Dataset Information

Communication between Dutch community nurses and general practitioners lacks structure: An explorative mixed methods study .

ABSTRACT:

Background

Community nurses and general practitioners evaluate their patient-related communication to be poor. However, their actual communication has hardly been investigated and specific strategies for improvement are unclear.

Objectives

To explore actual community nurse-general practitioner communication in primary care and gain insights into communication style, and conversation structure and their determinants.

Methods

A mixed-methods design was applied. Telephone conversations between community nurses and general practitioners in the Netherlands were recorded and transcribed verbatim. We measured structure and the duration of their conversations, and community nurses' self-confidence towards general practitioners and their trust in and familiarity with the conversation partner. A thematic analysis was applied to the transcripts of the conversations. Correlations between these determinants were calculated using Spearman's correlation coefficient.

Results

The 18 community nurses recorded 23 conversations with general practitioners. Qualitative analysis revealed that many conversations lacked structure and conciseness, i.e. the nurses started conversations without a clearly articulated question and did not provide adequate background information. The mean duration of their conversations with doctors was 8.8 min. Community nurses with higher self-confidence towards doctors communicated in a more structured way (p = 0.01) and general practitioners were more satisfied about the conversations (p = 0.01).

Conclusion

This exploratory study of actual community nurse-doctor telephone conversations in primary care identified communication structure and nurse self-confidence towards general practitioners as key targets for the improvement of interprofessional communication, which may increase the effectiveness of community nurse-general practitioner collaboration.

SUBMITTER: Nieuwboer MS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7470078 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn the Netherlands, physician-assisted death (PAD) is allowed under certain conditions. Patients who suffer from mental illnesses are not excluded from this practice. In 2018, general practitioners (GPs) performed 20 out of a total of 67 cases of EAS for psychiatric suffering.ObjectiveMore insight into GPs' experiences and views with regard to PAD in psychiatry.DesignThe data for this study were obtained through a survey amongst 500 randomly selected Dutch GPs and by in-depth interviews with 20 Dutch GPs.SettingA survey study and in-depth interviews.SubjectsDutch GPs.Results86 out of 101 GPs found it conceivable to perform EAS in case of somatic disease, and 51 out of 104 GPs found it conceivable in the case a patient suffered from a mental illness only. The main reason given for refusing an PAD request was that the criteria of due care were not met. Reasons for supporting psychiatric PAD related to responsibility, self-determination, compassion, fairness, and preventing suicide. Reasons for not supporting psychiatric PAD were related to the scope of medicine, a perceived lack of experience, uncertainties regarding the criteria of due care and life-expectancy.ConclusionGPs are less likely to perform PAD for suffering from a mental illness, compared to somatic suffering. Some GPs apply an extra criterion of 'life-expectancy' in case of PAD for suffering from a mental illness. Refusing PAD based on a long life expectancy keeps open the possibility of recovery, but may also just prolong the suffering and add to the unbearableness of it.KEY POINTSCurrently, there is no qualitative research on what the views are of general practitioners regarding the subject of physician-assisted death (PAD) for patients suffering from severe mental disorders.General practitioners are less likely to consider a request for physician-assisted death by a patient suffering from a psychiatric disorder, compared to somatic suffering. Reasons for supporting psychiatric PAD related to responsibility, self-determination, compassion, fairness, and preventing suicide.Reasons for not supporting psychiatric PAD were related to the scope of medicine, a perceived lack of experience, uncertainties regarding the criteria of due care and life-expectancy.Significance for the reader: Although allowed in the Netherlands, PAD in case of severe mental suffering remains a controversial topic. We need in-depth information about the actual practice of it to have an informed debate with regard to this subject.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Pressure continues to grow on emergency departments in the UK and throughout the world, with declining performance and adverse effects on patient outcome, safety and experience. One proposed solution is to locate general practitioners to work in or alongside the emergency department (GPED). Several GPED models have been introduced, however, evidence of effectiveness is weak. This study aims to evaluate the impact of GPED on patient care, the primary care and acute hospital team and the wider urgent care system. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The study will be divided into three work packages (WPs). WP-A; Mapping and Taxonomy: mapping, description and classification of current models of GPED in all emergency departments in England and interviews with key informants to examine the hypotheses that underpin GPED. WP-B; Quantitative Analysis of National Data: measurement of the effectiveness, costs and consequences of the GPED models identified in WP-A, compared with a no-GPED model, using retrospective analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics Data. WP-C; Case Studies: detailed case studies of different GPED models using a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods including: non-participant observation of clinical care, semistructured interviews with staff, patients and carers; workforce surveys with emergency department staff and analysis of available local routinely collected hospital data. Prospective case study sites will be identified by completing telephone interviews with sites awarded capital funding by the UK government to implement GPED initiatives. The study has a strong patient and public involvement group that has contributed to study design and materials, and which will be closely involved in data interpretation and dissemination. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study has been approved by the National Health Service East Midlands-Leicester South Research Ethics Committee: 17/EM/0312. The results of the study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conferences and a planned programme of knowledge mobilisation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ISRCTN51780222.

Project description:BackgroundIn China diabetes care is gradually shifting from secondary to primary care with great infrastructure investment and GP training. However, most GPs in China lack communication skills training, which is a huge obstacle in communication with their patients in primary care. In this study we seek to identify training priorities that is evidence-based, appropriate for the context of primary care in China, and that meet the real needs of both GPs and people with diabetes.MethodsA mixed method approach was used. A conceptual framework was designed based on the MRC framework, action research and adult learning theories. Through a systematic review of the literature and qualitative research with GPs and patients with diabetes, a list of communication skills training components was developed by the research team. A modified nominal group technique (NGT) with GPs was used to evaluate these contents. Purposive sampling was used to recruit a variation of participants (age, work area, practice years and education background) from general practices in Guangzhou city, China. Eight structured nominal groups were facilitated to elicit the views of group members, and participants rated the 9-point Likert scale of importance and feasibility of the training items independently, before and after focus groups. The ranking of each item was calculated, based on the mean Likert score ratings from all participants. Video recordings of four NGT group discussions were thematically analysed using the Framework Method to explore reasons for any differences in rating items.Results29 males and 29 female GPs from 28 general practices participated in NGT group discussions, with a mean age of 38.5 years and mean 12.3 years of practice experience. Based on the mean scores of importance and feasibility rating scores, the top 3 ranked priorities for communication training were 'health education' (importance 8.39, feasibility 7.67), 'discussing and explaining blood glucose monitoring' (8.31, 7.46), and 'diabetes complications and cardiovascular disease risk communication' (8.36, 7.12). Five main themes were identified from focus group discussions through qualitative analysis: 'impact on diabetes patients', 'GP attitudes towards communication skills', 'patient-related factors influencing the application of communication skills by GPs, 'local contextual factors', and 'training implementation'.ConclusionsPriorities for communication skills training for Chinese GPs in diabetes care were identified. These are set in the context of GPs' current experience of communication with patients in China who have diabetes, which is often unsatisfactory. This study describes the baseline from which better primary care for diabetes in China needs to be developed. Based on suggestions from GPs themselves, it identifies an agenda for improvement in communication as a key component of diabetes care in China.

Project description:ObjectivesSince 2010, the Chinese government has gradually increased its investment in the training of general practitioners (GPs) to support their role as 'gatekeepers' in the healthcare system. However, this training is still organised from the perspective of specialist care. We aimed to assess the appropriateness of the principal GP admission training programme curricula in China, including Residents Training for GPs (RTGP), Residents Training for Assistant GPs (RTAGP) and Training for Specialists with General Practice interest (TSGP).SettingThe study focussed on GP training programmes in Shanghai, China.ParticipantsData on disease competences developed in three GP clinical training programmes (RTGP, RTAGP and TSGP) were derived from official programme training manuals. Data on the proportion of outpatient visits for each disease were taken from the Shanghai community healthcare centres grassroots outpatient database.Primary and secondary outcome measuresWe first conducted a quantitative analysis by comparing the structure of current training curricula with actual outpatient utilisation patterns across all community healthcare institutions in Shanghai from 2014 to 2018. Qualitative analysis was then conducted to evaluate GP training programmes based on Donabedian's model.ResultsQuantitative analysis showed that the distribution of diseases for which competences were taught did not match the composition of outpatient visits in community healthcare institutions. Concerns identified through qualitative analysis included teachers who were mostly specialists, lack of equipment for differential diagnosis in community healthcare institutions, insufficient teaching of referral standards and GP training in large hospitals that consistently neglected communication skills.ConclusionsThe establishment and implementation of admission training programmes for GPs in China lacks a focus on general practice training and may be improved by adopting an evidence-based general perspective aligned with the medical needs of the community.