Dataset Information

Stool submission by general practitioners in SW England - when, why and how? A qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

We know little about when and why general practitioners (GPs) submit stool specimens in patients with diarrhoea. The recent UK-wide intestinal infectious disease (IID2) study found ten GP consultations for every case reported to national surveillance. We aimed to explore what factors influence GP's decisions to send stool specimens for laboratory investigation, and what guidance, if any, informs them.

Methods

We used qualitative methods that enabled us to explore opinions and ask open questions through 20 telephone interviews with GPs with a range of stool submission rates in England, and a discussion group with 24 GPs. Interviews were transcribed and subjected to content analysis.

Results

Interviews: GPs only sent stool specimens to microbiology if diarrhoea persisted for over one week, after recent travel, or the patient was very unwell. Very few had a systematic approach to determine the clinical or public health need for a stool specimen. Only two GPs specifically asked patients about blood in their stool; only half asked about recent antibiotics, or potential food poisoning, and few asked about patients' occupations. Few GPs gave patients advice on how to collect specimens.Results from interviews and discussion group in relation to guidance: All reported that the HPA stool guidance and patient collection instructions would be useful in their clinical work, but only one GP (an interviewee) had previously accessed them. The majority of GPs would value links to guidance on electronic requests. Most GPs were surprised that a negative stool report did not exclude all the common causes of IID.

Conclusions

GPs value stool culture and laboratories should continue to provide it. Patient instructions on how to collect stool specimens should be within stool collection kits. Through readily accessible guidance and education, GPs need to be encouraged to develop a more systematic approach to eliciting and recording details in the patient's history that indicate greater risk of severe infection or public health consequences. Mild or short duration IID (under one week) due to any cause is less likely to be picked up in national surveillance as GPs do not routinely submit specimens in these cases.

SUBMITTER: McNulty CA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3481435 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Stool submission by general practitioners in SW England - when, why and how? A qualitative study.

McNulty Cliodna A M CA Lasseter Gemma G Newby Katie K Joshi Puja P Yoxall Harry H Kumaran Kalyanaraman K O'Brien Sarah J SJ Evans Mark M

BMC family practice 20120808

<h4>Background</h4>We know little about when and why general practitioners (GPs) submit stool specimens in patients with diarrhoea. The recent UK-wide intestinal infectious disease (IID2) study found ten GP consultations for every case reported to national surveillance. We aimed to explore what factors influence GP's decisions to send stool specimens for laboratory investigation, and what guidance, if any, informs them.<h4>Methods</h4>We used qualitative methods that enabled us to explore opinio ...[more]

PMID: 22870944

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe growth in the volume of online patient feedback, including online patient ratings and comments, suggests that patients are embracing the opportunity to review online their experience of receiving health care. Very little is known about health care professionals' attitudes toward online patient feedback and whether health care professionals are comfortable with the public nature of the feedback.ObjectiveThe aim of the overall study was to explore and describe general practitioners' attitudes toward online patient feedback. This paper reports on the findings of one of the aims of the study, which was to explore and understand the concerns that general practitioners (GPs) in England have about online patient feedback. This could then be used to improve online patient feedback platforms and help to increase usage of online patient feedback by GPs and, by extension, their patients.MethodsA descriptive qualitative approach using face-to-face semistructured interviews was used in this study. A topic guide was developed following a literature review and discussions with key stakeholders. GPs (N=20) were recruited from Cambridgeshire, London, and Northwest England through probability and snowball sampling. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed in NVivo using the framework method, a form of thematic analysis.ResultsMost participants in this study had concerns about online patient feedback. They questioned the validity of online patient feedback because of data and user biases and lack of representativeness, the usability of online patient feedback due to the feedback being anonymous, the transparency of online patient feedback because of the risk of false allegations and breaching confidentiality, and the resulting impact of all those factors on them, their professional practice, and their relationship with their patients.ConclusionsThe majority of GPs interviewed had reservations and concerns about online patient feedback and questioned its validity and usefulness among other things. Based on the findings from the study, recommendations for online patient feedback website providers in England are given. These include suggestions to make some specific changes to the platform and the need to promote online patient feedback more among both GPs and health care users, which may help to reduce some of the concerns raised by GPs about online patient feedback in this study.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:This paper reports the sources of stress and distress experienced by general practitioners (GP) as part of a wider study exploring the barriers and facilitators to help-seeking for mental illness and burnout among this medical population. DESIGN:Qualitative study using in-depth interviews with 47 GP participants. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymised and imported into NVivo V.11 to facilitate data management. Data were analysed using a thematic analysis employing the constant comparative method. SETTING:England. PARTICIPANTS:A purposive sample of GP participants who self-identified as: (1) currently living with mental distress, (2) returning to work following treatment, (3) off sick or retired early as a result of mental distress or (4) without experience of mental distress. Interviews were conducted face-to-face or over the telephone. RESULTS:The key sources of stress/distress related to: (1) emotion work-the work invested and required in managing and responding to the psychosocial component of GPs' work, and dealing with abusive or confrontational patients; (2) practice culture-practice dynamics and collegial conflict, bullying, isolation and lack of support; (3) work role and demands-fear of making mistakes, complaints and inquests, revalidation, appraisal, inspections and financial worries. CONCLUSION:In addition to addressing escalating workloads through the provision of increased resources, addressing unhealthy practice cultures is paramount. Collegial support, a willingness to talk about vulnerability and illness, and having open channels of communication enable GPs to feel less isolated and better able to cope with the emotional and clinical demands of their work. Doctors, including GPs, are not invulnerable to the clinical and emotional demands of their work nor the effects of divisive work cultures-culture change and access to informal and formal support is therefore crucial in enabling GPs to do their job effectively and to stay well.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Wearables, fitness apps, and patient home monitoring devices are used increasingly by patients and other individuals with lifestyle challenges. All Danish general practitioners (GPs) use digital health records and electronic health (eHealth) consultations on a daily basis, but how they perceive the increasing demand for lifestyle advice and whether they see eHealth as part of their lifestyle support should be explored further. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to explore GPs' perspectives on eHealth devices and apps and the use of eHealth in supporting healthy lifestyle behavior for their patients and themselves. METHODS:A total of 10 (5 female and 5 male) GPs were recruited by purposive sampling, aged 38 to 69 years (mean 51 years), of which 4 had an urban uptake of patients and 6 a rural uptake. All of them worked in the region of Southern Denmark where GPs typically work alone or in partnership with 1 to 4 colleagues and all use electronic patient health records for prescription, referral, and asynchronous electronic consultations. We performed qualitative, semistructured, individual in-depth interviews with the GPs in their own office about how they used eHealth and mHealth devices to help patients challenged with lifestyle issues and themselves. We also interviewed how they treated lifestyle-challenged patients in general and how they imagined eHealth could be used in the future. RESULTS:All GPs had smartphones or tablets, and everyone communicated on a daily basis with patients about disease and medicine via their electronic health record and the internet. We identified 3 themes concerning the use of eHealth: (1) how eHealth is used for patients; (2) general practitioners' own experience with improving lifestyle and eHealth support; and (3) relevant coaching techniques for transformation into eHealth. CONCLUSIONS:GPs used eHealth frequently for themselves but only infrequently for their patients. GPs are familiar with behavioral change techniques and are ready to use them in eHealth if they are used to optimize processes and not hinder other treatments. Looking ahead, education of GPs and recognizing patients' ability and preference to use eHealth with regard to a healthy living are needed.

Project description:BackgroundEmergency Department attendance is increasing internationally, of which a significant proportion could be managed in general practice. In England, policies backed by substantial capital funding require such patients attending Emergency Departments be directed or 'streamed' to General Practitioners working in or parallel to Emergency Departments. However, evidence for streaming is limited and the processes of streaming patients attending Emergency Departments to General Practitioners lacks exploration.ObjectivesThis paper explores streaming to General Practitioners in and alongside Emergency Departments at ten sites across England. It highlights positive streaming practice, as well as issues that may contribute to poor streaming practice, in order to inform future service improvement.MethodsA longitudinal qualitative study was conducted with data collected between October 2017 and December 2019 across 10 case study sites throughout England as part of a broader mixed methods study. 186 non-participant observations and 226 semi-structured interviews with 191 health professionals working in Emergency Departments or related General Practitioner Services were thematically analysed in relation to streaming processes and experiences.ResultsSix interconnected themes influencing streaming were identified: implementing and maintaining structural support; developing and supporting streaming personnel; implementing workable and responsive streaming protocols; negotiating primary/secondary care boundaries; developing and maintaining interprofessional relationships and concerns for patient safety. Streaming was considered central to the success of General Practitioners in/parallel to Emergency Departments. The importance of the skills of streaming nurses in delivering an optimal and safety critical service was highlighted, as was the skillset of General Practitioners and interprofessional relationships between streamers and General Practitioners. There was no distinct streaming model or method associated with good streaming practice to General Practitioners in/alongside Emergency Departments, instead factors for success were identified and key recommendations suggested. 'Inappropriate' streaming was identified as a problem, where patients streamed to General Practitioners in or parallel to Emergency Departments required Emergency Department management, or patients suitable for General Practitioner care were kept in the Emergency Department.ConclusionDespite adopting differing methods, commonalities across case sites in the delivery of good streaming practice were identified, leading to identification of key recommendations which may inform development of streaming services.Study registrationISRCTN51780222. Tweetable abstract: Workplace culture and the skillset of streamers and General Practitioners is crucial to streaming of patients to General Practitioners in Emergency Departments.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a large and unexplained variation in referral rates to specialists by general practitioners, which calls for investigations regarding general practitioners' perceptions and expectations during the referral process. Our objective was to describe the decision-making process underlying referral of patients to specialists by general practitioners working in a university outpatient primary care center.MethodsTwo focus groups were conducted among general practitioners (10 residents and 8 chief residents) working in the Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté) of the University of Lausanne, in Switzerland. Focus group data were analyzed with thematic content analysis. A feedback group of general practitioners validated the results.ResultsParticipating general practitioners distinguished two kinds of situations regarding referral: a) "clear-cut situations", in which the decision to refer or not seems obvious and b) "complex cases", in which they hesitate to refer or not. Regarding the "complex cases", they reported various types of concerns: a) about the treatment, b) about the patient and the doctor-patient relationship and c) about themselves. General practitioners evoked numerous reasons for referring, including non-medical factors such as influencing patients' emotions, earning specialists' esteem or sharing responsibility. They also explained that they seek validation by colleagues and postpone referral so as to relieve some of the decision-related distress.ConclusionsGeneral practitioners' referral of patients to specialists cannot be explained in biomedical terms only. It seems necessary to take into account the fact that referral is a sensitive topic for general practitioners, involving emotionally charged interactions and relationships with patients, colleagues, specialists and supervisors. The decision to refer or not is influenced by multiple contextual, personal and clinical factors that dynamically interact and shape the decision-making process.

Dataset Information

Stool submission by general practitioners in SW England - when, why and how? A qualitative study.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Stool submission by general practitioners in SW England - when, why and how? A qualitative study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets