Cardiovascular risk management in patients with severe mental illness or taking antipsychotics: A qualitative study on barriers and facilitators among dutch general practitioners.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Patients with severe mental illness (SMI) or receiving treatment with antipsychotics (APs) have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) increasingly depends on general practitioners (GPs) because of the shift of mental healthcare from secondary to primary care and the surge of off-label AP prescriptions. Nevertheless, the uptake of patients with SMI/APs in CVRM programmes in Dutch primary care is low.Objectives
To explore which barriers and facilitators GPs foresee when including and treating patients with SMI or using APs in an existing CVRM programme.Methods
In 2019, we conducted a qualitative study among 13 Dutch GPs. During individual in-depth, semi-structured interviews a computer-generated list of eligible patients who lacked annual cardiovascular risk (CVR) screening guided the interview. Data was analysed thematically.Results
The main barriers identified were: (i) underestimation of patient CVR and ambivalence to apply risk-lowering strategies such as smoking cessation, (ii) disproportionate burden on GPs in deprived areas, (iii) poor information exchange between GPs and psychiatrists, and (iv) scepticism about patient compliance, especially those with more complex conditions. The main facilitators included: (i) support of GPs through a computer-generated list of eligible patients and (ii) involvement of family or carers.Conclusion
This study displays a range of barriers and facilitators anticipated by GPs. These indicate the preconditions required to remove barriers and facilitate GPs, namely adequate recommendations in practice guidelines, improved consultation opportunities with psychiatrists, practical advice to support patient adherence and incentives for practices in deprived areas.
SUBMITTER: Jakobs K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9272927 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:General practitioners (GPs) manage the drug therapies of people with chronic diseases, and poor adherence to medication remains a major challenge. OBJECTIVE:This qualitative study examined GPs' insights into non-adherence and ways of overcoming this problem. METHODS:We ran four focus groups comprising 16 GPs at the Kirkkonummi Health Centre (Southern Finland). Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim and analysed by inductive content analysis. MAIN RESULTS:The two main themes in the discussions with the GPs were non-adherence in the care of chronic disease and increased need for medicine information. The medication management challenges identified were related to: patient-specific factors, the healthcare system, characteristics of drug therapies and the function and role of healthcare professionals as a team. To improve the situation, the GPs offered a number of solutions: improved coordination of care, better patient education and IT systems as well as enhanced interprofessional involvement in the follow-up of patients. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:With an ageing population, the GPs were increasingly confronted with non-adherence in the care of chronic diseases. They had mostly a positive attitude towards organising care in a more interprofessional manner. To support medication adherence and self-management, the GPs appreciated pharmacists' assistance especially with patients with polypharmacy and chronic diseases.
| S-EPMC5786122 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVulnerability due to low psychosocial resources increases among women in the fertile age. Undetected vulnerability in pregnancy is a major contributor to inequality in maternal and perinatal health and constitutes a risk of maternal depression, adverse birth outcomes,-i.e. preterm birth, low birth weight, and adverse outcomes in childhood such as attachment disorders. General practitioners (GPs) have a broad understanding of indicators of vulnerability in pregnancy. However, less than 25% of pregnant women with severe vulnerability are identified in Danish general practice. The aim was to explore GPs' perceived barriers and facilitators for assessing and addressing vulnerability among pregnant women.MethodsA qualitative study with semi-structured focus group interviews with twenty GPs from urban and rural areas throughout the Region of Southern Denmark. A mixed inductive and deductive analytic strategy was applied, structured according to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).ResultsFive themes emerged covering twelve TDF domains: (I)knowledge and attention, (II)professional confidence, (III)incentives, (IV)working conditions and (V)behavioral regulations. Prominent barriers to assessment were lack of continuity of care and trust in the doctor-patient relation. Other barriers were inattention to indicators of vulnerability, time limits, unavailable information on patients' social support needs from cross-sectoral collaborators, and lack of reimbursement for the use of extra time. Fear of damaging the doctor-patient relation, ethical dilemmas and time limits were barriers to addressing vulnerability. Facilitators were increased attention on vulnerability, professionalism and a strong and trustful doctor-patient relation. Behavioral regulations ensuring continuity of care and extra time for history taking enabled assessing and addressing vulnerability, especially when a strong doctor-patient relation was absent.ConclusionsThe TDF disclosed several barriers, especially in the absence of a strong doctor-patient relation. A behavior change intervention of restructuring the organization of antenatal care in general practice might reduce the GPs' barriers to assessing and addressing vulnerability in pregnancy. The findings may serve as a guide for commissioners and policymakers of antenatal care on the GPs' support needs when providing antenatal care to vulnerable pregnant women.
| S-EPMC9164392 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients dealing with severe mental illnesses (SMI) often face suboptimal clinical outcomes and higher mortality rates due to a range of factors, including undetected physical health conditions. The provision of care for individuals with SMI is frequently disjointed, as they engage with diverse healthcare providers. Despite this fragmentation, primary care, particularly general practitioners (GPs), assumes a pivotal role in the care of SMI patients. Our study aimed to delve into the first-hand experiences of GPs in delivering somatic care to SMI patients, concentrating on the challenges they encounter and the strategies they employ to navigate these difficulties.MethodsWe conducted in-depth interviews with fifteen GPs, utilizing a semi-structured interview guide, supplemented by ethnographic observations during clinical consultations in general practice. Through inductive coding, interview transcripts and observational field notes were systematically analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). The findings were then deliberated upon within the author group.ResultsGPs revealed that managing the chronic somatic care of SMI patients posed significant challenges. These challenges encompassed the multifaceted needs of patients, their behavior tied to symptoms, a lack of care continuity, and overarching time constraints. To tackle these challenges, the GPs had devised various strategies. However, all participants underscored the critical importance of having adequate time to properly prepare for, conduct, and follow up on consultations.ConclusionThe GPs' interactions with SMI patients brought numerous challenges, although treating these patients were concurrently acknowledged as vital and fulfilling. The findings suggest that increased allocated time in general practice consultations for patients with SMI is important to support the somatic treatment requirements of this patient group.
| S-EPMC10958876 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWell-established electronic data capture in UK general practice means that algorithms, developed on patient data, can be used for automated clinical decision support systems (CDSSs). These can predict patient risk, help with prescribing safety, improve diagnosis and prompt clinicians to record extra data. However, there is persistent evidence of low uptake of CDSSs in the clinic. We interviewed UK General Practitioners (GPs) to understand what features of CDSSs, and the contexts of their use, facilitate or present barriers to their use.MethodsWe interviewed 11 practicing GPs in London and South England using a semi-structured interview schedule and discussed a hypothetical CDSS that could detect early signs of dementia. We applied thematic analysis to the anonymised interview transcripts.ResultsWe identified three overarching themes: trust in individual CDSSs; usability of individual CDSSs; and usability of CDSSs in the broader practice context, to which nine subthemes contributed. Trust was affected by CDSS provenance, perceived threat to autonomy and clear management guidance. Usability was influenced by sensitivity to the patient context, CDSS flexibility, ease of control, and non-intrusiveness. CDSSs were more likely to be used by GPs if they did not contribute to alert proliferation and subsequent fatigue, or if GPs were provided with training in their use.ConclusionsBuilding on these findings we make a number of recommendations for CDSS developers to consider when bringing a new CDSS into GP patient records systems. These include co-producing CDSS with GPs to improve fit within clinic workflow and wider practice systems, ensuring a high level of accuracy and a clear clinical pathway, and providing CDSS training for practice staff. These recommendations may reduce the proliferation of unhelpful alerts that can result in important decision-support being ignored.
| S-EPMC8215812 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAntibiotic resistance is a leading global public health concern and antibiotic use is a key driver. Effective interventions are needed to target key stakeholders, including general practitioners (GPs). In Malta, little is known about factors that influence GPs' antibiotic prescribing, making it challenging to implement targeted interventions. We therefore aimed to explore GPs' understanding of antibiotic use and resistance, and describe their perceived barriers and facilitators to prudent antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections in Malta.MethodsFace-to-face individual semi-structured interviews were held with a quota sample of 20 GPs in 2014. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim, and later analysed iteratively using manifest and latent content analysis. Findings were collated in a socioecological model to depict how GPs as individuals are embedded within larger social systems and contexts, and how each component within this system impacts their prescribing behaviour.FindingsWe found that GPs' antibiotic prescribing decisions are complex and impacted by numerous barriers and facilitators at the individual, interpersonal, organisational, community, and public policy level. Predominant factors found to impact GPs' antibiotic prescribing included not only intrinsic GP factors such as knowledge, awareness, experience, and misconceptions, but also several external factors. At the interpersonal level, GPs' perceived patient demand and behaviour to be a persistent issue that impacts their prescribing decisions. Similarly, some GPs found pressure from drug reps to be concerning despite being considered an important source of information. Organisational and public policy-level issues such as lack of access to relevant antibiotic prescribing guidelines and current antibiotic resistance data from the community, were also considered major barriers to appropriate antibiotic prescribing. Utilisation of diagnostic testing was found to be low and GPs' perceptions on the introduction of rapid point-of-care tests to support antibiotic prescription decisions, were mixed.ConclusionThis study revealed the complexity of the antibiotic prescribing decision and the numerous barriers and facilitators that impact it, visualised through a socioecological model. Addressing GPs' antibiotic prescribing practices will require targeted and coordinated implementation activities at all levels to change behaviour and address misconceptions, whilst also improving the physical and social environment.Trial registration numberNCT03218930; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03218930.
| S-EPMC7877739 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe CombiConsultation is a consultation with the pharmacist for patients with a chronic condition, aligned with the periodic consultation with the practice nurse or general practitioner. Implementation requires adjustments in the working methods of these healthcare providers and therefore behavioural changes.AimThe aim of this study was to identify the barriers and facilitators that determine the behavioural changes by pharmacists, general practitioners and practice nurses required for the implementation of the CombiConsultation.MethodTen community pharmacists, 5 practice nurses and 5 general practitioners were sampled from practices enrolled in the CombiConsultation study. Their views regarding the implementation of this clinical pharmacy service were explored using interviews based on the 14 domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), which are linked to the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behaviour-model. Barriers and facilitators in the domains were assessed by content analysis.ResultsTwelve barriers and 23 facilitators were found within 13 TDF domains with high agreement between the healthcare providers. Important facilitators for implementation were the pharmacists' expertise in pharmacotherapy (capability), access to medical data and physical proximity between professional practices (opportunity). Barriers were pharmacists' insufficient consultation- and clinical-reasoning skills (capability), insufficient staff (opportunity) and reimbursement and lack of coordination among all involved healthcare providers (motivation).ConclusionAll healthcare providers are motivated to implement the CombiConsultation. An existing collaborative practice, with a clear and accepted professional role of the pharmacist is essential. Training of pharmacists in consultation and clinical-reasoning skills can be beneficial, as well as arrangements on the consultation logistics, and reimbursement.
| S-EPMC10366006 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThere has been an increase in testing of vitamins in patients in general practice, often based on irrational indications or for non-specific symptoms, causing increasing healthcare expenditures and medicalisation of patients. So far, there is little evidence of effective strategies to reduce this overtesting in general practice. Therefore, the aim of this qualitative study was to explore the barriers and facilitators for reducing the number of (unnecessary) vitamin D and B12 laboratory tests ordered.Design and settingThis qualitative study, based on a grounded theory design, used semistructured interviews among general practitioners (GPs) and patients from two primary care networks (147 GPs, 195?000 patients). These networks participated in the Reducing Vitamin Testing in Primary Care Practice (REVERT) study, a clustered randomized trial comparing two de-implementation strategies to reduce test ordering in primary care in the Netherlands.ParticipantsTwenty-one GPs, with a maximum of 1 GP per practice who took part in the REVERT study, and 22 patients (who were invited by their GP during vitamin-related consultations) were recruited, from which 20 GPs and 19 patients agreed to participate in this study.ResultsThe most important factor hampering vitamin-test reduction programmes is the mismatch between patients and medical professionals regarding the presumed appropriate indications for testing for vitamin D and B12. In contrast, the most important facilitator for vitamin-test reduction may be updating GPs' knowledge about test indications and their awareness of their own testing behaviour.ConclusionTo achieve a sustainable reduction in vitamin testing, guidelines with clear and uniform recommendations on evidence-based indications for vitamin testing, combined with regular (individual) feedback on test-ordering behaviour, are needed. Moreover, the general public needs access to clear and reliable information on vitamin testing. Further research is required to measure the effect of these strategies on the number of vitamin test requests.Trial registration numberWAG/mb/16/039555.
| S-EPMC6797438 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBorderline personality disorder (BPD) is associated with unemployment and impaired functioning. However, a comprehensive understanding of barriers and facilitators to employment from a multidisciplinary perspective is currently lacking. Therefore, the aim of this qualitative study was to explore barriers and facilitators in gaining and maintaining employment in BPD from the perspectives of patients, mental health practitioners (MHPs) and insurance physicians (IPs).MethodsFifteen semi-structured interviews were conducted in patients with BPD and two focus groups were carried out among MHPs (n = 7) and IPs (n = 6) following a thematic content analysis approach.ResultsAll participants described barriers and facilitators relating to three overall themes: characteristics of BPD, stigma, and support to employment. Barriers to employment mainly related to characteristics of BPD, such as low self-image, difficulty posing personal boundaries, difficulty regulating emotions, and lack of structure. MHPs and IPs additionally mentioned externalization and overestimation of competencies on the part of patients. Enhancing emotion regulation and self-reflection by successful treatment was suggested as a facilitator to enhance employment. Increasing collaboration between mental health and vocational rehabilitation services, and increasing knowledge about BPD, were suggested to increase sustainable employment and decrease stigma.ConclusionsThe present findings revealed that both facilitators and barriers are important in gaining and maintaining employment in BPD in which diminishing symptoms, examining stigma and increasing support to employment are key. As a next step, supported employment strategies that follow patient preferences and integrate employment and mental health services, should be studied in the context of BPD.
| S-EPMC6650068 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8293937 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is growing evidence for the use of social prescribing as a means to improve the mental health of patients. However, there are gaps in understanding the barriers and enablers faced by General Practitioners (GPs) when engaging in social prescribing for patients with mental health problems.MethodsThis study uses a qualitative approach involving one-to-one interviews with GPs from across the UK. The COM-B model was used to elucidate barriers and enablers, and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and a Behaviour Change Theory and Techniques tool was used to identify interventions that could address these.ResultsGPs recognised the utility of social prescribing in addressing the high levels of psychosocial need they saw in their patient population, and expressed the need to de-medicalise certain patient problems. GPs were driven by a desire to help patients, and so they benefited from regular positive feedback to reinforce the value of their social prescribing referrals. They also discussed the importance of developing more robust evidence on social prescribing, but acknowledged the challenges of conducting rigorous research in community settings. GPs lacked the capacity, and formal training, to effectively engage with community groups for patients with mental health problems. Link workers, when available to GPs, were of fundamental importance in bridging the gap between the GP and community. The formation of trusting relationships was crucial at different points of the social prescribing pathway, with patients needing to trust GPs in order for them to agree to see a link worker or attend a community activity, and GPs requiring a range of strong inter-personal skills in order to gain patients' trust and motivate them.ConclusionThis study elucidates the barriers and enablers to social prescribing for patients with mental health problems, from the perspectives of GPs. Recommended interventions include a more systematic feedback structure for GPs and more formal training around social prescribing and developing the relevant inter-personal skills. This study provides insight for GPs and other practice staff, commissioners, managers, providers and community groups, to help design and deliver future social prescribing services.
| S-EPMC7507286 | biostudies-literature