Dataset Information

Management strategies for chronic rhinosinusitis: a qualitative study of GP and ENT specialist views of current practice in the UK.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To explore general practitioner (GP) and ears, nose and throat (ENT) specialist perspectives of current treatment strategies for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and care pathways through primary and secondary care.

Design

Semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews as part of the MACRO programme (Defining best Management for Adults with Chronic Rhinosinusitis) SETTING: Primary care and secondary care ENT outpatient clinics in the UK.

Participants

Twelve GPs and 9 ENT specialists consented to in-depth telephone interviews. Transcribed recordings were managed using NVivo software and analysed using inductive thematic analysis.

Main outcome measures

Healthcare professional views of management options and care pathways for CRS.

Results

GPs describe themselves as confident in recognising CRS, with the exception of assessing nasal polyps. In contrast, specialists report common missed diagnoses (eg, allergy; chronic headache) when patients are referred to ENT clinics, and attribute this to the limited ENT training of GPs. Steroid nasal sprays provide the foundation of treatment in primary care, although local prescribing restrictions can affect treatment choice and poor adherence is perceived to be the causes of inadequate symptom control. Symptom severity, poor response to medical treatment and patient pressure drive referral, although there is uncertainty about optimal timing. Treatment decisions in secondary care are based on disease severity, polyp status, prior medical treatment and patient choice, but there is major uncertainty about the place of longer courses of antibiotics and the use of oral steroids. Surgery is regarded as an important treatment option for patients with severe symptoms or with nasal polyps, although timing of surgery remains unclear, and the uncertainty about net long-term benefits of surgery makes balancing of benefits and risks more difficult.

Conclusions

Clinicians are uncertain about best management of patients with CRS in both primary and secondary care and practice is varied. An integrated care pathway for CRS is needed to improve patient management and timely referral.

SUBMITTER: Vennik J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6303610 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Management strategies for chronic rhinosinusitis: a qualitative study of GP and ENT specialist views of current practice in the UK.

Vennik Jane J Eyles Caroline C Thomas Mike M Hopkins Claire C Little Paul P Blackshaw Helen H Schilder Anne A Boardman Jim J Philpott Carl M CM

BMJ open 20181219 12

<h4>Objectives</h4>To explore general practitioner (GP) and ears, nose and throat (ENT) specialist perspectives of current treatment strategies for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and care pathways through primary and secondary care.<h4>Design</h4>Semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews as part of the MACRO programme (Defining best Management for Adults with Chronic Rhinosinusitis) SETTING: Primary care and secondary care ENT outpatient clinics in the UK.<h4>Participants</h4>Twelve GPs and ...[more]

PMID: 30573482

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo explore patient views and perspectives of current management of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) in primary and secondary care.DesignSemistructured qualitative telephone interviews as part of the MACRO programme (Defining best Management for Adults with Chronic RhinOsinusitis).SettingPrimary care and secondary care ear, nose and throat outpatient clinics in the UK.ParticipantsTwenty-five patients consented to in-depth telephone interviews. Transcribed recordings were managed using NVivo software and analysed using inductive thematic analysis.ResultsCRS has a significant impact on patients' quality of life, affecting their ability to work effectively, their social interactions and daily living. Patients seek help when symptoms become unmanageable, but can become frustrated with the primary care system with difficulties obtaining an appointment, and lack of continuity of care. Patients perceive that general practitioners can be dismissive of CRS symptoms, and patients often prioritise other concerns when they consult. Health system barriers and poor communication can result in delays in accessing appropriate treatment and referral. Adherence to intranasal steroids is a problem and patients are uncertain about correct technique. Nasal irrigation can be time-consuming and difficult for patients to use. Secondary care consultations can appear rushed, and patients would like specialists to take a more 'holistic' approach to their management. Surgery is often considered a temporary solution, appropriate when medical options have been explored.ConclusionsPatients are frustrated with the management of their CRS, and poor communication can result in delays in receiving appropriate treatment and timely referral. Patients seek better understanding of their condition and guidance to support treatments decisions in light of uncertainties around the different medical and surgical options. Better coordinated care between general practice and specialist settings and consistency of advice has the potential to increase patient satisfaction and improve outcomes.

Project description:Despite an increased awareness of shared decision-making (SDM) and its prominent position on the health policy agenda, its implementation in routine care remains a challenge in Germany. In order to overcome this challenge, it is important to understand healthcare providers' views regarding SDM and to take their perspectives and opinions into account in the development of an implementation program. The present study aimed at exploring a) the attitudes of different healthcare providers regarding SDM in oncology and b) their experiences with treatment decisions in daily practice.A qualitative study was conducted using focus groups and individual interviews with different healthcare providers at the University Cancer Center Hamburg, Germany. Focus groups and interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed using conventional content analysis and descriptive statistics.N = 4 focus groups with a total of N = 25 participants and N = 17 individual interviews were conducted. Attitudes regarding SDM varied greatly between the different participants, especially concerning the definition of SDM, the attitude towards the degree of patient involvement in decision-making and assumptions about when SDM should take place. Experiences on how treatment decisions are currently made varied. Negative experiences included time and structural constraints, and a lack of (multidisciplinary) communication. Positive experiences comprised informed patients, involvement of relatives and a good physician-patient relationship.The results show that German healthcare providers in oncology have a range of attitudes that currently function as barriers towards the implementation of SDM. Also, their experiences on how decision-making is currently done reveal difficulties in actively involving patients in decision-making processes. It will be crucial to take these attitudes and experiences seriously and to subsequently disentangle existing misconceptions in future implementation programs.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To better understand which theoretically plausible placebogenic techniques might be acceptable in UK primary care. DESIGN:A qualitative study using nominal group technique and thematic analysis. Participants took part in audio-recorded face-to-face nominal groups in which the researcher presented six scenarios describing the application in primary care of theoretically plausible placebogenic techniques: (1) Withholding side effects information, (2) Monitoring, (3) General practitioner (GP) endorsement, (4) Idealised consultation, (5) Deceptive placebo pills and (6) Open-label placebo pills. Participants voted on whether they thought each scenario was acceptable in practice and discussed their reasoning. Votes were tallied and discussions transcribed verbatim. SETTING:Primary care in England. PARTICIPANTS:21 GPs in four nominal groups and 20 'expert patients' in five nominal groups. RESULTS:Participants found it hard to decide which practices were acceptable and spoke about needing to weigh potential symptomatic benefits against the potential harms of lost trust eroding the therapeutic relationship. Primary care patients and doctors felt it was acceptable to harness placebo effects in practice by patient self-monitoring (scenario 2), by the GP expressing a strongly positive belief in a therapy (scenario 3) and by conducting patient-centred, empathic consultations (scenario 4). Deceptive placebogenic practices (scenarios 1 and 5) were unacceptable to most groups. Patient and GP groups expressed a diverse range of opinions about open-label placebo pills. CONCLUSIONS:Attempts to harness placebo effects in UK primary care are more likely to be accepted and implemented if they focus on enhancing positive patient-centred communication and empathic relationships. Using placebos deceptively is likely to be unacceptable to both GPs and patients. Open-label placebos also do not have clear support; they might be acceptable to some doctors and patients in very limited circumstances-but further evidence, clear information and guidance would be needed.

Project description:PurposeThe first aim of this qualitative study was to identify general practitioners' (GPs') views on depression screening combined with GP-targeted feedback in primary care. The second aim was to determine the needs and preferences of GPs with respect to GP-targeted feedback to enhance the efficacy of depression screening.MethodsA semistructured qualitative interview was conducted with officially registered GPs in Hamburg (Germany). Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. An inductive approach was used to code the transcripts.ResultsNine GPs (27 to 70 years; 5 male) from Hamburg, Germany, participated. Regarding depression screening combined with GP-targeted feedback, five thematic groups were identified: application of screening; screening and patient-physician relationships; GPs' attitudes towards screening; benefits and concerns related to screening; and GPs' needs and preferences regarding feedback. While the negative aspects of screening can be described in rather general terms (e.g., screening determines the mental health competence, screening threatens the doctor-patient relationship, revealing questions harm the patients), its advantages were very specific (e.g., promoting the identification of undetected cases, relief of the daily workload, wider communication channel to reach more patients). Standardized GP-targeted feedback of the screening results was perceived as helpful and purposeful. GPs preferred feedback materials that eased their clinical workload (e.g., short text with visuals, pictures, or images).ConclusionAddressing GPs' needs is essential when implementing depression screening tools in clinical practice. To overcome prejudices and enhance the efficacy of screening, further education for GPs on the purpose and application on depression screening may be needed. Standardized GP-targeted feedback in combination with depression screening could be the missing link to improve the detection of depression in primary care.

Dataset Information

Management strategies for chronic rhinosinusitis: a qualitative study of GP and ENT specialist views of current practice in the UK.

Objectives

Design

Participants

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Management strategies for chronic rhinosinusitis: a qualitative study of GP and ENT specialist views of current practice in the UK.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets