Online Consultations Between General Practitioners and Psychiatrists in the Netherlands: A Qualitative Study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Bock NW
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8600358 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundAdequate health care in correctional facilities is often limited by staff shortage, which entails time-consuming consultations with physicians outside of these facilities. Video consultations (VC) have been implemented in many different health care settings and may also be useful in correctional facilities. As part of a pilot project, synchronous VC were implemented in five correctional facilities in Germany in June 2018. The aim of this study was to describe the implementation process from the providers' perspective and to identify factors promoting or inhibiting the implementation process of VC with a focus on interprofessional collaboration between nursing staff and telemedicine physicians.MethodsAs part of the mixed-methods evaluation of the pilot project, site visits to the five correctional facilities were carried out. Nursing staff from the five correctional facilities (n=49) and telemedicine physicians (n=10) were asked to participate in interviews and a questionnaire survey. Interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analysis and questionnaires were evaluated using descriptive statistical methods. The results from both data sources were integrated and discussed in the framework of Normalization Process Theory.ResultsInterviews were conducted with 24.5% (n=12) of nursing staff and 20.0% (n=2) of telemedicine physicians, while questionnaires were returned by 22.5% (n=11) of nursing staff and 33.3% (n=3) of telemedicine physicians. VC with general practitioners and psychiatrists were perceived as an additional support during times when physicians were absent from the correctional facilities. Allocating telemedicine physicians to specific correctional facilities might further improve interprofessional collaboration with nursing staff during VC. Inhibiting factors comprised the lack of integrating nursing staff into the implementation process, increased workload, insufficient training and the implementation of VC at an inconvenient time.ConclusionsTo summarize, VC are a promising supplement to face-to-face health care in correctional facilities despite several limitations. These might be compensated by improving interprofessional cooperation and by integrating telemedicine physicians into local health care teams.
| S-EPMC10242990 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundProviding care for mental health problems concerns General Practitioners (GPs), Private Psychiatrists (PrPs) and Public Psychiatrists (PuPs). As patient distribution and patterns of practice among these professionals are not well known, a survey was planned prior to a re-organisation of mental health services in an area close to ParisMethodsAll GPs (n = 492), PrPs (n = 82) and PuPs (n = 78) in the South-Yvelines area in France were informed of the implementation of a local mental health program. Practitioners interested in taking part were invited to include prospectively all patients with mental health problem they saw over an 8-day period and to complete a 6-month retrospective questionnaire on their mental health practice. 180 GPs (36.6%), 45 PrPs (54.9%) and 63 PuPs (84.0%) responded.ResultsGPs and PrPs were very similar but very different from PuPs for the proportion of patients with anxious or depressive disorders (70% v. 65% v. 38%, p < .001), psychotic disorders (5% v. 7% v. 30%, p < .001), previous psychiatric hospitalization (22% v. 26 v. 61%, p < .001) and receiving disability allowance (16% v. 18% v. 52%, p < .001). GPs had fewer patients with long-standing psychiatric disorders than PrPs and PuPs (52%, 64% v. 63%, p < .001). Time-lapse between consultations was longest for GPs, intermediate for PuPs and shortest for PrPs (36 days v. 26 v. 18, p < .001). Access to care had been delayed longer for Psychiatrists (PrPs, PuPs) than for GPs (61% v. 53% v. 25%, p < .001). GPs and PuPs frequently felt a need for collaboration for their patients, PrPs rarely (42% v. 61%. v. 10%, p < .001). Satisfaction with mental health practice was low for all categories of physicians (42.6% encountered difficulties hospitalizing patients and 61.4% had patients they would prefer not to cater for). GPs more often reported unsatisfactory relationships with mental health professionals than did PrPs and PuPs (54% v. 15% v. 8%, p < .001).ConclusionGP patients with mental health problems are very similar to patients of private psychiatrists; there is a lack of the collaboration felt to be necessary, because of psychiatrists' workload, and because GPs have specific needs in this respect. The "Yvelines-Sud Mental Health Network" has been created to enhance collaboration.
| S-EPMC1266376 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Reducing diagnostic delays in primary care by improving the assessment of symptoms associated with cancer could have significant impacts on cancer outcomes. Symptom risk assessment tools could improve the diagnostic assessment of patients with symptoms suggestive of cancer in primary care. We aimed to explore the use of a cancer risk tool, which implements the QCancer model, in consultations and its potential impact on clinical decision making. METHODS: We implemented an exploratory 'action design' method with 15 general practitioners (GPs) from Victoria, Australia. General practitioners applied the risk tool in simulated consultations, conducted semi-structured interviews based on the normalisation process theory and explored issues relating to implementation of the tool. RESULTS: The risk tool was perceived as being potentially useful for patients with complex histories. More experienced GPs were distrustful of the risk output, especially when it conflicted with their clinical judgement. Variable interpretation of symptoms meant that there was significant variation in risk assessment. When a risk output was high, GPs were confronted with numerical risk outputs creating challenges in consultation. CONCLUSIONS: Significant barriers to implementing electronic cancer risk assessment tools in consultation could limit their uptake. These relate not only to the design and integration of the tool but also to variation in interpretation of clinical histories, and therefore variable risk outputs and strong beliefs in personal clinical intuition.
| S-EPMC4385980 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundIn 2022, NHS England announced plans to ensure that all adult primary care patients in England would have full online access to new data added to their general practitioner (GP) record. However, this plan has not yet been fully implemented. Since April 2020, the GP contract in England has already committed to offering patients full online record access on a prospective basis and on request. However, there has been limited research into UK GPs' experiences and opinions about this practice innovation.ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore the experiences and opinions of GPs in England about patients' access to their full web-based health record, including clinicians' free-text summaries of the consultation (so-called "open notes").MethodsIn March 2022, using a convenience sample, we administered a web-based mixed methods survey of 400 GPs in the United Kingdom to explore their experiences and opinions about the impact on patients and GPs' practices to offer patients full online access to their health records. Participants were recruited using the clinician marketing service Doctors.net.uk from registered GPs currently working in England. We conducted a qualitative descriptive analysis of written responses ("comments") to 4 open-ended questions embedded in a web-based questionnaire.ResultsOf 400 GPs, 224 (56%) left comments that were classified into 4 major themes: increased strain on GP practices, the potential to harm patients, changes to documentation, and legal concerns. GPs believed that patient access would lead to extra work for them, reduced efficiency, and increased burnout. The participants also believed that access would increase patient anxiety and incur risks to patient safety. Experienced and perceived documentation changes included reduced candor and changes to record functionality. Anticipated legal concerns encompassed fears about increased litigation risks and lack of legal guidance to GPs about how to manage documentation that would be read by patients and potential third parties.ConclusionsThis study provides timely information on the views of GPs in England regarding patient access to their web-based health records. Overwhelmingly, GPs were skeptical about the benefits of access both for patients and to their practices. These views are similar to those expressed by clinicians in other countries, including Nordic countries and the United States before patient access. The survey was limited by the convenience sample, and it is not possible to infer that our sample was representative of the opinions of GPs in England. More extensive, qualitative research is required to understand the perspectives of patients in England after experiencing access to their web-based records. Finally, further research is needed to explore objective measures of the impact of patient access to their records on health outcomes, clinician workload, and changes to documentation.
| S-EPMC9996425 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe growth in the volume of online patient feedback, including online patient ratings and comments, suggests that patients are embracing the opportunity to review online their experience of receiving health care. Very little is known about health care professionals' attitudes toward online patient feedback and whether health care professionals are comfortable with the public nature of the feedback.ObjectiveThe aim of the overall study was to explore and describe general practitioners' attitudes toward online patient feedback. This paper reports on the findings of one of the aims of the study, which was to explore and understand the concerns that general practitioners (GPs) in England have about online patient feedback. This could then be used to improve online patient feedback platforms and help to increase usage of online patient feedback by GPs and, by extension, their patients.MethodsA descriptive qualitative approach using face-to-face semistructured interviews was used in this study. A topic guide was developed following a literature review and discussions with key stakeholders. GPs (N=20) were recruited from Cambridgeshire, London, and Northwest England through probability and snowball sampling. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed in NVivo using the framework method, a form of thematic analysis.ResultsMost participants in this study had concerns about online patient feedback. They questioned the validity of online patient feedback because of data and user biases and lack of representativeness, the usability of online patient feedback due to the feedback being anonymous, the transparency of online patient feedback because of the risk of false allegations and breaching confidentiality, and the resulting impact of all those factors on them, their professional practice, and their relationship with their patients.ConclusionsThe majority of GPs interviewed had reservations and concerns about online patient feedback and questioned its validity and usefulness among other things. Based on the findings from the study, recommendations for online patient feedback website providers in England are given. These include suggestions to make some specific changes to the platform and the need to promote online patient feedback more among both GPs and health care users, which may help to reduce some of the concerns raised by GPs about online patient feedback in this study.
| S-EPMC4704896 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo achieve successful medical rehabilitation and timely return to work, general practitioners, occupational health and rehabilitation physicians need to cooperate effectively. This cooperation, however, can be hampered by organizational, interpersonal, and structural barriers. In this article, we present and discuss suggestions proposed by physicians and patients on how these barriers can be overcome.MethodsWe conducted eight qualitative focus group discussions with general practitioners (GPs), occupational health physicians (OPs), rehabilitation physicians (RPs) and rehabilitation patients, which we analyzed with qualitative content analysis methods.ResultsRoom for improvement exists with regard to (1) regulation (e.g. formalized role and obligatory input of occupational physicians), (2) finance (e.g. financial incentives for physicians based on the quality of the application), (3) technology (e.g. communication by email), (4) organizational procedures (e.g. provision of workplace descriptions to RPs on a routine basis), (5) education and information (e.g. joint educational programs, measures to improve the image of OPs), and (6) promotion of cooperation (e.g. between OPs and GPs in regards to the application process).ConclusionsMany suggestions are practical and could be implemented into the daily routine of physicians, while others demand multi-level, multi-stakeholder approaches. Our findings are supported by numerous international studies (especially from Western Europe). Future quantitative research could assess the relative weight of these findings. Feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed suggestions should be tested in controlled interventional studies.
| S-EPMC5640724 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Telemedicine allows delivery of healthcare to occur between parties that are not in the same location. As telemedicine users are not co-present, effective communication methods are crucial to the delivery and reception of information. The aim of this study was to explore perspectives of general practitioners (GPs) and patients on the interactional components of telemedicine consultations. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were held with telemedicine users; 15 GPs and nine patients self-selected from a larger telemedicine study. Participants were asked about their preparation for telemedicine consultations, conducting telemedicine consultations and post-consultation activities. Deidentified transcripts from the interviews were analysed thematically. GPs and patients discussed factors they used to decide whether a consultation would be best conducted by telemedicine or in-person; the condition to be discussed, the existing doctor-patient relationship and whether physical examination was required. Participants also described how they prepared for their telemedicine consultations, gathering relevant documents, and reading previous notes. Participants described strategies they employed to optimise the telemedicine interaction; improving conversational flow and building rapport, as well as difficulties they experienced when trying to provide and receive care via telemedicine. Patient factors including health literacy and familiarity with technology affect the transfer of information shared during telemedicine consultations and consideration of these factors when choosing patients for telemedicine is required. Many GPs and patients have innate communication skills to effectively deliver and receive care through telemedicine. However, they may not be aware of these subconscious techniques to use to optimise telemedicine consultations. Communication training could be delivered to increase conversational flow, build rapport, and establish safety netting.
| S-EPMC11373490 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Few data exist to support the observation that general practitioners (GPs) occupy many important positions in our communities or to characterize which GPs devote more of their time to such activities. We sought to characterize community-based complementary medical activities performed by GPs in the canton Vaud, Switzerland. METHODS:All GPs in a region were invited to participate in a cross-sectional study (n = 600) examining engagement in complementary activities beyond standard ambulatory consultations. Categories included teaching, care giving in specific structures, roles as medical experts or company doctors, community care giving, and others completed by the GP. GPs were asked the number of hours devoted monthly to each activity and whether or not they are remunerated for this work. RESULTS:One hundred and sixty-eight GPs responded (28%), with 149 (92%) reporting that they were engaged in at least one activity beyond their in-office consultations, including 117 (72%) in community care-giving (ex: care for addictions or refugees). Altogether, GPs spend on average 5.8 h a week on these activities. One-hundred and twenty-three GPs (82%) were remunerated for at least one of their complementary engagements. Predictors of participation in a larger number of complementary activities were working in a rural area (IRR 1.29, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.57) and having a higher weekly workload (IRR 1.01 for each additional hour, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.02). CONCLUSION:The vast majority of GPs engage in activities beyond their standard clinic tasks and they are typically reimbursed. GPs in rural areas and those who work more hours per week are more likely to engage in complementary activities.
| S-EPMC5934800 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:More and more older adults desire to and are enabled to grow old in their own home, regardless of their physical and mental capabilities. This change, together with the growing number of older adults, increases the demand for general practitioners (GPs). However, care for older people lacks prestige among medical students and few medical students are interested in a career in care for older people. Innovative solutions are needed to reduce the demand for GPs, to guarantee quality of healthcare and to contain costs. A solution might be found in skill mix change by introducing nurse practitioners (NPs), physician assistants (PAs) or registered nurses (RNs). The aim of this study was to describe how skill mix change is organised in daily practice, what influences it and what the effects are of introducing NPs, PAs or RNs into primary healthcare for older people. METHODS:In total, 34 care providers working in primary healthcare in the Netherlands were interviewed: GPs (n = 9), NPs (n = 10), PAs (n = 5) and RNs (n = 10). Five focus groups and 14 individual interviews were conducted. Analysis consisted of open coding, creating categories and abstraction. RESULTS:In most cases, healthcare for older people was only a small part of the tasks of NPs, PAs and RNs; they did not solely focus on older people. The tasks they performed and their responsibilities in healthcare for older people differed between, as well as within, professions. Although the interviewees debated the usefulness of proactive structural screening on frailty in the older population, when implemented, it was also unclear who should perform the geriatric assessment. Interviewees considered NPs, PAs and RNs an added value, and it was stated that the role of the GP changed with the introduction of NPs, PAs or RNs. CONCLUSIONS:The roles and responsibilities of NPs, PAs and RNs for the care of older people living at home are still not established. Nonetheless, these examples show the potential of these professionals. The establishment of a clear vision on primary healthcare for older people, including the organisation of proactive healthcare, is necessary to optimise the impact of skill mix change.
| S-EPMC5932890 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To explore the patient view of competencies essential for doctors to provide good collaboration at the primary-secondary care interface. DESIGN:We used a qualitative research approach. Focus groups with patients were conducted to explore their opinions of doctors' competencies to provide good collaboration between primary and secondary care doctors. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. SETTING:Dutch primary-secondary care interface. PARTICIPANTS:Sixteen participants took part in five focus groups. Patients treated in both primary and secondary care, defined as having a minimum of two contacts with their general practitioner and two contacts with a medical specialty in the last 6?months, were included. Psychiatric patients and children were excluded from this study. RESULTS:Three groups of competencies were identified: (1) relationship building, both with patients and with other doctors; (2) transparent collaborating: be able to provide clarity on the process of collaboration and on roles and responsibilities of those involved and (3) reflective practising: to be willing to acknowledge mistakes, give and receive feedback and act as a lifelong learner. CONCLUSIONS:This focus group study enhances our understanding of the patient perspective on doctors' collaborative competencies at the primary-secondary care interface. With this information, doctors can improve their collaborative skills to a level that would meet their patients' needs. Patients expect doctors to be able to build relationships and act as reflective practitioners. Including patients in the collaborative process by giving them a role that is appropriate to their abilities and by making collaboration more explicit could help to improve collaboration between general practitioners and medical specialists.
| S-EPMC7332184 | biostudies-literature