegian Directorate of Health in 2018 (the RGP study) showed that Norwegian RGPs worked 55.6?h weekly (median 52.5). 25% of the respondents worked more than 62.2?h weekly. Based on data from the RGP study we investigated Norwegian RGP’s out-of-hours (OOH) work, how the working time was distributed, and to what extent the OOH work affected the regular working hours. Methods In early 2018, an electronic survey was sent to all 4640 RGPs in Norway. Each RGP reported how many minutes that were spent that particular day on various tasks during seven consecutive days. Working time also included additional tasks in the municipality, other professional medical work and OOH primary health care. Differences were analysed by independent t-tests, and regression analyses. Results One thousand eighty hundred seventy-six RGPs (40.4%) responded, 640 (34.1%) had registered OOH work. Male RGPs worked on average 1.5?h more doing regular work than did females (p =?0.001) and on average 2.3?h more OOH work than females (p =?0.079). RGPs with no OOH work registered a mean of 1.0?h more clinical work than RGPs working OOH (p =?0.043). There was a large variation in OOH working hours. A linear regression analysis showed that male RGPs and RGPs in rural areas had the heaviest OOH workload. Conclusions One in three Norwegian RGPs undertook OOH work during the registration week in the RGP study. OOH work was done in addition to a sizeable regular workload as an RGP. We found small gender differences. OOH work was not compensated with reduced regular RGP work.

Project description:BackgroundIn the current healthcare delivery system funded by National Health Insurance (NHI) in Indonesia, the gatekeeper role of primary care services is critical to ensuring equal healthcare access for the population. To be effective, gatekeeping relies on the performance of general practitioners (GPs). However, the perceptions held by Indonesian GPs about their gatekeeper role are not yet well documented. This study describes the self-perceived knowledge, attitudes and performance of Indonesian GPs with respect to the gatekeeper role and explores associated factors.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study of all primary care facilities (N = 75) contracted by the regional NHI office in the Banyumas district. The 73 participating GPs completed a written questionnaire that assessed their knowledge, attitudes and performance in relation to the gatekeeper role. Personal and facility characteristics were analysed in a generalised linear model as possible associating factors, as well as for the association between GPs' knowledge and attitude with performance as gatekeepers.ResultsGPs scored relatively high in the domains of knowledge and performance but scored lower in their attitudes towards the gatekeeper role of primary care. In the full-adjusted model, no factors were significantly associated with the knowledge score. Work experience as GPs, private or civil service employment status and rural or urban location of the primary care facility were linked to attitude scores. Full- or part-time employment and type of facility were factors associated with the performance score. Attitude scores were positively associated with performance score.ConclusionGPs in Indonesia are knowledgeable and report that they adequately perform their function as gatekeepers in primary care. However, their attitudes towards the gatekeeper function are less positive. Attitudes and performance with respect to the primary care gatekeeper role are likely influenced more by contextual factors such as location and type of facility than by personal factors. Efforts to address contextual issues could include improvements in practice standards for privately practising physicians and public information campaigns about gatekeeping regulations. Such efforts will be crucial to improving the gatekeeper role of primary care in Indonesia and assuring efficient access to high-quality care for all.

Project description:BackgroundWith more patients in need of oncological care, there is a growing interest to transfer survivorship care from specialist to general practitioner (GP). The ongoing I CARE study was initiated in 2015 in the Netherlands to compare (usual) surgeon- to GP-led survivorship care, with or without access to a supporting eHealth application (Oncokompas).MethodsSemi-structured interviews were held at two separate points in time (i.e. after 1- and 5-years of care) to explore GPs' experiences with delivering this survivorship care intervention, and study its implementation into daily practice. Purposive sampling was used to recruit 17 GPs. Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used as a conceptual framework.ResultsOverall, delivering survivorship care was not deemed difficult and dealing with cancer repercussions was already considered part of a GPs' work. Though GPs readily identified advantages for patients, caregivers and society, differences were seen in GPs' commitment to the intervention and whether it felt right for them to be involved. Patients' initiative with respect to planning, absence of symptoms and regular check-ups due to other chronic care were considered to facilitate the delivery of care. Prominent barriers included GPs' lack of experience and routine, but also lack of clarity regarding roles and responsibilities for organising care. Need for a monitoring system was often mentioned to reduce the risk of non-compliance. GPs were reticent about a possible future transfer of survivorship care towards primary care due to increases in workload and financial constraints. GPs were not aware of their patients' use of eHealth.ConclusionsGPs' opinions and beliefs about a possible future role in colon cancer survivorship care vary. Though GPs recognize potential benefit, there is no consensus about transferring survivorship care to primary care on a permanent basis. Barriers and facilitators to implementation highlight the importance of both personal and system level factors. Conditions are put forth relating to time, reorganisation of infrastructure, extra personnel and financial compensation.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register; NTR4860 . Registered on the 2nd of October 2014.