Dataset Information

Ethical challenges in primary care: a focus group study with general practitioners, nurses and informal caregivers.

ABSTRACT:

Background

General practitioners (GPs), nurses and informal caregivers are often jointly involved in healthcare situations in which ethical issues play an important role.

Objectives

To describe ethical problems from the perspective of these three groups and to investigate whether there is a common experience of ethical issues in primary care.

Methods

We conducted six focus groups with general practitioners, nurses and informal caregivers in Germany. We asked the participants to describe at least one experience of ethical problem in detail and documented the findings by an illustration software that visualized and structured the discussion. We used thematic analysis to identify ethical problems and to develop categories of ethical issues.

Results

Problems reported barely overlapped. GPs had to do mainly with uncertainty about the scope and limits of their responsibility for patients. Nurses were concerned about bureaucratic and other barriers to professional care and about dual loyalty if they had to consider the conflicting interests of patients and family members. They often felt powerless and unable to act according to their professional standards. Informal caregivers reported problems that resulted from role strain and being both a family member and a caregiver. GPs, nurses and informal caregivers sometimes perceived the other parties as a source of ethical problems.

Conclusions

All parties may benefit from ethics support services, a rarity in German primary care so far. Furthermore, nurses' self-confidence towards GPs, demanding patients and family members has to be strengthened. Informal caregivers, the most vulnerable group, need more attendance and tailored support.

SUBMITTER: Gagyor I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6425460 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Ethical challenges in primary care: a focus group study with general practitioners, nurses and informal caregivers.

Gágyor Ildikó I Heßling Arndt A Heim Susanne S Frewer Andreas A Nauck Friedemann F Himmel Wolfgang W

Family practice 20190301 2

<h4>Background</h4>General practitioners (GPs), nurses and informal caregivers are often jointly involved in healthcare situations in which ethical issues play an important role.<h4>Objectives</h4>To describe ethical problems from the perspective of these three groups and to investigate whether there is a common experience of ethical issues in primary care.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted six focus groups with general practitioners, nurses and informal caregivers in Germany. We asked the participant ...[more]

PMID: 29931146

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundGeneralists such as general practitioners and district nurses have been the main actors in community palliative care in Norway. Specialised oncology nurses with postgraduate palliative training are increasingly becoming involved. There is little research on their contribution. This study explores how general practitioners (GPs) and oncology nurses (ONs) experience their collaboration in primary palliative care.MethodsA qualitative focus group and interview study in rural Northern Norway, involving 52 health professionals. Five uni-professional focus group discussions were followed by five interprofessional discussions and six individual interviews. Transcripts were analysed thematically.ResultsThe ideal cooperation between GPs and ONs was as a "meeting of experts" with complementary competencies. GPs drew on their generalist backgrounds, including their often long-term relationship with and knowledge of the patient. The ONs contributed longitudinal clinical observations and used their specialised knowledge to make treatment suggestions. While ONs were often experienced and many had developed a form of pattern recognition, they needed GPs' competencies for complex clinical judgements. However, ONs sometimes lacked timely advice from GPs, and could feel left alone with sick patients. To avoid this, some ONs bypassed GPs and contacted palliative specialists directly. While traditional professional hierarchies were not a barrier, we found that organization, funding and remuneration were significant barriers to cooperation. GPs often did not have time to meet with ONs to discuss shared patients. We also found that ONs and GPs had different strategies for learning. While ONs belonged to a networking nursing collective aiming for continuous quality improvement, GPs learned mostly from their individual experience of caring for patients.ConclusionsThe complementary competences and autonomous roles of a specialised nurse and a general practitioner represented a good match for primary palliative care. When planning high-quality teamwork in primary care, organizational barriers to cooperation and different cultures for learning need consideration.

Project description:BackgroundAggression in psychiatric hospitals has been of interest to researchers. Information on how different stakeholders perceive patient aggression remains equivocal. Even less is known about possible similarities or differences in stakeholders' perceptions of how aggressive behaviour is understood, managed and prevented in psychiatric hospitals. We aimed to explore multiple viewpoints on patient aggression, its possible causes and outcomes, and development ideas for prevention and management.MethodsA qualitative design was adopted. The data were collected using focus group interviews. A thematic approach was used for interpretation. The data were collected on 15 adult wards in two inpatient psychiatric settings in Hong Kong. Participants were nurses working on the psychiatric inpatient wards, patients admitted to the wards, and informal caregivers visiting inpatient wards (N = 94).ResultsCommonalities between all groups were found on how patient aggression is perceived, and why it occurs. Patients and especially nurses described how patient aggression occurred with no clear reason or forewarning and how patients were physically controlled or restricted after aggressive events. Only nurses and patients expressed experiencing physical burden, while all groups considered psychological burden to be a consequence of aggression. All groups proposed that helpful attitudes among nurses, better communication, structural changes, and better self-management skills would prevent patient aggression. Risk assessment was proposed only by nurses and patients, while safety measures were proposed by nurses and informal caregivers only. The use of restrictive interventions to manage aggressive events was proposed by all groups.ConclusionsDespite the complex diversity of perspectives in different stakeholder groups regarding patient aggression, the findings highlighted that it is possible to achieve some mutual understanding of aggression in psychiatric hospitals and identify areas to be developed. Staffs' attitudes and skills for engagement and communication with patients and informal caregivers should be improved. There is also still room to develop the therapeutic environment and culture toward meaningful activities during the treatment period.

Project description:Little is known about how health care professionals deal with ethical challenges in mental health care, especially when not making use of a formal ethics support service. Understanding this is important in order to be able to support the professionals, to improve the quality of care, and to know in which way future ethics support services might be helpful.Within a project on ethics, coercion and psychiatry, we executed a focus group interview study at seven departments with 65 health care professionals and managers. We performed a systematic and open qualitative analysis focusing on the question: 'How do health care professionals deal with ethical challenges?' We deliberately did not present a fixed definition or theory of ethical challenge.We categorized relevant topics into three subthemes: 1) Identification and presence of ethical challenges; 2) What do the participants actually do when dealing with an ethical challenge?; and 3) The significance of facing ethical challenges. Results varied from dealing with ethical challenges every day and appreciating it as a positive part of working in mental health care, to experiencing ethical challenges as paralyzing burdens that cause a lot of stress and hinder constructive team cooperation. Some participants reported that they do not have the time and that they lack a specific methodology. Quite often, informal and retrospective ad-hoc meetings in small teams were organized. Participants struggled with what makes a challenge an ethical challenge and whether it differs from a professional challenge. When dealing with ethical challenges, a number of participants experienced difficulties handling disagreement in a constructive way. Furthermore, some participants plead for more attention for underlying intentions and justifications of treatment decisions.The interviewed health care professionals dealt with ethical challenges in many different ways, often in an informal, implicit and reactive manner. This study revealed nine different categories of what health care professionals implicitly or explicitly conceive as 'ethical challenges'. Future research should focus on how ethics support services, such as ethics reflection groups or moral case deliberation, can be of help with respect to dealing with ethical challenges and value disagreements in a constructive way.

Project description:BackgroundWith the implementation of health care reforms in China, primary care is on a journey to provide care for most patients with type 2 diabetes. While Chinese general practitioners (GPs) have described challenges in communication with diabetes patients in their daily practice, little is known about patients' experiences in communicating with their GPs.MethodsFive focus groups (of 4-5 participants each) were used to explore views from patients with type 2 diabetes. Purposive sampling was used to recruit a spread of participants from general practices in Guangzhou city, China. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed using the Framework Method.ResultsTen males and 12 female patients from five general practices participated in focus group discussions, with a mean age of 57.3 years and 7.3 years of diabetes duration. Five main themes emerged: patients' understanding about diabetes, diabetes medication, communication with GPs, physician-patient relationships, and healthcare systems and context. Patients generally searched for information on the internet, but they weren't always sure if it was trustworthy. Several communication needs were described by diabetes patients, such as explanation of blood glucose monitoring, medication information support, communication in the risk of diabetes complications and cardiovascular disease, and language barriers. Communication was frequently brief and not tailored to their concerns, and some described being scolded or panicked by GPs. Participants acknowledged the pressures within the health system, such as short consultation times, an incoherent GP-hospital interface and high demand.ConclusionsKey issues from the patients' perspective for the development of primary care based management of diabetes in China were identified. People with type 2 diabetes require more access to trustworthy diabetes information and wish for better channels of communication with their GPs. Strategies may be required to improve GPs' communication skills with their patients that also consider the context of the wider health system environment in China.

Dataset Information

Ethical challenges in primary care: a focus group study with general practitioners, nurses and informal caregivers.

Background

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Ethical challenges in primary care: a focus group study with general practitioners, nurses and informal caregivers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets