Dataset Information

A mixed-methods study describing behavioral factors that influenced general practitioners' experiences using triage during the COVID-19 pandemic.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, general practices were asked to expand triage and to reduce unnecessary face-to-face contact by prioritizing other consultation modes, e.g., online messaging, video, or telephone. The current study explores the potential barriers and facilitators general practitioners experienced to expanding triage systems and their attitudes towards triage during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Method

A mixed-method study design was used in which a quantitative online survey was conducted along with qualitative interviews to gain a more nuanced appreciation for practitioners' experiences in the United Kingdom. The survey items were informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework so they would capture 14 behavioral factors that may influence whether practitioners use triage systems. Items were responded to using seven-point Likert scales. A median score was calculated for each item. The responses of participants identifying as part-owners and non-owners (i.e., "partner" vs. "non-partner" practitioners) were compared. The semi-structured interviews were conducted remotely and examined using Braun and Clark's thematic analysis.

Results

The survey was completed by 204 participants (66% Female). Most participants (83%) reported triaging patients. The items with the highest median scores captured the 'Knowledge,' 'Skills,' 'Social/Professional role and identity,' and 'Beliefs about capabilities' domains. The items with the lowest median scores captured the 'Beliefs about consequences,' 'Goals,' and 'Emotions' domains. For 14 of the 17 items, partner scores were higher than non-partner scores. All the qualitative interview participants relied on a phone triage system. Six broad themes were discovered: patient accessibility, confusions around what triage is, uncertainty and risk, relationships between service providers, job satisfaction, and the potential for total digital triage. Suggestions arose to optimize triage, such as ensuring there is sufficient time to conduct triage accurately and providing practical training to use triage efficiently.

Conclusions

Many general practitioners are engaging with expanded triage systems, though more support is needed to achieve total triage across practices. Non-partner practitioners likely require more support to use the triage systems that practices take up. Additionally, practical support should be made available to help all practitioners manage the new risks and uncertainties they are likely to experience during non-face-to-face consultations.

SUBMITTER: Lackey S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8254621 | 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: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:In the context of rising dementia prevalence, the workload of general practitioners (GPs) in dementia care is set to increase. However, there are many aspects of dementia care that GPs find challenging. Behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) affect the majority of people with dementia and is an aspect of dementia care that GPs find particularly difficult to manage. The aim of this mixed methods systematic review is to undertake a synthesis of qualitative and quantitative studies on GPs' knowledge, attitudes and experiences of managing BPSD.Seven electronic bibliographic databases will be searched from inception to present. All qualitative or quantitative studies that explore the knowledge, attitude or experiences of GPs towards the management of BPSD in community and/or residential settings will be eligible for inclusion. A meta-ethnography will be conducted to synthesise included studies. Primary outcome measures will include GPs' experiences of managing BPSD, GPs' knowledge of BPSD and their attitude to different approaches to the management of BPSD, in particular their attitude to non-pharmacological approaches. All included papers will be independently assessed for methodological validity by two reviewers using the following tools: the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for qualitative research, the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) tool for intervention studies and the National Institute of Health (NIH) quality assessment tool for observational and analytical cross-sectional studies. As there is no agreed quality assessment tool for descriptive cross-sectional studies, an original tool will be developed. Two independent reviewers will apply the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQual) tool to the review findings. The results will be reported in line with the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research (ENTREQ) statement.This study will be the first systematic review that synthesises the existing literature of GPs' knowledge, attitudes and experiences of managing BPSD in community and residential care. This review will improve our understanding of GPs' perspectives on the management of BPSD, and the results will be used to inform the development of an intervention to improve the management of BPSD in general practice.PROSPERO CRD42017054916 .

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:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic mandated the reconstruction of educational programs globally. For nursing students in need of practical learning and training as a part of their curriculum, the pandemic also caused restrictions and alterations in practical placements and limited access to simulation training at campuses. The aim of this study is therefore, to describe and explore how the COVID- 19 pandemic influenced baccalaureate nursing students' experiences of learning and their social life as a student.MethodWe used a mixed method study design including quantitative data from one of the universities (University of Agder) from a national Norwegian survey of baccalaureate nursing students and qualitative data from focus-group interviews from the same university. The quantitative survey included 396 baccalaureate nursing students (response rate, 46%). We arranged five focus groups with a total of 23 students (15 females and 8 males). The students took part in one of the focus-group interviews. The quantitative data were analyzed using chi-square test for categorical data and ANOVA tests for continuous data, while the qualitative data were analyzed using Systematic Text Condensation and an editing analysis style.ResultsMost students (70%) were concerned about the quality of the education program. In clinical placement, 83% of students had cared for patients with confirmed COVID-19 or unclear COVID-19 status. The qualitative data revealed three main themes: missing the social dimension of learning; worries and challenges in clinical placement; and experiencing normal instructive days in clinical placement. The general picture emerging from our analysis is the importance of social interactions for learning.ConclusionAs the COVID-19 pandemic continues, our findings of students' worries about the quality of the education program and not reaching learning outcomes must be taken into consideration. Social interaction is considered crucial and fundamental for student learning. A follow-up study following baccalaureate completion is necessary to explore the consequences over time of disrupted education.

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.