Dataset Information

Caregiver Needs Assessment in Primary Care: Views of Clinicians, Staff, Patients, and Caregivers.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To understand current practices, challenges, and opportunities for a systematic assessment of family caregivers' needs and risks in primary care.

Design

Qualitative study consisting of in-depth semi-structured interviews.

Setting

Four primary care practices located in urban and rural settings.

Participants

Primary care clinicians, staff, and administrators (N = 30), as well as older adult patients and family caregivers (N = 40), recruited using purposive and maximum variation sampling.

Measurements

Current experiences, challenges, and opportunities for integrating standardized caregiver assessment into primary care delivery. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed; transcripts were analyzed using the constant comparative method of data analysis.

Results

Participating clinicians had been in practice for an average of 12.8 years (range = 1-36 y). Patients had a mean age of 84.0 years (standard deviation [SD] = 9.7); caregivers had a mean age of 67.0 years (SD = 9.3). There was wide variability in current practices for identifying caregivers' needs and risks, encompassing direct and indirect approaches, when such issues are considered. Participants posited that integrating standardized caregiver assessment into primary care delivery could help improve patient care, enhance clinician-caregiver communication, and validate caregivers' efforts. Barriers to assessment included insufficient time and reimbursement, liability concerns, lack of awareness of community resources, and concerns about patient autonomy. To facilitate future uptake of caregiver assessment, participants recommended brief self-administered assessment tools and post-screen discussions with practice staff.

Conclusion

Identification of caregivers' needs and risks in primary care is highly variable. Integration of standardized caregiver assessment into practice requires coordinated changes to policy, revision of practice workflows, and an interdisciplinary approach to the development of appropriate assessment tools. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:1262-1270, 2020.

SUBMITTER: Riffin C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7325837 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Burnout among primary care physicians, advanced practice clinicians (nurse practitioners and physician assistants [APCs]), and staff is common and associated with negative consequences for patient care, but the association of burnout with characteristics of primary care practices is unknown. OBJECTIVE:To examine the association between physician-, APC- and staff-reported burnout and specific structural, organizational, and contextual characteristics of smaller primary care practices. DESIGN:Cross-sectional analysis of survey data collected from 9/22/2015-6/19/2017. SETTING:Sample of smaller primary care practices in the USA participating in a national initiative focused on improving the delivery of cardiovascular preventive services. PARTICIPANTS:10,284 physicians, APCs and staff from 1380 primary care practices. MAIN MEASURE:Burnout was assessed with a validated single-item measure. KEY RESULTS:Burnout was reported by 20.4% of respondents overall. In a multivariable analysis, burnout was slightly more common among physicians and APCs (physician vs. non-clinical staff, adjusted odds ratio [aOR]?=?1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.49, APC vs. non-clinical staff, aOR?=?1.34, 95% CI, 1.10-1.62). Other multivariable correlates of burnout included non-solo practice (2-5 physician/APCs vs. solo practice, aOR?=?1.71; 95% CI, 1.35-2.16), health system affiliation (vs. physician/APC-owned practice, aOR?=?1.42; 95%CI, 1.16-1.73), and Federally Qualified Health Center status (vs. physician/APC-owned practice, aOR?=?1.36; 95%CI, 1.03-1.78). Neither the proportion of patients on Medicare or Medicaid, nor practice-level patient volume (patient visits per physician/APC per day) were significantly associated with burnout. In analyses stratified by professional category, practice size was not associated with burnout for APCs, and participation in an accountable care organization was associated with burnout for clinical and non-clinical staff. CONCLUSIONS:Burnout is prevalent among physicians, APCs, and staff in smaller primary care practices. Members of solo practices less commonly report burnout, while members of health system-owned practices and Federally Qualified Health Centers more commonly report burnout, suggesting that practice level autonomy may be a critical determinant of burnout.

Project description:IntroductionPatients with complex care needs (PCCNs) often suffer from combinations of multiple chronic conditions, mental health problems, drug interactions and social vulnerability, which can lead to healthcare services overuse, underuse or misuse. Typically, PCCNs face interactional issues and unmet decisional needs regarding possible options in a cascade of interrelated decisions involving different stakeholders (themselves, their families, their caregivers, their healthcare practitioners). Gaps in knowledge, values clarification and social support in situations where options need to be deliberated hamper effective decision support interventions. This review aims to (1) assess decisional needs of PCCNs from the perspective of stakeholders, (2) build a taxonomy of these decisional needs and (3) prioritise decisional needs with knowledge users (clinicians, patients and managers).Methods and analysisThis review will be based on the interprofessional shared decision making (IP-SDM) model and the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Applying a participatory research approach, we will identify potentially relevant studies through a comprehensive literature search; select relevant ones using eligibility criteria inspired from our previous scoping review on PCCNs; appraise quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool; conduct a three-step synthesis (sequential exploratory mixed methods design) to build taxonomy of key decisional needs; and integrate these results with those of a parallel PCCNs' qualitative decisional need assessment (semistructured interviews and focus group with stakeholders).Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review, together with the qualitative study (approved by the Centre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et Service Sociaux du Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean ethical committee), will produce a working taxonomy of key decisional needs (ontological contribution), to inform the subsequent user-centred design of a support tool for addressing PCCNs' decisional needs (practical contribution). We will adapt the IP-SDM model, normally dealing with a single decision, for PCCNs who experience cascade of decisions involving different stakeholders (theoretical contribution). Knowledge users will facilitate dissemination of the results in the Canadian primary care network.Prospero registration numberCRD42015020558.

Project description:BackgroundMichigan's approach to Medicaid expansion, the Healthy Michigan Plan (HMP), emphasizes primary care, prevention, and incentives for patients and primary care practitioners (PCPs).ObjectiveAssess PCPs' perspectives about the impact of HMP on their patients and practices.DesignIn 2014-2015, we conducted semi-structured interviews then a statewide survey of PCPs.SettingInterviewees came from varied types of practices in five Michigan regions selected for racial/ethnic diversity and a mix of rural and urban settings. Surveys were sent via mail.ParticipantsInterviewees were physician (n = 16) and non-physician practitioners (n = 3). All Michigan PCPs caring for ≥ 12 HMP enrollees were surveyed (response rate 55.5%, N = 2104).MeasurementsPCPs' experiences with HMP patients and recent changes in their practices.ResultsInterviews include examples of the impact of Medicaid expansion on patients and practices. A majority of surveyed PCPs reported recent increases in new patients (52.3%) and patients who had not seen a PCP in many years (56.2%). For previously uninsured patients, PCPs reported positive impact on control of chronic conditions (74.4%), early detection of serious illness (71.1%), medication adherence (69.1%), health behaviors (56.5%), emotional well-being (57.0%), and the ability to work, attend school, or live independently (41.5%). HMP patients reportedly still had more difficulty than privately insured patients accessing some services. Most PCPs reported that their practices had, in the past year, hired clinicians (53.2%) and/or staff (57.5%); 15.4% had colocated mental health care. Few (15.8%) reported established patients' access to urgent appointments worsened.LimitationsPCP reports of patient experiences may not be accurate. Results reflect the experiences of PCPs with ≥ 12 Medicaid patients. Differences between respondents and non-respondents present the possibility for response bias.ConclusionsPCPs reported improved patient access to care, medication adherence, chronic condition management, and detection of serious illness. Established patients' access did not diminish, perhaps due to reported practice changes.

Project description:BackgroundShared medical appointments (SMAs) or group consultations have been promoted in primary care to improve workload pressures, resource-use efficiency and patient self-management of long-term conditions (LTCs). However, few studies have explored stakeholders' perspectives of this novel care delivery model in the English NHS context, particularly patients' views and experiences of SMAs.MethodSemi-structured interviews were used to explore the perspectives of stakeholders (21 patients, 17 primary care staff, 2 commissioners and 2 SMA training providers) with and without SMA experience from a range of geographical and socio-economic backgrounds in the North East and North Cumbrian region of England. Thematic analysis was conducted to examine perceptions around impact on patient care and outcomes and barriers and facilitators to implementation.ResultsThree main themes were identified: 'Value of sharing', 'Appropriateness of group setting', 'Implementation processes'. Patients experiences and perceptions of SMAs were largely positive yet several reported reservations about sharing personal information, particularly in close-knit communities where the risk of breaching confidentiality was perceived to be greater. SMAs were considered by patients and staff to be inappropriate for certain personal conditions or for some patient groups. Staff reported difficulties engaging sufficient numbers of patients to make them viable and having the resources to plan and set them up in practice. Whilst patients and staff anticipated that SMAs could deliver high quality care more efficiently than 1:1 appointments, none of the practices had evaluated the impact SMAs had on patient health outcomes or staff time.ConclusionStakeholder experiences of SMA use in English primary care are largely similar to those reported in other countries. However, several important cultural barriers were identified in this setting. Further work is needed to better understand how patient and staff perceptions, experiences and engagement with SMAs change with regular use over time. Concerns regarding staff capacity, additional resource requirements and numbers of eligible patients per practice suggest SMAs may only be feasible in some smaller practices if facilitated by primary care networks. Further mixed-method evaluations of SMAs are needed to inform the evidence base regarding the effectiveness, efficiency and feasibility of SMAs long-term and subsequently their wider roll-out in English primary care.

Project description:BackgroundPersons living with dementia have various health and social care needs and expectations, some which are not fully met by health providers, including primary care clinicians. The Quebec Alzheimer plan, implemented in 2014, aimed to cover these needs, but there is no research on the effect this plan had on the needs and expectations of persons living with dementia. The objective of this study is to identify persons living with dementia and caregivers' met and unmet needs and to describe their experience.MethodsThis is a sequential mixed methods explanatory design: Phase 1: cross-sectional study to describe the met and unmet health and social care needs of community-dwelling persons living with dementia using Camberwell Assessment of Need of the Elderly and Carers' Assessment for Dementia tools. Phase 2: qualitative descriptive study to explore and understand the experiences of persons living with dementia and caregivers with the use of social and healthcare services, using semi-structured interviews. Data from phase 1 was analyzed with descriptive statistics, and from phase 2, with inductive thematic analysis. Results from phases 1 and 2 were compared, contrasted and interpreted together.ResultsThe mean total number of needs reported by the patients was 5.03 (4.48 and 0.55 met and unmet needs, respectively). Caregivers had 0.52 met needs (3.16 unmet needs). The main needs for both were memory, physical health, eyesight/hearing/communication, medication, looking after home, money/budgeting. Three categories were mentioned by the participants: Persons living with dementia and caregiver's attitude towards memory decline, their perception of community health services and of the family medicine practice.ConclusionsOur study confirms the findings of other studies on the most common unmet needs of the patients and caregivers that are met partially or not at all. In addition, the participants were satisfied with access to care, and medical services in primary practices, being confident in their family. Our results indicate persons living with dementia and their caregivers need a contact person, a clear explanation of their dementia diagnosis, a care plan, written information on available services, and support for the caregivers.