Dataset Information

Primary care physicians' decision-making processes in the context of multimorbidity: protocol of a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative research.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Good patient outcomes correlate with the physicians' capacity for good clinical judgement. Multimorbidity is common and it increases uncertainty and complexity in the clinical encounter. However, healthcare systems and medical education are centred on individual diseases. In consequence, recognition of the patient as the centre of the decision-making process becomes even more difficult. Research in clinical reasoning and medical decision in a real-world context is needed. The aim of the present review is to identify and synthesise available qualitative evidence on primary care physicians' perspectives, views or experiences on decision-making with patients with multimorbidity.

Methods and analysis

This will be a systematic review of qualitative research where PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase and Web of Science will be searched, supplemented with manual searches of reference lists of included studies. Qualitative studies published in Portuguese, Spanish and English language will be included, with no date limit. Studies will be eligible when they evaluate family physicians' perspectives, opinions or perceptions on decision-making for patients with multimorbidity in primary care. The methodological quality of studies selected for retrieval will be assessed by two independent reviewers before inclusion in the review using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool. Thematic synthesis will be used to identify key categories and themes from the qualitative data. The Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research approach will be used to assess how much confidence to place in findings from the qualitative evidence synthesis.

Ethics and dissemination

This review will use published data. No ethical issues are foreseen. The findings will be disseminated to the medical community via journal publication and conference presentation(s).

Prospero registration number

ID 91978.

SUBMITTER: Silverio Rodrigues D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6500233 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Primary care physicians' decision-making processes in the context of multimorbidity: protocol of a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative research.

Silvério Rodrigues David D Sousa Paulo Faria PF Basílio Nuno N Antunes Ana A Antunes Maria da Luz MDL Santos Maria Isabel MI Heleno Bruno B

BMJ open 20190403 4

<h4>Introduction</h4>Good patient outcomes correlate with the physicians' capacity for good clinical judgement. Multimorbidity is common and it increases uncertainty and complexity in the clinical encounter. However, healthcare systems and medical education are centred on individual diseases. In consequence, recognition of the patient as the centre of the decision-making process becomes even more difficult. Research in clinical reasoning and medical decision in a real-world context is needed. Th ...[more]

PMID: 30948566

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:BackgroundHospital readmissions is an increasingly serious international problem, associated with higher risks of adverse events, especially in elderly patients. There can be many causes and influential factors leading to hospital readmissions, but they are often closely related, making hospital readmissions an overall complex area. In addition, a comprehensive coordination reform was introduced into the Norwegian healthcare system in 2012. The reform changed the premises for readmissions with economic incentives enhancing early transfer from secondary to primary care, making research on readmissions in the municipalities more urgent than ever. General practitioners (GPs) and nursing home physicians, have traditionally held a gatekeepers function in hospital readmissions from the municipal healthcare service, as they are the main decision-makers in questions of hospital readmissions. Still, the GPs' gatekeeper function is an under-investigated area in hospital readmission research. The aim of the study was to increase knowledge about factors that lead to hospital readmissions among elderly in municipal healthcare, with special attention to GPs' and nursing home physicians' decision making.MethodThe study was conducted as a comparative case study. Two municipalities affiliated with the same hospital, but with different readmission rates were recruited. Twenty GPs and nursing home physicians from each municipality were recruited and interviewed. Forty hours of observation were conducted during the huddles in one long-term and one short-term nursing home in each municipality.ResultsSeven themes describing how different factors influence physicians' decision-making in the hospital readmission process in two municipalities were identified. Poor communication, continuity and information flow account for hospital readmissions in both municipalities. Several factors, including nurse staffing and competence, patients and their families, time constraints and experience affected physicians' decision-making.ConclusionCommunication, continuity and information flow contributed to hospital readmissions in both municipalities. The cross-case analysis revealed slight differences between municipalities. More research focusing on GPs' and nursing home physicians' decision-making, nursing home nurses and home care nurses' experience of hospital readmissions and discharges is needed.

Project description:Little is known about how primary care physicians (PCPs) in routine outpatient practice use paid price information (i.e., the amount that insurers finally pay providers) in daily clinical practice.To describe the experiences of PCPs who have had paid price information on tests and procedures for at least 1 year.Cross-sectional study using semi-structured interviews and the constant comparative method of qualitative analysis.Forty-six PCPs within an accountable care organization.Via the ordering screen of their electronic health record, PCPs were presented with the median paid price for commonly ordered tests and procedures (e.g., blood tests, x-rays, CTs, MRIs).We asked PCPs for (a) their "gut reaction" to having paid price information, (b) the situations in which they used price information in clinical decision-making separate from or jointly with patients, (c) their thoughts on who bore the chief responsibility for discussing price information with patients, and (d) suggestions for improving physician-targeted price information interventions.Among "gut reactions" that ranged from positive to negative, all PCPs were more interested in having patient-specific price information than paid prices from the practice perspective. PCPs described that when patients' out-of-pocket spending concerns were revealed, price information helped them engage patients in conversations about how to alter treatment plans to make them more affordable. PCPs stated that having price information only slightly altered their test-ordering patterns and that they avoided mentioning prices when advising patients against unnecessary testing. Most PCPs asserted that physicians bear the chief responsibility for discussing prices with patients because of their clinical knowledge and relationships with patients. They wished for help from patients, practices, health plans, and society in order to support price transparency in healthcare.Physician-targeted price transparency efforts may provide PCPs with the information they need to respond to patients' concerns regarding out-of-pocket affordability rather than that needed to change test-ordering habits.

Project description:BackgroundGeneral practitioners (GPs) increasingly manage patients with multimorbidity but report challenges in doing so. Patients describe poor experiences with health care systems that treat each of their health conditions separately, resulting in fragmented, uncoordinated care. For GPs to provide the patient-centred, coordinated care patients need and want, research agendas and health system structures and policies will need to adapt to address this epidemiologic transition. This systematic review seeks to understand if and how multimorbidity impacts on the work of GPs, the strategies they employ to manage challenges, and what they believe still needs addressing to ensure quality patient care.MethodsSystematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies reporting GP experiences of managing patients with multimorbidity. The search included nine major databases, grey literature sources, Google and Google Scholar, a hand search of Journal of Comorbidity, and the reference lists of included studies.ResultsThirty-three studies from fourteen countries were included. Three major challenges were identified: practising without supportive evidence; working within a fragmented health care system whose policies and structures remain organised around single condition care and specialisation; and the clinical uncertainty associated with multimorbidity complexity and general practitioner perceptions of decisional risk. GPs revealed three approaches to mitigating these challenges: prioritising patient-centredness and relational continuity; relying on knowledge of patient preferences and unique circumstances to individualise care; and structuring the consultation to create a sense of time and minimise patient risk.ConclusionsGPs described an ongoing tension between applying single condition guidelines to patients with multimorbidity as security against uncertainty or penalty, and potentially causing patients harm. Above all, they chose to prioritise their long-term relationships for the numerous gains this brought such as mutual trust, deeper insight into a patient's unique circumstances, and useable knowledge of each individual's capacity for the work of illness and goals for life. GPs described a need for better multimorbidity management guidance. Perhaps more than this, they require policies and models of practice that provide remunerated time and space for nurturing trustful therapeutic partnerships.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of research evidence to underpin public health policy is strongly promoted. However, its implementation has not been straightforward. The objectives of this systematic review were to synthesise empirical evidence on the use of research evidence by public health decision makers in settings with universal health care systems.MethodsTo locate eligible studies, 13 bibliographic databases were screened, organisational websites were scanned, key informants were contacted and bibliographies of included studies were scrutinised. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Data were synthesised as a narrative review.Findings18 studies were included: 15 qualitative studies, and three surveys. Their methodological quality was mixed. They were set in a range of country and decision making settings. Study participants included 1063 public health decision makers, 72 researchers, and 174 with overlapping roles. Decision making processes varied widely between settings, and were viewed differently by key players. A range of research evidence was accessed. However, there was no reliable evidence on the extent of its use. Its impact was often indirect, competing with other influences. Barriers to the use of research evidence included: decision makers' perceptions of research evidence; the gulf between researchers and decision makers; the culture of decision making; competing influences on decision making; and practical constraints. Suggested (but largely untested) ways of overcoming these barriers included: research targeted at the needs of decision makers; research clearly highlighting key messages; and capacity building. There was little evidence on the role of research evidence in decision making to reduce inequalities.ConclusionsTo more effectively implement research informed public health policy, action is required by decision makers and researchers to address the barriers identified in this systematic review. There is an urgent need for evidence to support the use of research evidence to inform public health decision making to reduce inequalities.

Project description:Moral distress is common among critical care physicians and can impact negatively healthcare individuals and institutions. Better understanding inter-individual variability in moral distress is needed to inform future wellness interventions.ObjectivesTo explore when and how critical care physicians experience moral distress in the workplace and its consequences, how physicians' professional interactions with colleagues affected their perceived level of moral distress, and in which circumstances professional rewards were experienced and mitigated moral distress.DesignInterview-based qualitative study using inductive thematic analysis.Setting and participantsTwenty critical care physicians practicing in Canadian ICUs who expressed interest in participating in a semi-structured interview after completion of a national, cross-sectional survey of moral distress in ICU physicians.ResultsStudy participants described different ways to perceive and resolve morally challenging clinical situations, which were grouped into four clinical moral orientations: virtuous, resigned, deferring, and empathic. Moral orientations resulted from unique combinations of strength of personal moral beliefs and perceived power over moral clinical decision-making, which led to different rationales for moral decision-making. Study findings illustrate how sociocultural, legal, and clinical contexts influenced individual physicians' moral orientation and how moral orientation altered perceived moral distress and moral satisfaction. The degree of dissonance between individual moral orientations within care team determined, in part, the quantity of "negative judgments" and/or "social support" that physicians obtained from their colleagues. The levels of moral distress, moral satisfaction, social judgment, and social support ultimately affected the type and severity of the negative consequences experienced by ICU physicians.Conclusions and relevanceAn expanded understanding of moral orientations provides an additional tool to address the problem of moral distress in the critical care setting. Diversity in moral orientations may explain, in part, the variability in moral distress levels among clinicians and likely contributes to interpersonal conflicts in the ICU setting. Additional investigations on different moral orientations in various clinical environments are much needed to inform the design of effective systemic and institutional interventions that address healthcare professionals' moral distress and mitigate its negative consequences.

Dataset Information

Primary care physicians' decision-making processes in the context of multimorbidity: protocol of a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative research.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Prospero registration number

Publications

Primary care physicians' decision-making processes in the context of multimorbidity: protocol of a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative research.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets