Dataset Information

A postgraduate curriculum for integrated care: a qualitative exploration of trainee paediatricians and general practitioners' experiences.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Integrated care unites funding, administrative, organisational, service delivery and clinical levels to create connectivity, alignment and collaboration within and between care delivery and prevention sectors. It aims to improve efficiency by avoiding unnecessary duplication of resources. Consequently, implementing integrated care is increasingly important; however, there are many barriers and how we teach healthcare practitioners to work across systems is under-researched. This paper explores an innovative educational curriculum, the Programme for Integrated Child Health (PICH).

Methods

The PICH involved an experiential learning approach supported by taught sessions on specific issues relevant to integrated care. A qualitative study was conducted by interviewing 23 participants using semi-structured one-to-one interviews. Participants included trainees (general practice, paediatrics) and programme mentors. Data was thematically analysed.

Results

Results are coded under three main themes: integrated care curriculum components, perceptions of a curriculum addressing integrated care and organisational change, and personal and professional learning. The data highlights the importance of real-world projects, utilising healthcare data, and considering patient perspectives to understand and develop integrated practices. Trainees received guidance from mentors but, more crucially learnt from, with, and about one another. They learnt about the context in which GPs and paediatricians work and developed a deeper understanding through which integrated services could be meaningfully developed.

Conclusions

This study explored participants' experiences and can be taken forward by educationalists to design curricula to better prepare healthcare practitioners to work collaboratively. The emergence of integrated care brings about challenges for traditional pedagogical approaches as learners have to re-align their discipline-specific approaches with evolving healthcare structures. PICH demonstrated that trainees acquired knowledge through real-word projects and experiential learning; and that this facilitated integration, empowering doctors to become leaders of organisational change. However, there are also many challenges of implementing integrated curricula which need to be addressed, including breaking down professional silos and integrating resourceful healthcare. This study begins to demonstrate the ability of an integrated curriculum to support trainees to work collaboratively, but further work is needed to develop the wider efficacy of the programme incorporating other professional groups, and to assess its longer term impact.

SUBMITTER: Griffin A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6322273 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A postgraduate curriculum for integrated care: a qualitative exploration of trainee paediatricians and general practitioners' experiences.

Griffin Ann A Knight Laura L McKeown Alex A Cliffe Charlotte C Arora Arun A Crampton Paul P

BMC medical education 20190107 1

<h4>Background</h4>Integrated care unites funding, administrative, organisational, service delivery and clinical levels to create connectivity, alignment and collaboration within and between care delivery and prevention sectors. It aims to improve efficiency by avoiding unnecessary duplication of resources. Consequently, implementing integrated care is increasingly important; however, there are many barriers and how we teach healthcare practitioners to work across systems is under-researched. Th ...[more]

PMID: 30612565

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGeneral practitioners (GPs) provide the most antidepressant prescriptions and psychologist referrals in Australia, yet little is known about how they decide between treatments for depressive symptoms.AimsThis study examined the decision cues that GPs use when deciding how to treat depressive symptoms and the meaning they attribute to these associations.MethodsStructured interviews were conducted with 16 Australian GPs in a "think-aloud" verbal protocol analysis format. The transcripts were analyzed using content coding and thematic analysis, informed by the dual processes model of decision making.ResultsParticipants associated prescribing antidepressants with severe depressive symptoms, and psychologist referrals were the preferred initial treatment provided patients were willing to engage. Four main themes emerged from the thematic analysis: 1) psychologist as default, 2) the risk is just too high, 3) medication as supplement, and 4) drivers of antidepressants. Contrary to previous findings, participants identified a strong heuristic association between depressive symptoms and psychologist referral. Antidepressant prescription was associated with severe symptoms, higher risk, and a cluster of cues that lead them away from psychologist referral.ConclusionsParticipants demonstrated an oversensitivity to depressive symptom severity, associating psychologist referrals with subclinical depressive symptoms, and starting antidepressants for suicidal ideation and significant functional decline.HighlightsPsychologist referrals were the default preference for GPs when treating depressive symptoms, whereas antidepressants were reserved for patients with elevated risk from severe depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation.Participants' conceptualization of depression severity was oversensitive compared with treatment guidelines.Contrary to treatment guidelines, GPs in this study demonstrated their discomfort for referring patients with suicidal ideation to a psychologist without initiating antidepressants.GPs should consider whether patients within their mild to moderate assessment range can be treated exclusively with more cost-effective means than psychological therapy such as e-mental health programs, guided self-help, and lifestyle changes alone.

Project description:BackgroundModern palliative care focuses on enabling patients to spend their remaining time at home, and dying comfortably at home, for those patients who want it. Compared to many European countries, few die at home in Norway. General practitioners' (GPs') involvement in palliative care may increase patients' time at home and achievements of home death. Norwegian GPs are perceived as missing in this work. The aim of this study is to explore GPs' experiences in palliative care regarding their involvement in this work, how they define their role, and what they think they realistically can contribute towards palliative patients.MethodsWe performed focus group interviews with GPs, following a semi-structured interview guide. We included four focus groups with a total of 25 GPs. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. We performed qualitative analysis on these interviews, inspired by interpretative phenomenological analysis.ResultsStrengths of the GP in the provision of palliative care consisted of characteristics of general practice and skills they relied on, such as general medical knowledge, being coordinator of care, and having a personal and longitudinal knowledge of the patient and a family perspective. They generally had positive attitudes but differing views about their formal role, which was described along three positions towards palliative care: the highly involved, the weakly involved, and the uninvolved GP.ConclusionGPs have evident strengths that could be important in the provision of palliative care. They rely on general medical knowledge and need specialist support. They had no consensus about their role in palliative care. Multiple factors interact in complex ways to determine how the GPs perceive their role and how involved they are in palliative care. GPs may possess skills and knowledge complementary to the specialized skills of palliative care team physicians. Specialized teams with extensive outreach activities should be aware of the potential they have for both enabling and deskilling GPs.

Project description:Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing for prostate cancer is controversial. There are unresolved tensions and disagreements amongst experts, and clinical guidelines conflict. This both reflects and generates significant uncertainty about the appropriateness of screening. Little is known about general practitioners' (GPs') perspectives and experiences in relation to PSA testing of asymptomatic men. In this paper we asked the following questions: (1) What are the primary sources of uncertainty as described by GPs in the context of PSA testing? (2) How do GPs experience and respond to different sources of uncertainty?This was a qualitative study that explored general practitioners' current approaches to, and reasoning about, PSA testing of asymptomatic men. We draw on accounts generated from interviews with 69 general practitioners located in Australia (n = 40) and the United Kingdom (n = 29). The interviews were conducted in 2013-2014. Data were analysed using grounded theory methods. Uncertainty in PSA testing was identified as a core issue.Australian GPs reported experiencing substantially more uncertainty than UK GPs. This seemed partly explainable by notable differences in conditions of practice between the two countries. Using Han et al's taxonomy of uncertainty as an initial framework, we first outline the different sources of uncertainty GPs (mostly Australian) described encountering in relation to prostate cancer screening and what the uncertainty was about. We then suggest an extension to Han et al's taxonomy based on our analysis of data relating to the varied ways that GPs manage uncertainties in the context of PSA testing. We outline three broad strategies: (1) taking charge of uncertainty; (2) engaging others in managing uncertainty; and (3) transferring the responsibility for reducing or managing some uncertainties to other parties.Our analysis suggests some GPs experienced uncertainties associated with ambiguous guidance and the complexities of their situation as professionals with responsibilities to patients as considerably burdensome. This raises important questions about responsibility for uncertainty. In Australia in particular they feel insufficiently supported by the health care system to practice in ways that are recognisably consistent with 'evidence based' professional standards and appropriate for patients. More work is needed to clarify under what circumstances and how uncertainty should be communicated. Closer attention to different types and aspects of the uncertainty construct could be useful.

Project description:BackgroundWith more patients in need of oncological care, there is a growing interest to transfer survivorship care from specialist to general practitioner (GP). The ongoing I CARE study was initiated in 2015 in the Netherlands to compare (usual) surgeon- to GP-led survivorship care, with or without access to a supporting eHealth application (Oncokompas).MethodsSemi-structured interviews were held at two separate points in time (i.e. after 1- and 5-years of care) to explore GPs' experiences with delivering this survivorship care intervention, and study its implementation into daily practice. Purposive sampling was used to recruit 17 GPs. Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used as a conceptual framework.ResultsOverall, delivering survivorship care was not deemed difficult and dealing with cancer repercussions was already considered part of a GPs' work. Though GPs readily identified advantages for patients, caregivers and society, differences were seen in GPs' commitment to the intervention and whether it felt right for them to be involved. Patients' initiative with respect to planning, absence of symptoms and regular check-ups due to other chronic care were considered to facilitate the delivery of care. Prominent barriers included GPs' lack of experience and routine, but also lack of clarity regarding roles and responsibilities for organising care. Need for a monitoring system was often mentioned to reduce the risk of non-compliance. GPs were reticent about a possible future transfer of survivorship care towards primary care due to increases in workload and financial constraints. GPs were not aware of their patients' use of eHealth.ConclusionsGPs' opinions and beliefs about a possible future role in colon cancer survivorship care vary. Though GPs recognize potential benefit, there is no consensus about transferring survivorship care to primary care on a permanent basis. Barriers and facilitators to implementation highlight the importance of both personal and system level factors. Conditions are put forth relating to time, reorganisation of infrastructure, extra personnel and financial compensation.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register; NTR4860 . Registered on the 2nd of October 2014.

Dataset Information

A postgraduate curriculum for integrated care: a qualitative exploration of trainee paediatricians and general practitioners' experiences.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A postgraduate curriculum for integrated care: a qualitative exploration of trainee paediatricians and general practitioners' experiences.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets