Dataset Information

General practitioner and nurse practitioner attitudes towards electronic reminders in primary care: a qualitative analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Reminders in primary care administrative systems aim to help clinicians provide evidence-based care, prescribe safely and save money. However, increased use of reminders can lead to alert fatigue. Our study aimed to assess general practitioners' (GPs) and nurse practitioners' (NPs) views on electronic reminders in primary care.

Design

A qualitative analysis using semistructured interviews.

Setting and participants

Fifteen GPs and NP based in general practices located in North-West London and Yorkshire, England.

Methods

We collected data on participants' views on: (1) perceptions of the value of information provided; (2) reminder-related behaviours and (3) how to improve reminders. We carried out a thematic analysis.

Results

Participants were familiar with reminders in their clinical systems and felt many were important to support their clinical work. However, participants reported, on average, 70% of reminders were ignored. Four major themes emerged: (1) reaction to a reminder, which was mixed and varied by situation. (2) Factors influencing the decision to act on reminders, often related to experience, consultation styles and interests of participants. Time constraints, alert design, inappropriate presentation and litigation were also factors. (3) Negative consequences of using reminders were increased workload or costs and compromising GP and NPs behaviour. (4) Factors relating to improving users' engagement with reminders were prevention of unnecessary reminders through data linkage across healthcare administrative systems or the development of more intelligent algorithms. Participants felt training was vital to effectively manage reminders.

Conclusions

GPs and NPs believe reminders are useful in supporting the provision of good quality patient care. Improving GPs and NPs' engagement with reminders centres on further developing their relevance to their clinical practice, which is personalised, considers cognitive workflow and suppresses inappropriate presentation.

SUBMITTER: Cecil E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8276294 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Primary care systems around the world have implemented nurse practitioners (NPs) to ensure access to high quality care in times of general practitioner (GP) shortages and changing health care needs of a multimorbid, ageing population. In Switzerland, NPs are currently being introduced, and their exact role is yet to be determined. The aim of this study was to get insight into patient characteristics and services provided in NP consultations compared to GP consultations in Swiss primary care. METHODS:This case study used retrospective observational data from electronic medical records of a family practice with one NP and two GPs. Data on patient-provider encounters were collected between August 2017 and December 2018. We used logistic regression to assess associations between the assignment of the patients to the NP or GP and patient characteristics and delivered services respectively. RESULTS:Data from 5210 patients participating in 27,811 consultations were analyzed. The average patient age was 44.3?years (SD 22.6), 47.1% of the patients were female and 19.4% multimorbid. 1613 (5.8%) consultations were with the NP, and 26,198 (94.2%) with the two GPs. Patients in NP consultations were more often aged 85+ (OR 3.43; 95%-CI 2.70-4.36), multimorbid (OR 1.37; 95%-CI 1.24-1.51; p?<?0.001) and polypharmaceutical (OR 1.28; 95%-CI 1.15-1.42; p?<?0.001) in comparison to GP consultations. In NP consultations, vital signs (OR 3.05; 95%-CI 2.72-3.42; p?<?0.001) and anthropometric data (OR 1.33; 95%-CI 1.09-1.63; p 0.005) were measured more frequently, and lab tests (OR 1.16; 95%-CI 1.04-1.30; p 0.008) were ordered more often compared to GP consultations, independent of patient characteristics. By contrast, medications (OR 0.35; 95%-CI 0.30-0.41; p?<?0.001) were prescribed or changed less frequently in NP consultations. CONCLUSIONS:Quantitative data from pilot projects provide valuable insights into NP tasks and activities in Swiss primary care. Our results provide first indications that NPs might have a focus on and could offer care to the growing number of multimorbid, polypharmaceutical elderly in Swiss primary care.

Project description:BackgroundThe shortage of primary care providers and the provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) have spurred discussion about expanding the number, scope of practice (SOP), and independence of primary care nurse practitioners (NPs). Such discussions in the media and among professional organizations may insinuate that changes to the laws governing NP practice will engender acrimony between practicing physicians and NPs. However, we lack empirical, descriptive data on how practicing professionals view NP independence in primary care.ObjectiveThe aim of the present study was to explore and describe the attitudes about NP independence among physicians and NPs working in primary care.DesignA qualitative study based on the principles of grounded theory.ParticipantsThirty primary care professionals in Missouri, USA, including 15 primary care physicians and 15 primary care NPs.ApproachSemi-structured, in-depth interviews, with data analysis guided by grounded theory.Key resultsParticipants had perspectives that were not well represented by professional organizations or the media. Physicians were supportive of a wide variety of NP roles and comfortable with high levels of NP independence and autonomy. Physicians and NPs described prerequisites to NP independence that were complementary. Physicians generally believed that NPs needed some association with physicians for patient safety, and NPs preferred having a physician readily accessible as needed. The theme "knowing your limits" was important to both NPs and physicians regarding NP independence, and has not been described previously in the literature.ConclusionsNP and physician views about NP practice in primary care are not as divergent as their representative professional organizations and the news media would suggest. The significant agreement among NPs and physicians, and some of the nuances of their perspectives, supports recommendations that may reduce the perceived acrimony surrounding discussions of NP independent practice in primary care.