Dataset Information

Digital consultations in Swedish primary health care: a qualitative study of physicians' job control, demand and support.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Digital consultation with primary care physicians via mobile telephone apps has been spreading rapidly in Sweden since 2014. Digital consultation allows remote working because physicians can work from home, outside their traditional primary care environment. Despite the spread of digital consultation in primary care, there is a lack of knowledge concerning how the new service affects physicians' psychosocial work environment. Previous research has focused primarily on the patients' point of view and the cost-effectiveness of digital consultation. Hence, there is a paucity of studies from the perspective of physicians, focusing on their psychosocial work environment. The aim of this study was to investigate primary care physicians' perceived work demands, control over working processes, and social support when providing digital consultation to primary care patients.

Methods

The study has a qualitative design, using semi-structured interviews conducted in Sweden in 2019. We used a purposeful sampling strategy to achieve a heterogeneous sample of physicians who represented a broad spectrum of experiences and perceptions. The interviews were conducted by video meeting, telephone, or a personal meeting, depending on what suited the participant best. The interview questions were informed by the Job Demand-Control-Support (JDCS) model, which was also used as the framework to analyze the data by categorizing the physicians' perceptions and experiences into the three categories of the model (Demand, Control, Support), in the deductive analysis of the data.

Results

Analysis of the data yielded 9 subcategories, which were mapped onto the 3 categories of the JDCS model. Overall, the participants saw numerous benefits with digital consultations, not only with regard to their own job situation but also for patients and the health care system in general even though they identified some shortcomings and risks with digital care.

Conclusions

This study has demonstrated that physicians perceive working with digital consultation as flexible with a high grade of autonomy and reasonable to low demands. According to the participants, digital consultation is not something you can work with full time if medical skills and abilities are to be maintained and developed.

SUBMITTER: Fernemark H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7684852 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Although real-time mental health specialist video consultations have been proposed as an effective care model for treating patients with mental health conditions in primary care, little is known about their integration into routine practice from the perspective of family physicians. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to determine the degree to which family physicians advocate that mental health specialist video consultations can be integrated into routine primary care, where most patients with mental health conditions receive treatment. METHODS:In a cross-sectional qualitative study, we conducted 4 semistructured focus groups and 3 telephonic interviews in a sample of 19 family physicians from urban and rural districts. We conducted a qualitative content analysis applying the Tailored Implementation in Chronic Diseases framework in a combined bottom-up (data-driven) and top-down strategy for deriving key domains. RESULTS:Family physicians indicated that mental health specialist video consultations are a promising and practical way to address the most pressing challenges in current practice, that is, to increase the accessibility and co-ordination of specialized care. Individual health professional factors were the most frequently discussed topics. Specifically, family physicians valued the anticipated clinical outcomes for patients and the anticipated resources set for the primary care practice as major facilitators (16/19, 84%). However, family physicians raised a concern regarding a lack of facial expressions and physical interaction (19/19, 100%), especially in emergency situations. Therefore, most family physicians considered a viable emergency plan for mental health specialist video consultations that clearly delineates the responsibilities and tasks of both family physicians and mental health specialists to be essential (11/19, 58%). Social, political, and legal factors, as well as guideline factors, were hardly discussed as prerequisites for individual family physicians to integrate mental health specialist video consultations into routine care. To facilitate the implementation of future mental health specialist video consultation models, we compiled a checklist of recommendations that covers (1) buy-in from practices (eg, emphasizing logistical and psychological relief for the practice), (2) the engagement of patients (eg, establishing a trusted patient-provider relationship), (3) the setup and conduct of consultations (eg, reliable emergency plans), and (4) the fostering of collaboration between family physicians and mental health specialists (eg, kick-off meetings to build trust). CONCLUSIONS:By leveraging the primary care practice as a familiar environment for patients, mental health specialist video consultations provide timely specialist support and potentially lead to benefits for patients and more efficient processes of care. Integration should account for the determinants of practice as described by the family physicians. TRIAL REGISTRATION:German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00012487; https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do? navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00012487.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronic diseases are the leading cause of death worldwide. In Canada, more than half of all health care spending is used for managing chronic diseases. Although studies have shown that the use of advanced features of electronic medical record (EMR) systems improves the quality of chronic disease prevention and management (CDPM), a 2012 international survey found that Canadian physicians were the least likely to use 2 or more EMR system functions. Some studies show that maturity vis-à-vis clinicians' EMR use is an important factor when evaluating the use of advanced features of health information systems. The Clinical Adoption Framework (CAF), a common evaluation framework used to assess the success of EMR adoption, does not incorporate the process of maturing. Nevertheless, the CAF and studies that discuss the barriers to and facilitators of the adoption of EMR systems can be the basis for exploring the use of advanced EMR features. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to explore the factors that primary care physicians in Ontario identified as influencing their use of advanced EMR features to support CDPM and to extend the CAF to include primary care physicians' perceptions of how their use of EMRs for performing clinical tasks has matured. METHODS:Guided by the CAF, directed content analysis was used to explore the barriers and facilitating factors encountered by primary care physicians when using EMR features. Participants were primary care physicians in Ontario, Canada, who use EMRs. Data were coded using categories from the CAF. RESULTS:A total of 9 face-to-face interviews were conducted from January 2017 to July 2017. Dimensions from the CAF emerged from the data, and one new dimension was derived: physicians' perception of their maturity of EMR use. Primary care physicians identified the following key factors that impacted their use of advanced EMR features: performance of EMR features, information quality of EMR features, training and technical support, user satisfaction, provider's productivity, personal characteristics and roles, cost benefits of EMR features, EMR systems infrastructure, funding, and government leadership. CONCLUSIONS:The CAF was extended to include physicians' perceptions of how their use of EMR systems had matured. Most participants agreed that their use of EMR systems for performing clinical tasks had evolved since their adoption of the system and that certain system features facilitated their care for patients with chronic diseases. However, several barriers were identified and should be addressed to further enhance primary care physicians' use of advanced EMR features to support CDPM.

Project description:BackgroundLong-term conditions (LTCs) are increasingly important determinants of quality of life and healthcare costs in populations worldwide. The Chronic Care Model and the NHS and Social Care Long Term Conditions Model highlight the use of consultations where patients are invited to attend a consultation with a primary care clinician (practice nurse or GP) to complete a review of the management of the LTC. We report a qualitative study in which we focus on the ways in which QOF (Quality and Outcomes Framework) shapes routine review consultations, and highlight the tensions exposed between patient-centred consulting and QOF-informed LTC management.MethodsA longitudinal qualitative study. We audio-recorded consultations of primary care practitioners with patients with LTCs. We then interviewed both patients and practitioners using tape-assisted recall. Patient participants were followed for three months during which the research team made weekly contact and invited them to complete weekly logs about their health service use. A second interview at three months was conducted with patients. Analysis of the data sets used an integrative framework approach.ResultsPractitioners view consultations as a means of 'surveillance' of patients. Patients present themselves, often passively, to the practitioner for scrutiny, but leave the consultation with unmet biomedical, informational and emotional needs. Patients perceived review consultations as insignificant and irrelevant to the daily management of their LTC and future healthcare needs. Two deviant cases, where the requirements of the 'review' were subsumed to meet the patient's needs, focused on cancer and bereavement.ConclusionsRoutine review consultations in primary care focus on the biomedical agenda set by QOF where the practitioner is the expert, and the patient agenda unheard. Review consultations shape patients' expectations of future care and socialize patients into becoming passive subjects of 'surveillance'. Patient needs outside the narrow protocol of the review are made invisible by the process of review except in extreme cases such as anticipating death and bereavement. We suggest how these constraints might be overcome.