Dataset Information

General Practitioners' Attitudes towards Essential Competencies in End-of-Life Care: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Identifying essential competencies in end-of-life care, as well as general practitioners' (GPs) confidence in these competencies, is essential to guide training and quality improvement efforts in this domain.

Aim

To determine which competencies in end-of-life care are considered important by GPs, to assess GPs' confidence in these competencies in a European context and their reasons to refer terminally ill patients to a specialist.

Design and setting

Cross-sectional postal survey involving a stratified random sample of 2000 GPs in Switzerland in 2014.

Method

Survey development was informed by a previous qualitative exploration of relevant end-of-life GP competencies. Main outcome measures were GPs' assessment of the importance of and confidence in 18 attributes of end-of-life care competencies, and reasons for transferring care of terminally-ill patients to a specialist. GP characteristics associated with main outcome measures were tested using multivariate regression models.

Results

The response rate was 31%. Ninety-nine percent of GPs considered the recognition and treatment of pain as important, 86% felt confident about it. Few GPs felt confident in cultural (16%), spiritual (38%) and legal end-of-life competencies such as responding to patients seeking assisted suicide (35%) although more than half of the respondents regarded these competencies as important. Most frequent reasons to refer terminally ill patients to a specialist were lack of time (30%), better training of specialists (23%) and end-of-life care being incompatible with other duties (19%). In multiple regression analyses, confidence in end-of-life care was positively associated with GPs' age, practice size, home visits and palliative training.

Conclusions

GPs considered non-somatic competencies (such as spiritual, cultural, ethical and legal aspects) nearly as important as pain and symptom control. Yet, few GPs felt confident in these non-somatic competencies. These findings should inform training and quality improvement efforts in this domain, in particular for younger, less experienced GPs.

SUBMITTER: Giezendanner S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5287469 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

General Practitioners' Attitudes towards Essential Competencies in End-of-Life Care: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

Giezendanner Stéphanie S Jung Corinna C Banderet Hans-Ruedi HR Otte Ina Carola IC Gudat Heike H Haller Dagmar M DM Elger Bernice S BS Zemp Elisabeth E Bally Klaus K

PloS one 20170201 2

<h4>Background</h4>Identifying essential competencies in end-of-life care, as well as general practitioners' (GPs) confidence in these competencies, is essential to guide training and quality improvement efforts in this domain.<h4>Aim</h4>To determine which competencies in end-of-life care are considered important by GPs, to assess GPs' confidence in these competencies in a European context and their reasons to refer terminally ill patients to a specialist.<h4>Design and setting</h4>Cross-sectio ...[more]

PMID: 28146566

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is limited United Kingdom (UK) literature on general practice-based pharmacists' (PBPs') role evolution and few studies have explored general practitioners' (GPs') experiences on pharmacist integration into general practice. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate GPs' experiences with, views of, and attitudes towards PBPs in Northern Ireland (NI).MethodsA paper-based self-administered questionnaire comprising four sections was mailed in 2019 to 329 general practices across NI and was completed by one GP in every practice who had most contact with the PBP. Descriptive analyses were used and responses to open-ended questions were analysed thematically.ResultsThe response rate was 61.7% (203/329). There was at least one PBP per general practice. All GPs had face-to-face meetings with PBPs, with three-quarters (78.7%, n = 159) meeting with the PBP more than once a week. Approximately two-thirds of GPs (62.4%, n = 126) reported that PBPs were qualified as independent prescribers, and 76.2% of these (n = 96/126) indicated that prescribers were currently prescribing for patients. The majority of GPs reported that PBPs always/very often had the required clinical skills (83.6%, n = 162) and knowledge (87.0%, n = 167) to provide safe and effective care for patients. However, 31.1% (n = 61) stated that PBPs only sometimes had the confidence to make clinical decisions. The majority of GPs (> 85%) displayed largely positive attitudes towards collaboration with PBPs. Most GPs agreed/strongly agreed that PBPs will have a positive impact on patient outcomes (95.0%, n = 192) and can provide a better link between general practices and community pharmacists (96.1%, n = 194). However, 24.8% of GPs (n = 50) were unclear if the PBP role moved community pharmacists to the periphery of the primary care team. An evaluation of the free-text comments indicated that GPs were in favour of more PBP sessions and full-time posts.ConclusionMost GPs had positive views of, and attitudes towards, PBPs. The findings may have implications for future developments in order to extend integration of PBPs within general practice, including the enhancement of training in clinical skills and decision-making. Exploring PBPs', community pharmacists' and patients' views of this role in general practice is required to corroborate study findings.

Project description:BackgroundBuilding interprofessional working relationships between general practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists is essential to ensure high-quality patient care. However, there is limited Chinese literature on GP-pharmacist collaboration, and few studies have explored GPs' experiences with pharmacist integration into general practices. This study aimed to investigate GPs' attitudes towards and frequency of collaboration with pharmacists in China.MethodsThis cross-sectional study used an online self-administered questionnaire integrating two scales, ATCI-GP and FICI-GP, which had been translated and validated to investigate 3,248 GPs from February 15 to March 15, 2023 across Zhejiang Province, China. Descriptive analyses were used, and the factors associated with GPs' frequency of collaboration with pharmacists were explored using logistic regression analysis.ResultsA total of 2,487 GPs (76.6%) responded and consented to participate in the survey; 52.3% were male and the mean age was 35.4 years. Most GPs agreed that they shared common goals and objectives with pharmacists when caring for patients (90.0%), and pharmacists were open to working with them on patients' medication management (80.8%). However, half of the GPs did not change or seldom changed the patient's medication on the pharmacist's advice (51.4%). Logistic regression analysis showed that GPs who were older and had more years of practice were more likely to agree that pharmacists were willing to collaborate, had common goals for treatment and that they would change the patient's medication on the advice of the pharmacist. GPs who had regular communication protocols (adjusted odds ratio1 [aOR1] = 1.88, 95% CI 1.45-2.45; aOR2 = 3.33, 95% CI 2.76-4.02), participated in joint continuing education (aOR1 = 1.87, 95% CI 1.44-2.43; aOR2 = 2.27, 95% CI 1.91-2.70), provided recommendations for medication review (aOR1 = 3.01, 95% CI 2.07-4.38; aOR2 = 3.50, 95% CI 2.51-4.86), and communicated with pharmacists during resident training (aOR1 = 2.15, 95% CI 1.78-2.60; aOR2 = 1.38, 95% CI 1.18-1.62) were associated with a more positive attitude towards and higher frequency of cooperation.ConclusionsGPs in China displayed a positive attitude towards cooperating with pharmacists, but they did not demonstrate a similar level of practice. As environmental determinants impact interdisciplinary collaboration, healthcare managers and policy-makers need to implement measures that foster a supportive environment conducive to interdisciplinary collaboration.

Project description:Background General practitioners are considered to be well suited when it comes to addressing the information and care needs of family caregivers. The aim of the present study is to examine how general practitioners assess their possibilities to support caregivers, what priorities they set and to what extent they experience challenges.Methods and participants In the course of an online survey with a postal cover letter, a total of 3,556 GPs in in Baden-Württemberg, Hesse and Rhineland-Palatinate were interviewed between February and June 2021. Due to the exploratory approach of the study, only a descriptive data analysis was carried out.Results 68 % of the GPs surveyed often deal with family caregivers in everyday practice; 77 % consider the GP's office to be well suited as the primary point of contact for family caregivers and care coordination. Often it is caregiving relatives who ask the GP about the issue of care (89 %). Frequent contents concern a deterioration in the care situation (75 %) and a change in the need for care (84 %); consultations in the initial phase of care are less common (40 %). There are differences between urban and rural doctors in the perception of the needs of caregivers and the setting of priorities. Rural doctors give more weight to proactive and psychosocial care, whereas doctors in urban regions rely on the specialist and support network. GPs experience various challenges while supporting caregivers, including the timely organization of suitable relief offers (87 %), the referral to suitable offers of help (79 %) or the early identification of informal caregivers (59 %).Discussion GPs can play a central role in supporting family caregivers. A crucial prerequisite for this is that family caregivers are recognized and involved at an early stage. Consistent references to offers of help make it easier for family caregivers to organize care and to receive (psychosocial) support. In addition, it is important that GPs take into account the needs, desires and stresses of both caregivers and those being cared for.

Dataset Information

General Practitioners' Attitudes towards Essential Competencies in End-of-Life Care: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

Background

Aim

Design and setting

Method

Results

Conclusions

Publications

General Practitioners' Attitudes towards Essential Competencies in End-of-Life Care: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets