Experiences of primary care physicians managing postpartum care: a qualitative research study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
The postpartum period is redefined as 12 weeks following childbirth. Primary care physicians (PCP) often manage postpartum women in the community after uneventful childbirths. Postpartum care significantly impacts on the maternal and neonatal physical and mental health. However, evidence has revealed unmet needs in postpartum maternal care.Aim
The study aimed to explore the experiences of PCPs in managing postpartum mothers.Methods
Four focus group discussions and eleven in-depth interviews with twenty-nine PCPs were conducted in this qualitative research study in urban Singapore. PCPs of both gender and variable postgraduate training background were purposively enrolled. Audited transcripts were independently coded by two investigators. Thematic content analysis was performed using the codes to identify issues in the "clinician", "mother", "postpartum care" and "healthcare system & policy" domains stipulated in "The Generalists' Wheel of Knowledge, Understanding and Inquiry" framework.Findings
PCPs' personal attributes such as gender and knowledge influenced their postpartum care delivery. Prior training, child caring experience and access to resource materials contributed to their information mastery of postpartum care. Their professional relationship with local multi-ethic and multi-lingual Asian mothers was impacted by their mutual communication, language compatibility and understanding of local confinement practices. Consultation time constraint, awareness of community postnatal services and inadequate handover of care from the specialists hindered PCPs in the healthcare system.Discussion
Personal, maternal and healthcare system barriers currently prevent PCPs from delivering optimal postpartum care.Conclusion
Interventions to overcome the barriers to improve postpartum care will likely be multi-faceted across domains discussed.
SUBMITTER: Poon Z
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8244666 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundSix percent of patients are allergic to penicillin according to their medical records. While this designation protects a small number of truly allergic patients from serious reactions, those who are incorrectly labelled may be denied access to recommended first line treatment for many infections. Removal of incorrect penicillin allergy may have positive health consequences for the individual and the general population. We aimed to explore primary care physicians' (PCPs) and patients' views and understanding of penicillin allergy with a focus on clinical management of infections in the face of a penicillin allergy record.MethodsWe conducted an interview study with 31 patients with a penicillin allergy record, and 19 PCPs in the North of England. Data were analysed thematically.ResultsPatients made sense of their allergy status by considering the timing and severity of symptoms. Diagnosis of penicillin allergy was reported to be 'imperfect' with PCPs relying on patient reports and incomplete medical records. PCPs and patients often suspected that an allergy record was incorrect, but PCPs were reluctant to change records. PCPs had limited knowledge of allergy services. PCPs often prescribed alternative antibiotics which were easy to identify. Both patients and PCPs differed in the extent to which they were aware of the negative consequences of incorrect penicillin allergy records, their relevance and importance to their lives, and management of penicillin allergy.ConclusionsPCPs and patients appear insufficiently aware of potential harms associated with incorrect penicillin allergy records. Some of the problems experienced by PCPs could be reduced by ensuring the details of newly diagnosed reactions to antibiotics are clearly documented. In order for PCPs to overturn more incorrect penicillin records through appropriate use of allergy services, more information and training about these services will be needed.
| S-EPMC8194168 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aim: Following changes in licensing regulations for doctors ("Approbationsordnung") in 2012, a 4-week clinical attachment ("Famulatur") in primary care is now mandatory for all medical students in Germany. To date, it has not been studied how the Famulatur in primary care is perceived by the learner or the teacher. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of both medical students and primary care physicians (PCPs) with regard to the teaching and learning situation in the Famulatur in primary care. Methods: A qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with 12 students from the medical faculty in Tübingen, Germany, and 17 PCPs from this region, was performed. Interview material was analyzed following content analysis according to Mayring. Results: In addition to considering the variety of tasks expected of the students and the optimal time for the Famulatur during the medical curriculum, the main themes of the interviews were the strengths, weaknesses and suggestions for improvement of the Famulatur. The Famulatur was predominantly perceived positively, although it being obligatory was criticized. In particular, the 1:1 supervision and the extended duration (compared to the first curricular primary care placement ("Blockpraktikum")) were positively evaluated. PCPs and students were critical of the lack of a learning and educational Famulatur framework, which would have enabled earlier orientation and alignment of each party. Conclusion: The Famulatur offers good learning opportunities for medical students and provides an insight into primary care, which is typically seen positively; it appears to heighten enthusiasm for primary care within budding doctors. Even if the obligation should cease in "The Master Plan for Medical Studies 2020" (Masterplan Medizinstudium 2020), it would be beneficial to optimize the primary care Famulatur; the development of a student logbook and learning objectives could be helpful, for example in the form of portfolios.
| S-EPMC6545615 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThere is a paucity of research on physicians' perspectives on involving patients to achieve safer care. This study aims to explore determinants of patient participation for safer care, according to physicians in Swedish health care.MethodsWe used a deductive descriptive design, applying qualitative content analysis based on the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behaviour framework. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 physicians in different types of health care units, to achieve a heterogeneous sample. The main outcome measure was barriers and facilitators to patient participation of potential relevance for patient safety.ResultsAnalysis of the data yielded 14 determinants (ie, subcategories) functioning as barriers and/or facilitators to patient participation of potential relevance for patient safety. These determinants were mapped to five categories: physicians' capability to involve patients in their care; patients' capability to become involved in their care, as perceived by the physicians; physicians' opportunity to achieve patient participation in their care; physicians' motivation to involve patients in their care; and patients' motivation to become involved in their care, as perceived by the physicians.ConclusionThere are many barriers to patient participation to achieve safer care. There are also facilitators, but these tend to depend on initiatives of individual physicians and patients, because organizational-level support may be lacking. Many of the determinants are interdependent, with physicians' perceived time constraints influencing other barriers.
| S-EPMC6266354 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To assess primary care providers' experiences with and attitudes toward pediatric-focused quality reports and identify key associated physician/practice characteristics.We performed a cross-sectional survey of pediatricians and family physicians providing primary care to publicly insured children in 3 states (North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania). The survey included questions about receipt of pediatric quality reports, use of reports for quality improvement (QI), and beliefs about the effectiveness of reports for QI. We used multivariable analyses to assess associations between responses and physician/practice characteristics, including exposure to federally funded demonstration projects aimed at increasing quality reporting to physicians serving publicly insured children. We supplemented these analyses with a thematic investigation of data from 46 interviews with physicians, practice staff, and state demonstration staff.Seven hundred twenty-seven physicians responded to the survey (overall response rate: 45.2%). Most physicians were receiving quality reports related to pediatric care (79.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 77.2%-82.4%) and believed that quality reports can be effective in helping guide QI (70.5%; 95% CI, 67.5%-73.5%). Fewer used quality reports to guide QI efforts (32.5%; 95% CI, 29.5%-35.6%). There were no significant associations between demonstration exposure and experiences or attitudes. Interview data suggested that physicians were receptive to quality reporting, but significant barriers remain to using such reports for QI, such as limited staff time or training in QI.Although pediatric quality reporting is considered a promising strategy, in this study, state efforts appeared insufficient to overcome the barriers to using reports to guide practice-based QI.
| S-EPMC5847285 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In response to growing pressures on primary care, leaders have introduced a wide range of workforce and practice innovations, including team redesigns that delegate some physician tasks to nonphysicians. One important question is how such innovations affect care team members, particularly in view of growing dissatisfaction and burnout among healthcare professionals. We examine the work experiences of primary care physicians and staff after implementing Lean-based workflow redesigns. This included co-locating physician and medical assistant dyads, delegating significant responsibilities to nonphysician staff, and mandating greater coordination and communication among all care team members.The redesigns were implemented and scaled in three phases across 46 primary care departments in a large ambulatory care delivery system. We fielded 1164 baseline and 1333 follow-up surveys to physicians and other nonphysician staff (average 73% response rate) to assess workforce engagement (e.g., job satisfaction, motivation), perceptions of the work environment, and job-related burnout. We conducted multivariate regressions to detect changes in experiences after the redesign, adjusting for respondent characteristics and clustering of within-clinic responses.We found that both physicians and nonphysician staff reported higher levels of engagement and teamwork after implementing redesigns. However, they also experienced higher levels of burnout and perceptions of the workplace as stressful. Trends were the same for both occupational groups, but the increased reports of stress were greater among physicians. Additionally, members of all clinics, except for the pilot site that developed the new workflows, reported higher burnout, while perceptions of workplace stress increased in all clinics after the redesign.Our findings partially align with expectations of work redesign as a route to improving physician and staff experiences in delivering care. Although teamwork and engagement increased, the redesigns in our study were not enough to moderate long-standing challenges facing primary care. Yet higher levels of empowerment and engagement, as observed in the pilot clinic, may be particularly effective in facilitating improvements while combating fatigue. To help practices cope with increasing burdens, interventions must directly benefit healthcare professionals without overtaxing an already overstretched workforce.
| S-EPMC5894127 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:Despite evidence supporting the effectiveness of alcohol screening and brief advice to reduce heavy drinking, implementation in primary healthcare remains limited. The challenges that clinicians experience when delivering such interventions are well-known, but we have little understanding of the patient perspective. We used Normalization Process Theory (NPT) informed interviews to explore patients' views on alcohol screening and brief advice in routine primary healthcare. METHODS:Semi-structured qualitative interviews with 22 primary care patients who had been screened for heavy drinking and/or received brief alcohol advice were analysed thematically, informed by Normalisation Process Theory constructs (coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, reflexive monitoring). RESULTS:We found mixed understanding of the adverse health consequences of heavy drinking, particularly longer-term risks. There was some awareness of current alcohol guidelines but these were viewed flexibly, depending on the individual drinker and drinking context. Most described alcohol screening as routine, with clinicians viewed as trustworthy and objective. Patients enacted a range of self-regulatory techniques to limit their drinking but perceived such strategies as learned through experience rather than based on clinical advice. However, most saw alcohol advice as a valuable component of preventative healthcare, especially those experiencing co-occurring health conditions. CONCLUSIONS:Despite strong acceptance of the screening role played by primary care clinicians, patients have less confidence in the effectiveness of alcohol advice. Primary care-based alcohol brief advice needs to reflect how individuals actually drink, and harness strategies that patients already commonly employ, such as self-regulation, to boost its relevance.
| S-EPMC7178930 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act (hereafter, Choice Program) seeks to improve access to care by enabling eligible Veterans to receive care from community providers. Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care providers (PCPs) play a key role in making referrals to community specialists, but their frontline experiences with referrals are not well understood. OBJECTIVE:To understand VA PCPs' experiences referring patients to community specialists while VA works to expand and refine the implementation of the Choice Program. DESIGN:Qualitative study using interview methods. PARTICIPANTS:Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with VA primary care providers (N = 72 out of 599 contacted) recruited nationally. APPROACH:Open-ended interview questions elicited PCP perceptions and experiences with referrals to community specialists via the Choice Program. Keywords were identified using automated coding features in ATLAS.ti and evaluated using conventional content analysis to inductively describe the qualitative data. KEY RESULTS:VA PCPs emphasized problems with care coordination and continuity between the VA and community specialists (e.g., "It is extremely difficult for us to obtain and continue continuity of care because there's not much communication with the community specialist"). They described difficulties with tracking the initial referral, coordinating care after receiving community specialty care, accessing community medical records, and aligning community specialists' prescriptions with the VA formulary. CONCLUSIONS:The VA Choice Program provides access to community specialists for VA patients; however, VA primary care providers face challenges tracking referrals to community specialists and in coordinating care. Strategies to improve care coordination between the VA and community providers should focus on providing PCPs with information to follow Veterans throughout the Choice referral process and follow-up.
| S-EPMC6445927 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSupport for ongoing care management and coordination between office visits for patients with multiple chronic conditions has been inadequate. In January 2015, Medicare introduced the Chronic Care Management (CCM) payment policy, which reimburses providers for CCM activities for Medicare beneficiaries occurring outside of office visits.ObjectiveTo explore the experiences, facilitators, and challenges of practices providing CCM services, and their implications going forward.DesignSemi-structured telephone interviews from January to April 2016 with 71 respondents.ParticipantsSixty billing and non-billing providers and practice staff knowledgeable about their practices' CCM services, and 11 professional society representatives.Key resultsPractice respondents noted that most patients expressed positive views of CCM services. Practice respondents also perceived several patient benefits, including improved adherence to treatment, access to care team members, satisfaction, care continuity, and care coordination. Facilitators of CCM provision included having an in-practice care manager, patient-centered medical home recognition, experience developing care plans, patient trust in their provider, and supplemental insurance to cover CCM copayments. Most billing practices reported few problems obtaining patients' consent for CCM, though providers felt that CMS could better facilitate consent by marketing CCM's goals to beneficiaries. Barriers reported by professional society representatives and by billing and non-billing providers included inadequacy of CCM payments to cover upfront investments for staffing, workflow modification, and time needed to manage complex patients. Other barriers included inadequate infrastructure for health information exchange with other providers and limited electronic health record capabilities for documenting and updating care plans. Practices owned by hospital systems and large medical groups faced greater bureaucracy in implementing CCM than did smaller, independent practices.ConclusionsImproving providers' experiences with and uptake of CCM will require addressing several challenges, including the upfront investment for CCM set-up and the time required to provide CCM to more complex patients.
| S-EPMC5698215 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives:This study aimed to identify training needs among primary care physicians in Japan who had no formal primary care training. Methods: We conducted a focus group interview with seven Japanese primary care physicians who had not previously undergone specialist training in primary care and had been recruited to a family medicine training program that used a problem-based learning approach. At the start of the program, the physicians attended the interview. The discussion was recorded, and the transcribed interview was analyzed using the Steps for Coding and Theorization method. Results: Three main themes emerged. First, there is a lack of standard re-education programs for physicians who move away from their specializations into primary care. Second, there is insufficient training on primary care in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education in Japan. Third, continuing professional development programs should cover the communication skills, attitudes, and behaviors necessary for primary care practice. Conclusions: This study clarified the needs to be addressed in our training program for primary care physicians involved in retraining in primary care. It is important to consider how to best include the communication skills, attitudes, and behaviors necessary for primary care among the topics covered in the program. As the program undergoes further iteration, it will be important to check whether it meets the needs of primary care practitioners. It will be necessary to investigate the needs of re-education programs for more physicians in many areas, and to emphasize the importance of primary care re-education in these abilities in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education.
| S-EPMC7246125 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In the UK, there have been a number of national initiatives to promote earlier detection and prompt referral of patients presenting to primary care with signs and symptoms of cancer. The aim of the study was to explore the experiences of a range of primary care staff in promoting earlier presentation, detection and referral of patients with symptoms suggestive of cancer.Six primary care practices in northwest England.39 primary care staff from a variety of disciplines took part in five group and four individual interviews.The global theme to emerge from the interviews was 'managing risk', which had three underpinning organising themes: 'complexity', relating to uncertainty of cancer diagnoses, service fragmentation and plethora of guidelines; 'continuity', relating to relationships between practice staff and their patients and between primary and secondary care; 'conflict' relating to policy drivers and staff role boundaries. A key concern of staff was that policymakers and those implementing cancer initiatives did not fully understand how risk was managed within primary care.Primary care staff expressed a range of views and opinions on the benefits of cancer initiatives. National initiatives did not appear to wholly resolve issues in managing risk for all practitioners. Staff were concerned about the number of guidelines and priorities they were expected to implement. These issues need to be considered by policymakers when developing and implementing new initiatives.
| S-EPMC4067858 | biostudies-literature