Dataset Information

Optimizing cooperation between general practitioners, occupational health and rehabilitation physicians in Germany: a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To achieve successful medical rehabilitation and timely return to work, general practitioners, occupational health and rehabilitation physicians need to cooperate effectively. This cooperation, however, can be hampered by organizational, interpersonal, and structural barriers. In this article, we present and discuss suggestions proposed by physicians and patients on how these barriers can be overcome.

Methods

We conducted eight qualitative focus group discussions with general practitioners (GPs), occupational health physicians (OPs), rehabilitation physicians (RPs) and rehabilitation patients, which we analyzed with qualitative content analysis methods.

Results

Room for improvement exists with regard to (1) regulation (e.g. formalized role and obligatory input of occupational physicians), (2) finance (e.g. financial incentives for physicians based on the quality of the application), (3) technology (e.g. communication by email), (4) organizational procedures (e.g. provision of workplace descriptions to RPs on a routine basis), (5) education and information (e.g. joint educational programs, measures to improve the image of OPs), and (6) promotion of cooperation (e.g. between OPs and GPs in regards to the application process).

Conclusions

Many suggestions are practical and could be implemented into the daily routine of physicians, while others demand multi-level, multi-stakeholder approaches. Our findings are supported by numerous international studies (especially from Western Europe). Future quantitative research could assess the relative weight of these findings. Feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed suggestions should be tested in controlled interventional studies.

SUBMITTER: Stratil J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5640724 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Optimizing cooperation between general practitioners, occupational health and rehabilitation physicians in Germany: a qualitative study.

Stratil Jan J Rieger Monika A MA Voelter-Mahlknecht Susanne S

International archives of occupational and environmental health 20170705 8

<h4>Purpose</h4>To achieve successful medical rehabilitation and timely return to work, general practitioners, occupational health and rehabilitation physicians need to cooperate effectively. This cooperation, however, can be hampered by organizational, interpersonal, and structural barriers. In this article, we present and discuss suggestions proposed by physicians and patients on how these barriers can be overcome.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted eight qualitative focus group discussions with gene ...[more]

PMID: 28681175

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionRehabilitation measures for patients in the working age primarily aim at maintaining employability, restoring fitness for work or timely return to work (RTW). To facilitate RTW after long sick leave in Germany, both rehabilitation physicians' knowledge about the patients' workplace and communication between the rehabilitation physician and the occupational physician need to be improved. This research will record the experiences and attitudes of occupational physicians, rehabilitation physicians and general practitioners, as well as of rehabilitation patients, to indicate barriers and possibilities for improvement concerning the intersection between workplace and rehabilitation institution. As a previous literature review has shown, insufficient data on the experiences and attitudes of the stakeholders are available. Therefore, an exploratory qualitative approach was chosen.Methods and analysis8 focus group discussions will be conducted with occupational physicians, rehabilitation physicians, general practitioners and rehabilitation patients (2 focus groups with 6-8 interviewees per category). Qualitative content analysis will be used to evaluate the data, thus describing positive and negative experiences and attitudes, barriers and possibilities for improvement at the intersection of general and occupational medicine and rehabilitation with regard to the workplace. The data from the focus groups will be used to develop a standardised quantitative questionnaire for a survey of the medical groups and rehabilitation patients in a follow-up project.Ethics and disseminationThe research will be undertaken with the approval of the Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty and University Hospital of Tuebingen. The study participants' consent will be documented in written form. The names of all study participants and all other confidential information data fall under medical confidentiality. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal independent of the nature of the results.

Project description:BackgroundIn the German rehabilitation system, primary care physicians (PCPs), occupational health physicians (OPs), and rehabilitation physicians (RPs) fulfill different distinct functions and roles. While effective cooperation can improve outcomes of rehabilitation, the cooperation between these groups of stakeholders has been criticized as lacking or insufficient. This article proposes an approach to understand the low levels of cooperation by examining the role of group perception and group identity in intra-professional cooperation as a barrier to cooperation between physicians in different roles. Group perception was evaluated in terms of (1) negative views about another group of medical specialists and (2) differences between the perception of members and non-members of a medical specialty group. To examine this issue, we focused on the role of OPs in the German rehabilitation process.MethodsWe implemented a qualitative study design with eight focus group discussions with PCPs, OPs, RPs, and patients (two focus group discussions per stakeholder group; 4-10 participants) and qualitative content analysis. We used the Social Identity Approach by Tajfel and Turner as a theoretical underpinning.ResultsWhile all protagonists reported a positive perception of their own professional group, we found numerous negative perceptions about other groups, especially regarding OPs. Negative perceptions of OPs included 1) apparent conflict of interest between employer and employee, 2) lack of commitment to patient outcomes, 3) lack of useful specialized knowledge which could have a bearing on rehabilitation outcomes, and 4) distrust on the part of their patients. We also found divergent perceptions regarding roles, responsibilities, and capabilities among the specialist groups. Both negative and conflicting perceptions about roles were characterized as barriers to cooperation by study participants.ConclusionThis example of cooperation between RPs, OPs, and PCPs suggests that negative and diverging perceptions about an out-group could create barriers in intra-professional and inter-disciplinary cooperation between physicians. These perspectives might also be useful in explaining problems at intersections between different specialties. We suggest examining the inter-group dimension of perception-based barriers to cooperation in future interventions to overcome problems caused by intra-professional and inter-disciplinary conflicts in addition to other barriers (i.e. organizational hurdles).

Project description:BACKGROUND:An increasing prevalence of having survived a myocardial infarction increases the importance of medical secondary prevention. Although preventive medication reduces mortality, prescribing and adherence are known to be frequently insufficient. General practitioners are the most important prescriber. However, their perspective on prescribing and medical non-adherence following myocardial infarction has not yet been explored. Thus, the aim of this study was to explore the general practitioners' perspective on long-term care after myocardial infarction focussing on medical prevention. METHODS:In this qualitative interview study we conducted episodic interviews with sixteen general practitioners from rural and urban surgeries in Germany. Framework analysis with focus on general practitioners' prescribing and patients' non-adherence was performed. RESULTS:Almost all general practitioners reported following guidelines for myocardial infarction aftercare and prescribing the medication that was initiated in the hospital; however, they described deviating from guidelines because of drugs' side effects or patients' intolerances. Some questioned the benefits of medical secondary prevention for the oldest of patients. General practitioners perceived good adherence among their patients who had had an MI while they regarded their methods for assessing medical non-adherence as limited. They perceived diverse reasons for non-adherence, particularly side effects, patients' freedom from symptoms and patients' indifference to health. They attributed mainly negative characteristics, like lack of knowledge and understanding, to non-adherent patients. These characteristics contribute to the difficulty of convincing these patients to take medications as prescribed. General practitioners improved adherence by preventing side effects, explaining the medication's necessity, facilitating intake and involving patients in decision-making. However, about half of the general practitioners reported threatening their patients with negative consequences of non-adherence. CONCLUSIONS:General practitioners should be aware that discharge medication can be insufficient and thus, should always check hospital recommendations for accordance with guideline recommendations. Improving physicians' communication skills and informing and motivating patients in an adequate manner, for example in simple language, should be an important goal in the hospital and the general practitioner setting. General practitioners should assess patients' motivations through motivational interviewing, which no general practitioner mentioned during the interviews, and talk with them about adherence and long-term treatment goals regularly.

Project description:The STarT Back stratified primary care approach has demonstrated clinical and cost effectiveness in the UK, and is commonly used by General Practitioners (GPs). However, it remains unknown how this approach could be implemented into the German healthcare system. The aim of this study was therefore to explore the views and perceptions of German GPs in respect to using a stratified primary care for low back pain (LBP).A 90-minute think-tank workshop was conducted with 14 male and five female GPs, during which the STarT-Back-Screening-Tool (SBST) and related research evidence was presented. This was followed by two focus groups, based on a semi-structured interview guideline to identify potential implementation barriers and opportunities. Discussions were audiotaped, transcribed and coded using a content analysis approach.For the three deductively developed main themes, 15 subthemes emerged: (1) application of the SBST, with the following subthemes: which health profession should administer it, patients known to the GP practice, the reason for the GP consultation, scoring the tool, the tool format, and the anticipated impact on GP practice; (2) psychologically informed physiotherapy, with subthemes including: provision by a physiotherapist, anticipated impact, the skills of physiotherapists, management of patients with severe psychosocial problems, referral and remuneration; (3) the management of low-risk patients, with subthemes including: concern about the appropriate advising health professional, information and media, length of consultation, and local exercise venues.The attitudes of GPs towards stratified primary care for LBP indicated positive support for pilot-testing in Germany. However, there were mixed reactions to the ability of German physiotherapists to manage high-risk patients and handle their complex clinical needs. GPs also mentioned practical difficulties in providing extended advice to low-risk patients, which nevertheless could be addressed by involvement of specifically trained medical assistants.

Project description:BackgroundSystematic preventive health checks in primary care have been introduced in several countries. The Danish Health Service does not provide this service, but health checks are nevertheless being conducted unsystematically. Very little is known about the GPs' experience with this service.The purpose of our study is to describe GPs' attitudes towards and concerns about providing preventive health checks and to describe their experiences with the health checks that they provide in daily practice.MethodsA qualitative descriptive study was conducted based on three semi-structured focus group interviews with 16 GPs from Central Region, Denmark. The focus group interviews took place at the Department of Public Health, Section for General Practice, Aarhus University in November 2010.ResultsWe found that the participating GPs all conducted some kind of preventive health checks, but also that there was great diversity in the content. The GPs were somewhat ambivalent towards health checks. Many GPs found the service beneficial for the patients. Concurrently, they had reservations about promoting ill-health, they questioned whether the health checks were a core mission of primary care, and they were concerned whether the health checks would benefit the "right" patients. The GPs felt a need for further documentation of the benefits for the patients before a possible future implementation of systematic health checks. Some GPs found that health checks could be performed in other settings than general practice.ConclusionsOur study revealed that health checks are performed differently. Their quality differs, and the GPs perform the health check based on their personal attitude towards this service and prevention in general. Our analysis suggests that the doctors are basically uncertain about the best approach. Our study also uncovers the GPs' reservations about inducing negative psychological reactions and decreased well-being among the health check participants. Further studies are needed to disclose where these concerns emerge.

Dataset Information

Optimizing cooperation between general practitioners, occupational health and rehabilitation physicians in Germany: a qualitative study.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Optimizing cooperation between general practitioners, occupational health and rehabilitation physicians in Germany: a qualitative study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure