Case stories in general practice: a focus group study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
To explore the interactive process of sharing case stories in small-group activity in general practice.Design
Qualitative focus group study.Setting
Peer-group meetings of doctors attending specialist training or continuous medical education in general practice.Participants
Twenty female and 30 male doctors working in general practice in Norway.Results
The storyline of case presentations included detailed stories with emotional engagement, co-authored by other group members. The stories initiated discussions and reflections concerning patients' and doctors' perspectives, medical ethics as well as clinical problems. The safe atmosphere allowed testing out boundaries of socially shared knowledge.Conclusions
Sharing case stories in small groups in general practice initiated interaction that facilitated meaning-making, reflection and peer support.
SUBMITTER: Abildsnes E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3425945 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo identify threshold concepts (TCs) for physicians undergoing postgraduate medical education (PGME) in general practice.DesignAn explorative, qualitative study with 65 min focus group interviews and thematic analysis was used. Participants were asked to describe their most transformative learning experiences. Heuristical TCs were identified from the thematic analysis.SettingAotearoa/New Zealand (A/NZ).ParticipantsFifty participants, mostly comprising current trainees and educators from urban centres, and of NZ/European ethnicity.ResultsTwenty TCs covering many aspects of postgraduate general practice experience were derived from themes identified in the data. Presented in medical proverbial form for ease of recollection, these included: Money makes the practice go round; Be a legal eagle; Manage time or it will manage you; Guidelines, GPs' little helpers; Right tool, right word, right place; The whole of the practice is greater than the sum of the parts; The personal enhances the professional; Beat biases by reflection; Chew the Complexity, Unpredictability, Diversity; Embrace the uncertainty; Not knowing is knowing; Seek and you shall find; Waiting and seeing, waiting and being; Look, listen, think between the lines; Treat the patient beyond the disease; No patient is an island; Words work wonders; Hearing is healing; Being you and being there; and; The relationship is worth a thousand consults. These TCs mapped onto core competencies in A/NZ's PGME in general practice curriculum.ConclusionsParticipants readily identified transformative and troublesome moments in their PGME in general practice. These findings confirmed evidence for a wide range of TCs with many newly identified in this study. All TCs were fundamentally based on the doctor-patient relationship, although often involving the context and culture of general practice. Actively incorporating and teaching these identified TCs in PGME in general practice may enable trainees to grasp these important learning thresholds earlier and more easily and aid in identity and role formation.
| S-EPMC9207916 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo explore patients' experiences of bowel cancer screening and its promotion, and perspectives on possible input from general practice for improving screening rates.DesignQualitative focus group study underpinned by a phenomenological approach.SettingThree general practice clinics in metropolitan South Australia.ParticipantsThirty active general practice patients, aged 50-74 years (60% female) who were eligible for the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program.FindingsFactors affecting screening were described, with particular concerns regarding the nature of the test, screening process and culture. There were mixed views on the role for general practice in bowel cancer screening; some participants appreciated the current process and viewed screening as out of scope of primary care services, while others were in support of general practice involvement. Roles for general practice were proposed that comprised actions across the continuum from providing information through to reminders and the provision and collection of screening kits. With a view that multifaceted strategies are required to encourage participation, community-based solutions were suggested that centred on improving screening culture and education.ConclusionsThere was a view among participants that general practice could play a useful role in supporting the uptake of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program, however participants saw a need for multiple strategies at different levels and under different jurisdictions.
| S-EPMC7239547 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo examine general practitioner (GP) understanding of the never event (NE) concept in general practice, and to identify potential enablers and barriers to implementation in UK general practice.DesignQualitative study using focus groups. The data were analysed thematically and were informed by the normalisation process theory.SettingGeneral practice in Northwest England and Southwest Scotland.Participants25 GPs took part in five focus groups. 13 GPs were female and 12 male with an age range of 28-60.ResultsThe NE approach of avoiding serious preventable adverse outcomes from healthcare fitted with participants expectations of the delivery of care but the implementation of strategies to prevent the specific NE was considered complex and variable. The main themes identified participants' understandings and perceived limitations of the NE concept; the embedded layers of responsibility to implement NE within practices and the work required for implementation within general practices. Participants' accounts highlighted the differential nature of work in general practice and that the implementation of initiatives to address specific NE should be situated within a learning and systems approach to implementation. Some NEs were considered more relevant and amenable to simple solutions than others which could influence implementation.ConclusionsThe NE concept was considered overall an important approach to help address key primary care patient safety issues. The utility of individual NEs may vary depending on the complexity of the initiatives that would be needed to manage related risks to as low as reasonably practicable.
| S-EPMC6661597 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction The quality of endodontic treatment worldwide is variable despite clear clinical guidelines being available.Aims Identify the factors that affect the quality of endodontic treatment in general dental practice in Scotland and how to overcome the barriers identified.Methods Four online focus group interview sessions were conducted in which a total of 16 participants were recruited, including general dental practitioners, endodontic specialists and educationalists. Topics for facilitated discussion were based on healthcare system theory and included education/training, patient factors, resources and equipment factors; themes were identified via template analysis.Results A number of themes and subthemes affecting the quality of care are reported, including aspects to do with remuneration, time, education, training, support from secondary care and the impact of COVID-19.Conclusion Findings support: increase practical experience for undergraduates; access to postgraduate mentoring and training; development of a managed clinical network to facilitate access to appropriately trained specialists; and increased remuneration to allow sufficient time and adequate equipment to achieve clinical standards.
| S-EPMC9305044 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrimary care physicians are particularly prone to high levels of burnout and poor well-being. Despite this, no qualitative studies have specifically investigated the best ways to improve well-being and prevent burnout in primary care physicians. Previous interventions within primary care have been person-oriented and mainly focused on mindfulness, but there has been no prior research on whether general practitioners (GPs) deem this to be the best approach.ObjectivesTo explore strategies that could improve GP well-being and reduce or prevent burnout, based on GP perceptions of the workplace factors that affect their levels of well-being and burnout.MethodsFive focus groups were conducted, with 25 GPs (locums, salaried, trainees, and partners) in the UK, between September 2015 and February 2016. Focus groups took place in GP practices and private meeting rooms. Discussions were centered on the workplace factors that they perceived to influence their well-being, along with strategies that they use either personally, or as a practice, to try and prevent burnout. Furthermore, strategies that could feasibly be implemented by individuals and practices to improve well-being, as well as changes that are needed by groups or organizations that are external to their practice (e.g., the government) to improve the working conditions, were explored. Thematic analysis was conducted on the transcripts.ResultsBased on the contributors to burnout and workplace well-being that the participants identified, the following feasible strategies were suggested: compulsory daily coffee breaks, increasing self- and organizational awareness of the risks of burnout and mentoring or buddy systems. System-level organizational changes were voiced as vital, however, to improve the well-being of all primary care physicians. Increasing resources seemed to be the ideal solution, to allow for more administrative staff and GPs.ConclusionThese strategies merit further consideration by researchers, physicians, healthcare organizations and policy makers both in the UK and beyond. Failure to do so may result in healthcare staff becoming even more burntout, potentially leading to a loss of doctors from the workforce.
| S-EPMC6057514 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) are a common yet challenging encounter in primary care. The aim of this study was to explore how general practitioners (GPs) understand and handle MUS. METHODS:Three focus group interviews were conducted with a total of 23 GPs. Participants with varied clinical experience were purposively recruited. The data were analysed thematically, using the concept of framing as an analytical lens. RESULTS:The GPs alternated between a biomedical frame, centred on disease, and a biopsychosocial frame, centred on the sick person. Each frame shaped the GPs' understanding and handling of MUS. The biomedical frame emphasised the lack of objective evidence, problematized subjective patient testimony, and manifested feelings of uncertainty, doubt and powerlessness. This in turn complicated patient handling. In contrast, the biopsychosocial frame emphasised clinical experience, turned patient testimony into a valuable source of information, and manifested feelings of confidence and competence. This in turn made them feel empowered. The GPs with the least experience relied more on the biomedical frame, whereas their more seasoned seniors relied mostly on the biopsychosocial frame. CONCLUSION:The biopsychosocial frame helps GPs to understand and handle MUS better than the biomedical frame does. Medical students should spend more time learning biopsychosocial medicine, and to integrate the clinical knowledge of their peers with their own.
| S-EPMC5932817 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Seeing and treating patients in daily practice forms the basis of general practitioner (GP) training. However, the types of patients seen by GP trainees do not always match trainees' educational needs. Knowledge about factors that shape the mix of patient types is limited, especially with regard to the role of the professionals who work in the GP practice. AIM:We investigated factors affecting the mix of patients seen by GP trainees from the perspective of professionals. DESIGN AND SETTING:This qualitative study involved GP trainees, GP supervisors, medical receptionists and nurse practitioners affiliated with a GP Specialty Training Institute in the Netherlands. METHODS:Twelve focus groups and seven interviews with 73 participants were held. Data collection and analysis were iterative, using thematic analysis with a constant comparison methodology. RESULTS:The characteristics of patients' health problems and the bond between the doctor and patient are important determinants of GP trainees' patient mix. Because trainees have not yet developed bonds with patients, they are less likely to see patients with complex health problems. However, trainees can deliberately influence their patient mix by paying purposeful attention to bonding with patients and by gaining professional trust through focused engagement with their colleagues. CONCLUSION:Trainees' patient mix is affected by various factors. Trainees and team members can take steps to ensure that this mix matches trainees' educational needs, but their success depends on the interaction between trainees' behaviour, the attitudes of team members and the context. The findings show how the mix of patients seen by trainees can be influenced to become more trainee centred and learning oriented.
| S-EPMC6924856 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesAdopting an attributional perspective, the current article investigates how audit and feedback group sessions contribute to general practitioners' (GPs) motivation to change their practice behaviour to improve care. We focus on the contributions of the audit and feedback itself (content) and the group discussion (process).MethodsFour focus groups, comprising a total of 39 participating Dutch GPs, discussed and compared audit and feedback of their practices. The focus groups were analysed thematically.ResultsAudit and feedback contributed to GPs' motivation to change in two ways: by raising awareness about aspects of their current care practice and by providing indications of the possible impact of change. For these contributions to play out, the audit and feedback should be reliable and valid, specific, recent and recurrent and concern GPs' own practices or practices within their own influence sphere. Care behaviour attributed to external, uncontrollable or unstable causes would not induce change. The added value of the group is twofold as well: group discussion contributed to GPs' motivation to change by providing a frame of reference and by affording insights that participants would not have been able to achieve on their own.ConclusionsIn audit and feedback group sessions, both audit and feedback information and group discussion can valuably contribute to GPs' motivation to change care practice behaviour. Peer interaction can positively contribute to explore alternative practices and avenues for improvement. Local or regional peer meetings would be beneficial in facilitating reflection and discussion. An important avenue for future studies is to explore the contribution of audit and feedback and small-group discussion to actual practice change.
| S-EPMC6549704 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:By screening and modifying risk factors, stroke incidence can be reduced. Clinical guidelines states that primary prevention of stroke is a responsibility and task of primary health care, but research shows that this not always the case. The aim of the study was to explore and describe what characterizes GPs' reasoning around risk screening and primary prevention among persons at risk for stroke in primary health care. METHODS:A qualitative design based in a grounded theory approach was chosen in order to investigate this unexplored research area. Data collection was done using focus group interviews and data was analysed using a constant comparative method. Twenty-two GPs were interviewed in four focus groups. RESULTS:Findings showed that GPs perceived difficulties in prioritizing patients with an unhealthy lifestyle and described a lack of systematicity in their procedures, which complicated their clinical decisions concerning patients with stroke risk factors. The results showed a lack of systematic risk screening methods. Time constraints and the reimbursement system were described as hindering the preventive work. CONCLUSION:There is a need for a more proactive, transparent and systematic approach in the distribution of GPs' time and reimbursement of prevention in primary health care. The findings suggest, by developing new methods and approaches such as digital clinical decision-making tools and by implementing inter-professional team-work, the quality of the primary prevention of stroke could be improved.
| S-EPMC6278124 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:Health checks or health screenings identify (risk factors for) disease in people without a specific medical indication. So far, the perspective of (potential) health check users has remained underexposed in discussions about the ethics and regulation of health checks. METHODS:In 2017, we conducted a qualitative study with lay people from the Netherlands (four focus groups). We asked what participants consider characteristics of good and bad health checks, and whether they saw a role for the Dutch government. RESULTS:Participants consider a good predictive value the most important characteristic of a good health check. Information before, during and after the test, knowledgeable and reliable providers, tests for treatable (risk factors for) disease, respect for privacy, no unnecessary health risks and accessibility are also mentioned as criteria for good health checks. Participants make many assumptions about health check offers. They assume health checks provide certainty about the presence or absence of disease, that health checks offer opportunities for health benefits and that the privacy of health check data is guaranteed. In their choice for provider and test they tend to rely more on heuristics than information. Participants trust physicians to put the interest of potential health check users first and expect the Dutch government to intervene if providers other than physicians failed to do so by offering tests with a low predictive value, or tests that may harm people, or by infringing the privacy of users. CONCLUSIONS:Assumptions of participants are not always justified, but they may influence the choice to participate. This is problematic because choices for checks with a low predictive value that do not provide health benefits may create uncertainty and may cause harm to health; an outcome diametrically opposite to the one intended. Also, this may impair the relationship of trust with physicians and the Dutch government. To further and protect autonomous choice and to maintain trust, we recommend the following measures to timely adjust false expectations: advertisements that give an accurate impression of health check offers, and the installation of a quality mark.
| S-EPMC6013874 | biostudies-literature