Dataset Information

Multimorbidity, clinical decision making and health care delivery in New Zealand Primary care: a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Multimorbidity is a major issue for primary care. We aimed to explore primary care professionals' accounts of managing multimorbidity and its impact on clinical decision making and regional health care delivery.

Methods

Qualitative interviews with 12 General Practitioners and 4 Primary Care Nurses in New Zealand's Otago region. Thematic analysis was conducted using the constant comparative method.

Results

Primary care professionals encountered challenges in providing care to patients with multimorbidity with respect to both clinical decision making and health care delivery. Clinical decision making occurred in time-limited consultations where the challenges of complexity and inadequacy of single disease guidelines were managed through the use of "satisficing" (care deemed satisfactory and sufficient for a given patient) and sequential consultations utilising relational continuity of care. The New Zealand primary care co-payment funding model was seen as a barrier to the delivery of care as it discourages sequential consultations, a problem only partially addressed through the use of the additional capitation based funding stream of Care Plus. Fragmentation of care also occurred within general practice and across the primary/secondary care interface.

Conclusions

These findings highlight specific New Zealand barriers to the delivery of primary care to patients living with multimorbidity. There is a need to develop, implement and nationally evaluate a revised version of Care Plus that takes account of these barriers.

SUBMITTER: Stokes T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5382371 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Multimorbidity, clinical decision making and health care delivery in New Zealand Primary care: a qualitative study.

Stokes Tim T Tumilty Emma E Doolan-Noble Fiona F Gauld Robin R

BMC family practice 20170405 1

<h4>Background</h4>Multimorbidity is a major issue for primary care. We aimed to explore primary care professionals' accounts of managing multimorbidity and its impact on clinical decision making and regional health care delivery.<h4>Methods</h4>Qualitative interviews with 12 General Practitioners and 4 Primary Care Nurses in New Zealand's Otago region. Thematic analysis was conducted using the constant comparative method.<h4>Results</h4>Primary care professionals encountered challenges in provi ...[more]

PMID: 28381260

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatients with multiple chronic conditions (multimorbidity) and additional psychosocial complexity are at higher risk of adverse outcomes. Establishing treatment or care plans for these patients must account for their disease interactions, finite self-management abilities, and even conflicting treatment recommendations from clinical practice guidelines. Despite existing insight into how primary care physicians (PCPs) approach care decisions for their patients in general, less is known about how PCPs make care planning decisions for more complex populations particularly within a medical home setting. We therefore sought to describe factors affecting physician decision-making when care planning for complex patients with multimorbidity within the team-based, patient-centered medical home setting in the integrated healthcare system of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).MethodsThis was a qualitative study involving semi-structured telephone interviews with PCPs working > 40% time in VHA clinics. Interviews were conducted from April to July, 2020. Content was analyzed with deductive and inductive thematic analysis.Results23 physicians participated in interviews; most were MDs (n = 21) and worked in hospital-affiliated clinics (n = 14) across all regions of the VHA's national clinic network. We found internal, external, and relationship-based factors, with developed subthemes describing factors affecting decision-making for complex patients with multimorbidity. Physicians described tailoring decisions to individual patients; making decisions in keeping with an underlying internal style or habit; working towards an overarching goal for care; considering impacts from patient access and resources on care plans; deciding within boundaries provided by organizational structures; collaborating on care plans with their care team; and impacts on decisions from their own emotions and relationship with patient.ConclusionsPCPs described internal, external, and relationship-based factors that affected their care planning for high-risk and complex patients with multimorbidity in the VHA. Findings offer useful strategies employed by physicians to effectively conduct care planning for complex patients in a medical home setting, such as delegation of follow-up within multidisciplinary care teams, optimizing visit time vs frequency, and deliberate investment in patient-centered relationship building to gain buy-in to care plans.

Project description:BackgroundVaccine hesitancy is a significant threat to global health. A key part of addressing hesitancy is to ensure that public health messaging prioritises information that is considered important to the public. This study aimed to examine how different vaccine characteristics affect public preferences for vaccines in New Zealand, what trade-offs they are willing to make between different vaccine characteristics, and how their preferences are affected by their vaccine-related conspiracy beliefs and COVID-19 vaccination status.MethodsAn online discrete choice experiment (DCE) was designed to elicit individual preferences about vaccines using the 1000minds platform. Members of the general population of New Zealand aged ≥ 18 years were invited to complete the DCE. Participants were asked to indicate their preference between two options showing different combinations of vaccine characteristics. Data on sociodemographic characteristics were collected. Beliefs were measured using the vaccine conspiracy beliefs scale (VCBS) with scores ≥ 19 indicating strong vaccine-related conspiracy beliefs. The DCE was analysed using the PAPRIKA method (Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives) and preferences compared between respondents with high versus low VCBS scores and vaccinated versus unvaccinated respondents for COVID-19.ResultsA total of 611 respondents from 15 regions completed the DCE. Mean (SD) age was 45.9 (14.7) years with most having had 2 or more doses of the coronavirus vaccine (86%). Mean (SD) VCBS score was 18.5 (12.4) indicating moderate vaccine-related conspiracy beliefs. Risk of severe adverse effects was the most highly valued vaccine characteristic, followed by vaccine effectiveness and duration of protection. Vaccine origin and route of administration were ranked least important. Respondents scoring high on the VCBS placed less value on the effectiveness of vaccines but greater value on development time and total number of doses (p < 0.001). COVID-19 unvaccinated respondents ranked development time and total number of doses more highly than those vaccinated respondents (p < 0.001).ConclusionsRisk of severe adverse effects, vaccine effectiveness and duration of protection were rated by the New Zealand public as the top three most important vaccine characteristics. This information is important for informing public health messaging to promote vaccine uptake and inform vaccine decision-making.

Project description:BackgroundPeople with prediabetes are at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes and its complications, such as cardiovascular diseases and premature mortality. Primary prevention and health maintenance are therefore imperative. Evidence has shown that prediabetes can be prevented or delayed with behavioural change, mainly in eating habits and physical activity. Interventions that use a person-centered approach can lead to improvements in self-management, quality of life, and health outcomes. Nevertheless, there is a need for further research that engages healthcare professionals and people with prediabetes in constructing and implementing preventive programs. The purpose of this study is to explore and describe how healthcare professionals perceive prediabetes, the current challenges in its detection and treatment, and what is needed to improve quality of care.MethodsThis qualitative study was conducted in Region Stockholm. A total of 26 primary health care professionals participated in individual interviews: 15 diabetes nurses and/or district nurses, five general practitioners, five dietitians, and one physiotherapist. Interview transcripts were analyzed with qualitative content analysis.ResultsThe analysis revealed two main themes that emphasize the need to make prediabetes more visible in primary health care. Despite the healthcare professionals' engagement and their motivation to improve prediabetes care, ad hoc practices and the absence of clear screening guidelines and referral pathways made it harder to focus on primary prevention. Supporting professionals in implementing structured care for people with prediabetes might encourage more efficient interprofessional collaboration and contribute to better strategies for promoting behavioural change.ConclusionsEstablishing prediabetes care guidelines, supporting health care professionals´ knowledge and skills in prediabetes care, and implementing interprofessional referral pathways are some steps to enhance prediabetes detection and care precedence in primary health care. These steps could lead to more preventive care and ensure patient safety and health care equity.

Project description:BackgroundHealth Impact Assessment (HIA) involves assessing how proposals may alter the determinants of health prior to implementation and recommends changes to enhance positive and mitigate negative impacts. HIAs growing use needs to be supported by a strong evidence base, both to validate the value of its application and to make its application more robust. We have carried out the first systematic empirical study of the influence of HIA on decision-making and implementation of proposals in Australia and New Zealand. This paper focuses on identifying whether and how HIAs changed decision-making and implementation and impacts that participants report following involvement in HIAs.MethodsWe used a two-step process first surveying 55 HIAs followed by 11 in-depth case studies. Data gathering methods included questionnaires with follow-up interview, semi-structured interviews and document collation. We carried out deductive and inductive qualitative content analyses of interview transcripts and documents as well as simple descriptive statistics.ResultsWe found that most HIAs are effective in some way. HIAs are often directly effective in changing, influencing, broadening areas considered and in some cases having immediate impact on decisions. Even when HIAs are reported to have no direct effect on a decision they are often still effective in influencing decision-making processes and the stakeholders involved in them. HIA participants identify changes in relationships, improved understanding of the determinants of health and positive working relationships as major and sustainable impacts of their involvement.ConclusionsThis study clearly demonstrates direct and indirect effectiveness of HIA influencing decision making in Australia and New Zealand. We recommend that public health leaders and policy makers should be confident in promoting the use of HIA and investing in building capacity to undertake high quality HIAs. New findings about the value HIA stakeholders put on indirect impacts such as learning and relationship building suggest HIA has a role both as a technical tool that makes predictions of potential impacts of a policy, program or project and as a mechanism for developing relationships with and influencing other sectors. Accordingly when evaluating the effectiveness of HIAs we need to look beyond the direct impacts on decisions.

Project description:ObjectiveExamine clinical reasoning and decision making in an out of hours (OOH) primary care setting to gain insights into how general practitioners (GPs) make clinical decisions and manage risk in this environment.DesignSemi-structured interviews using open-ended questions.SettingA 2-month qualitative interview study conducted in Oxfordshire, UK.Participants21 GPs working in OOH primary care.ResultsThe most powerful themes to emerge related to dealing with urgent potentially high-risk cases, keeping patients safe and responding to their needs, while trying to keep patients out of hospital and the concept of 'fire fighting'. There were a number of well-defined characteristics that GPs reported making presentations easy or difficult to deal with. Severely ill patients were straightforward, while the older people, with complex multisystem diseases, were often difficult. GPs stopped collecting clinical information and came to clinical decisions when high-risk disease and severe illness requiring hospital attention has been excluded; they had responded directly to the patient's needs and there was a reliable safety net in place. Learning points that GPs identified as important for trainees in the OOH setting included the importance of developing rapport in spite of time pressures, learning to deal with uncertainty and learning about common presentations with a focus on critical cues to exclude severe illness.ConclusionsThe findings support suggestions that improvements in primary care OOH could be achieved by including automated and regular timely feedback system for GPs and individual peer and expert clinician support for GPs with regular meetings to discuss recent cases. In addition, trainee support and mentoring to focus on clinical skills, knowledge and risk management issues specific to OOH is currently required. Investigating the stopping rules used for diagnostic closure may provide new insights into the root causes of clinical error in such a high-risk setting.

Project description:AimTo investigate primary care clinicians' views of a prototype locally relevant, real-time viral surveillance system to assist diagnostic decision-making and antibiotic prescribing for paediatric respiratory tract infections (RTI). Clinicians' perspectives on the content, anticipated use and impact were explored to inform intervention development.BackgroundChildren with RTIs are overprescribed antibiotics. Pressures on primary care and diagnostic uncertainty can lead to decisional biases towards prescribing. We hypothesise that real-time paediatric RTI surveillance data could reduce diagnostic uncertainty and help reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescribing.MethodologySemistructured one-to-one interviews with 21 clinicians from a range of urban general practitioner surgeries explored the clinical context and views of the prototype system. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsThough clinicians self-identified as rational (not over)prescribers, cognitive biases influenced antibiotic prescribing decisions. Clinicians sought to avoid 'anticipated regret' around not prescribing for a child who then deteriorated. Clinicians were not aware of formal infection surveillance information sources (tending to assume many viruses are around), perceiving the information as novel and potentially useful. Perceptions of surveillance information as presented included: not relevant to decision-making/management; useful to confirm decisions post hoc; and increasing risks of missing sick children. Clinicians expressed wariness of using population-level data to influence individual patient decision-making and expressed preference for threat (high-risk) information identified by surveillance, rather than reassuring information about viral RTIs.ConclusionsMore work is needed to develop a surveillance intervention if it is to beneficially influence decision-making and antibiotic prescribing in primary care. Key challenges for developing interventions are how to address cognitive biases and how to communicate reassuring information to risk-oriented clinicians.

Dataset Information

Multimorbidity, clinical decision making and health care delivery in New Zealand Primary care: a qualitative study.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Multimorbidity, clinical decision making and health care delivery in New Zealand Primary care: a qualitative study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets