Dataset Information

Healthcare practitioners' experiences of an intervention to detect and treat patients with liver disease (the LOCATE intervention): a qualitative process evaluation.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:The local care and treatment of liver disease (LOCATE) intervention embedded specialist liver nurses in general practitioner (GP) practices to improve the identification of progressive liver disease, enabling earlier intervention. This current process evaluation examines GP practice staffs' perceptions of the LOCATE intervention, in order to understand any potential barriers to successful implementation in clinical practice. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING:A qualitative process evaluation nested within the LOCATE feasibility trial, using semistructured interviews with practice staff from five GP surgeries in the UK. PARTICIPANTS:A purposive sample of 29 interviews with practice staff (GPs, nurses, practice managers). DATA COLLECTION:Interview transcripts were subjected to thematic analysis. FINDINGS:The intervention was found to be acceptable to practice staff and a number of barriers and facilitators to the success of the intervention were identified. However, interviews suggested that the intervention did not provide sufficient guidance for clinicians to be able to help patients make the behavioural changes needed to reduce risk factors associated with liver disease. The intervention did appear to improve clinician awareness and knowledge about liver disease, enabling GPs to feel more confident interpreting and managing liver function blood tests in order to identify the early signs of liver disease. CONCLUSIONS:This study enabled identification of potential barriers to implementation of specialist nurses in primary care to identify progressive liver disease and enable earlier intervention. The next steps are to improve the intervention to make it more feasible to implement in practice and more likely to help patients to make the behavioural changes required to prevent a major liver event. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:13/SC/0012; Post-results. ETHICS:This study was reviewed and approved by NRES Committee South Central-Hampshire A, Bristol Research Ethics Committee Centre, level 3, block B, Whitefriars, Lewins Mead Bristol BS1 2NT.

SUBMITTER: Reinson T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6538094 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Healthcare practitioners' experiences of an intervention to detect and treat patients with liver disease (the LOCATE intervention): a qualitative process evaluation.

Reinson Tina T Bradbury Katherine K Moore Michael M Sheron Nick N

BMJ open 20190522 5

<h4>Objectives</h4>The local care and treatment of liver disease (LOCATE) intervention embedded specialist liver nurses in general practitioner (GP) practices to improve the identification of progressive liver disease, enabling earlier intervention. This current process evaluation examines GP practice staffs' perceptions of the LOCATE intervention, in order to understand any potential barriers to successful implementation in clinical practice.<h4>Study design and setting</h4>A qualitative proces ...[more]

PMID: 31123000

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare practitioners (HCPs) play a crucial role in recognising, responding to, and supporting female patients experiencing intimate partner abuse (IPA). However, research consistently identifies barriers they perceive prevent them from doing this work effectively. These barriers can be system-based (e.g. lack of time or training) or personal/individual. This review of qualitative evidence aims to synthesise the personal barriers that impact HCPs' responses to IPA.MethodsFive databases were searched in March 2020. Studies needed to utilise qualitative methods for both data collection and analysis and be published between 2010 and 2020 in order to qualify for inclusion; however, we considered any type of healthcare setting in any country. Article screening, data extraction and methodological appraisal using a modified version of the Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklist for qualitative studies were undertaken by at least two independent reviewers. Data analysis drew on Thomas and Harden's thematic synthesis approach.ResultsTwenty-nine studies conducted in 20 countries informed the final review. A variety of HCPs and settings were represented. Three themes were developed that describe the personal barriers experienced by HCPs: I can't interfere (which describes the belief that IPA is a "private matter" and HCPs' fears of causing harm by intervening); I don't have control (highlighting HCPs' frustration when women do not follow their advice); and I won't take responsibility (which illuminates beliefs that addressing IPA should be someone else's job).ConclusionThis review highlights the need for training to address personal issues in addition to structural or organisational barriers. Education and training for HCPs needs to: encourage reflection on their own values to reinforce their commitment to addressing IPA; teach HCPs to relinquish the need to control outcomes so that they can adopt an advocacy approach; and support HCPs' trust in the critical role they can play in responding. Future research should explore effective ways to do this within the context of complex healthcare organisations.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Collaborative care treatment is widely recognized as an effective approach to improve the quality of mental healthcare through enhanced and structured collaboration between general practice and specialized psychiatry. However, studies indicate that the complexity of collaborative care treatment interventions challenge the implementation in real-life general practice settings. Four Danish Collaborative Care Models were launched in 2014 for patients with mild/moderate anxiety and depression. These involved collaboration between general practitioners, care managers and consultant psychiatrists. Taking a multi-practice bottom-up approach, this paper aims to explore the perceived barriers and enablers related to collaborative care for patients with mental health problems and to investigate the actual experiences with a Danish collaborative care model in a single-case study in order to identify enablers and barriers for successful implementation. METHODS:Combining interviews and observations of usual treatment practices, we conducted a multi-practice study among general practitioners who were not involved in the Danish collaborative care models to explore their perspectives on existing mental health treatment and to investigate (from a bottom-up approach) their perceptions of and need for collaborative care in mental health treatment. Additionally, by combining observations and qualitative interviews, we followed the implementation of a Danish collaborative care model in a single-case study to convey identified barriers and enablers of the collaborative care model. RESULTS:Experienced and perceived enablers of the Danish collaborative care model mainly consisted of a need for new treatment options to deal with mild/moderate anxiety and depression. The model was considered to meet the need for a free fast track to high-quality treatment. Experienced barriers included: poor adaptation of the model to the working conditions and needs in daily general practice, time consumption, unsustainable logistical set-up and unclear care manager role. General practitioners in the multi-practice study considered access to treatment and not collaboration with specialised psychiatry to be essential for this group of patients. CONCLUSIONS:The study calls for increased attention to implementation processes and better adaptation of collaborative care models to the clinical reality of general practice. Future interventions should address the treatment needs of specific patient populations and should involve relevant stakeholders in the design and implementation processes.

Project description:ObjectiveInformed consent is central to ethical medical practice, but little is known about how the process takes place in clinical practice. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a common revascularisation procedure. Studies report that patients overestimate benefits, forget the risks and are unaware of alternative treatments. The aim of this study was to describe PCI patients' and cardiologists' experiences of the informed consent process in acute care settings.Design/setting/participantsA qualitative study with a maximum variation sample of elective and acute PCI patients and cardiologists taking their consent, recruited from a district general hospital and tertiary centre. In-depth interviews were conducted, and consent discussions were audio recorded. Data collection, coding and theorising occurred simultaneously.FindingsForty-one (26 male) patients scheduled for elective (20) or urgent (21) PCI and 19 cardiologists (5 female) participated. Despite diversity in patients' experiences of informed consent, elective and acute patients experienced a common four-stage process of consent. Most patients made the decision to have treatment at PCI referral and took a passive role in the discussions we recorded. They recognised cardiologists as experts, trusted the medical system to 'fix' their health problem and were unaware of their role in the informed consent process. Informed consent discussions functioned as a formal 'event',enabling cardiologists to check patients' understanding and enabling patients to access treatment.ConclusionsThe configuration of services and patients' perceptions of their role in informed consent underpin a mismatch between legal and ethical principles of informed consent and current practice. The variation in patients' experiences of the current place of informed consent in service delivery represents a missed opportunity for cardiologists to work in decision-making partnerships with patients. In light of recent changes in the law, a new approach to informed consent is required.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a large and unexplained variation in referral rates to specialists by general practitioners, which calls for investigations regarding general practitioners' perceptions and expectations during the referral process. Our objective was to describe the decision-making process underlying referral of patients to specialists by general practitioners working in a university outpatient primary care center.MethodsTwo focus groups were conducted among general practitioners (10 residents and 8 chief residents) working in the Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté) of the University of Lausanne, in Switzerland. Focus group data were analyzed with thematic content analysis. A feedback group of general practitioners validated the results.ResultsParticipating general practitioners distinguished two kinds of situations regarding referral: a) "clear-cut situations", in which the decision to refer or not seems obvious and b) "complex cases", in which they hesitate to refer or not. Regarding the "complex cases", they reported various types of concerns: a) about the treatment, b) about the patient and the doctor-patient relationship and c) about themselves. General practitioners evoked numerous reasons for referring, including non-medical factors such as influencing patients' emotions, earning specialists' esteem or sharing responsibility. They also explained that they seek validation by colleagues and postpone referral so as to relieve some of the decision-related distress.ConclusionsGeneral practitioners' referral of patients to specialists cannot be explained in biomedical terms only. It seems necessary to take into account the fact that referral is a sensitive topic for general practitioners, involving emotionally charged interactions and relationships with patients, colleagues, specialists and supervisors. The decision to refer or not is influenced by multiple contextual, personal and clinical factors that dynamically interact and shape the decision-making process.

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:BackgroundGlobally, renal healthcare practitioners provide intensive and protracted support to a highly complex multi-morbid patient population however knowledge about the impact of COVID-19 on these practitioners is extremely limited.ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore the experiences of COVID-19 with renal healthcare practitioners during the first global lockdown between June 2020 and September 2020.MethodsA multi-methods approach was carried out including a quantitative survey and qualitative interviews. This was a multinational study of renal healthcare practitioners from 29 countries. Quantitative: A self-designed survey on COVID-19 experiences and standardised questionnaires (General Health Questionnaire-12; Maslach Burnout Inventory). Descriptive statistics were generated for numerical data. Qualitative: Online semi-structured interviews were conducted. Data was subjected to thematic analysis. Renal healthcare practitioners (n = 251) completed an online survey. Thirteen renal healthcare practitioners took part in semi-structured interviews (12 nurses and 1 dietician).ResultsThe majority of participants surveyed were female (86.9 %; n = 218), nurses (86.9 %; n = 218) with an average 21.5 (SD = 11.1) years' experience since professional qualification, and 16.3 years (SD = 9.3) working in renal healthcare. Survey responses indicated a level of preparedness, training and satisfactory personal protective equipment during the pandemic however approximately 40.3 % experienced fear about attending work, and 49.8 % experienced mental health distress. The highest prevalence of burnout was emotional exhaustion (35.9 %). Three themes emerged from the qualitative analysis highlighting the holistic complexities in managing renal healthcare, a neglected specialist workforce, and the need for appropriate support at work during a pandemic.ConclusionsResults have highlighted the psychological impact, in terms of emotional exhaustion and mental health distress in our sample of renal healthcare practitioners. As the pandemic has continued, it is important to consider the long-term impact on an already stretched workforce including the risk of developing mental health disorders. Future research and interventions are required to understand and improve the provision of psychological support for specialist medical and nursing personnel.

Project description:BackgroundWeight stigma is the social devaluation and denigration of individuals because of their excess body weight, resulting in poorer physical and mental health and healthcare avoidance. Attribution Theory and Goffman's theory of spoiled identity provided a general overarching framework for understanding weight stigma experiences.ObjectiveOur purpose was to explore weight stigma experiences from a broad range of perspectives emphasizing identities typically excluded in the weight stigma literature.DesignWe conducted a qualitative descriptive study with data drawn from 73 substantive narrative comments from participants who responded to a larger survey.ResultsAnalysis developed five themes: Working on weight, Not being overweight, Lack of help and empathy, Exposure and embarrassment and Positive experiences. Individuals who would be clinically assessed as overweight, especially men, often did not identify with having a weight problem and found the framing of personal responsibility for weight empowering. Participants with larger body sizes more often attributed embarrassment and shame about weight to treatment in the clinical setting. Older participants were more likely to have positive experiences.ConclusionsThe findings suggest ongoing tension between the framing of weight as a personal responsibility as opposed to a multifactorial condition with many uncontrollable aspects. Gender, age and body size shaped respondent perspectives, with some young male respondents finding empowerment through perceived personal control of weight. The healthcare system perpetuates weight stigma through lack of adequate equipment and excessively weight-centric medical counselling. Recommending a healthy lifestyle to patients without support or personalized medical assessment may perpetuate weight stigma and associated detrimental health outcomes.Patient or public contributionPatients with obesity and overweight were integral to this study, providing comments for our qualitative analyses.

Dataset Information

Healthcare practitioners' experiences of an intervention to detect and treat patients with liver disease (the LOCATE intervention): a qualitative process evaluation.

Publications

Healthcare practitioners' experiences of an intervention to detect and treat patients with liver disease (the LOCATE intervention): a qualitative process evaluation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets