General Practitioners' Accounts of Patients Who Have Self-Harmed: A Qualitative, Observational Study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Chandler A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4904492 | biostudies-other | 2016
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo explore patients' accounts of being removed from a general practitioner's list.DesignQualitative analysis of semistructured interviews.SettingPatients' homes in Leicestershire.Participants28 patients who had recently been removed from a general practitioner's list.ResultsThe removed patients gave an account of themselves as having genuine illnesses needing medical care. In putting their case that their removal was unjustified, patients were concerned to show that they were "good" patients who complied with the rules that they understood to govern the doctor-patient relationship: they tried to cope with their illness and follow medical advice, used general practice services "appropriately," were uncomplaining, and were polite with doctors. Removed patients also used their accounts to characterise the removing general practitioner as one who broke the lay rules of the doctor-patient relationship. These "bad" general practitioners were rude, impersonal, uncaring, and clinically incompetent and lied to patients. Patients felt very threatened by being removed from their general practitioner's list; they experienced removal as an attack on their right to be an NHS patient, as deeply distressing, and as stigmatising.ConclusionsRemoval is an overwhelmingly negative and distressing experience for patients. Many of the problems encountered by removed patients may be remediable through general practices having an explicit policy on removal and procedures in place to help with "difficult" patients.
| S-EPMC161635 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is a large and unexplained variation in referral rates to specialists by general practitioners, which calls for investigations regarding general practitioners' perceptions and expectations during the referral process. Our objective was to describe the decision-making process underlying referral of patients to specialists by general practitioners working in a university outpatient primary care center.MethodsTwo focus groups were conducted among general practitioners (10 residents and 8 chief residents) working in the Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté) of the University of Lausanne, in Switzerland. Focus group data were analyzed with thematic content analysis. A feedback group of general practitioners validated the results.ResultsParticipating general practitioners distinguished two kinds of situations regarding referral: a) "clear-cut situations", in which the decision to refer or not seems obvious and b) "complex cases", in which they hesitate to refer or not. Regarding the "complex cases", they reported various types of concerns: a) about the treatment, b) about the patient and the doctor-patient relationship and c) about themselves. General practitioners evoked numerous reasons for referring, including non-medical factors such as influencing patients' emotions, earning specialists' esteem or sharing responsibility. They also explained that they seek validation by colleagues and postpone referral so as to relieve some of the decision-related distress.ConclusionsGeneral practitioners' referral of patients to specialists cannot be explained in biomedical terms only. It seems necessary to take into account the fact that referral is a sensitive topic for general practitioners, involving emotionally charged interactions and relationships with patients, colleagues, specialists and supervisors. The decision to refer or not is influenced by multiple contextual, personal and clinical factors that dynamically interact and shape the decision-making process.
| S-EPMC6885318 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWith the increasing availability of information, patients are becoming more informed about radiology procedures and requesting imaging studies. This qualitative study aims to explore factors that influence general practitioners' (GPs) decisions to fulfil patient requests for imaging studies during clinical consultation.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 GPs working across five private medical centres in Northwest Sydney. Conventional content analysis was used with emergent themes to identify GPs perspectives.ResultsSix themes stood out from the interviews with GPs fulfilling patient requests for imaging studies. They included four pertaining to patient factors: patient expectations, 'therapeutic scans', 'impressive labels' and entitled. Two further themes pertained to the GP perspective and included defensive medicine, and 'new patients'. Requests are fulfilled from anxious or health-obsessed patients, with GPs worrying about litigation if they refuse. However, GPs decline requests from patients with entitlement attitudes or during first visits.DiscussionThe findings suggest that GPs struggle to balance their responsibilities as gatekeepers of imaging with patients' expectations of request fulfilment. Clear guidelines on the appropriate use of diagnostic imaging and its limitations could help patients understand its proper use and ease anxiety. Additionally, education and training for GPs could help them manage patient expectations and provide appropriate care.Patient contributionsPatients, service users, caregivers, people with lived experiences or members of the public were not directly involved in the design, conduct, analysis or interpretation of the study. However, our study was conducted in primary care facilities where the GPs were interviewed about patients' requests for diagnostic imaging based on their own initiatives. GPs' perspectives in managing patient expectations and healthcare utilisation were explored within the Australian Medicare system, where medical imaging and image-guided procedures come at little to no cost to the individual. The study findings contribute to a better understanding of the challenges faced by GPs in dealing with patient consumerism and requests for diagnostic imaging, as well as factors influencing request fulfilment or denial. Insights gained from this study may inform future research about delivering patient-centred care within a similar context.
| S-EPMC10632629 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is high on the UK public health policy agenda, and poses challenges to patient safety and the provision of health services. Widespread prescribing of antibiotics is thought to increase AMR, and mostly takes place in primary medical care. However, prescribing rates vary substantially between general practices. The aim of this study was to understand contextual factors related to general practitioners' (GPs) antibiotic prescribing behaviour in low, high, and around the mean (medium) prescribing primary care practices. METHODS:Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 41 GPs working in North-West England. Participants were purposively sampled from practices with low, medium, and high antibiotic prescribing rates adjusted for the number and characteristics of patients registered in a practice. The interviews were analysed thematically. RESULTS:This study found that optimizing antibiotic prescribing creates tensions for GPs, particularly in doctor-patient communication during a consultation. GPs balanced patient expectations and their own decision-making in their communication. When not prescribing antibiotics, GPs reported the need for supportive mechanisms, such as regular practice meetings, within the practice, and in the wider healthcare system (e.g. longer consultation times). In low prescribing practices, GPs reported that increasing dialogue with colleagues, having consistent patterns of prescribing within the practice, supportive practice policies, and enough resources such as consultation time were important supports when not prescribing antibiotics. CONCLUSIONS:Insight into GPs' negotiations with patient and public health demands, and consistent and supportive practice-level policies can help support prudent antibiotic prescribing among primary care practices.
| S-EPMC6905031 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesDextropropoxyphene (DXP), a step 2 analgesic commonly prescribed in France, was withdrawn from the French market in 2011 following a European decision due to its poor risk-benefit ratio. The purpose of this study was to explore the perceptions of French general practitioners (GPs) and patients regarding DXP withdrawal.DesignQualitative study based on 26 individual semi-structured interviews.SettingRhône-Alpes region of France.ParticipantsThirteen patients and 13 GPs.MethodsInterviews were conducted to collect data concerning the status of DXP, its efficacy and safety, the conditions of DXP's withdrawal and its potential impact. The transcripts were analysed using NVivo software.ResultsDXP was a very popular drug among both patients and GPs. Its withdrawal was a bad experience for patients and many GPs; these misunderstood the reasons for its withdrawal and several contested them. They generally recognised more benefits than risks of DXP and considered alternative drugs unsatisfactory. In the same period, a French court case regarding another drug led to distrust towards the pharmaceutical industry and healthcare institutions, which contributed to the negative feelings reported. However, the experience was positive for the GPs who had been alerted to the poor DXP risk-benefit ratio well before its withdrawal.ConclusionsApart from physicians who were previously informed of its poor risk-benefit ratio, DXP withdrawal was not a good experience for patients and GPs. Better anticipation by the health authorities, in terms of pharmacoepidemiological surveillance and communication to healthcare professionals as well as the general public, should provide better acceptance of such a decision in the future.
| S-EPMC6157533 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients surviving critical illnesses, such as sepsis, often suffer from long-term complications. After discharge from hospital, most patients are treated in primary care. Little is known how general practitioners (GPs) perform critical illness aftercare and how it can be improved. Within a randomised controlled trial, an outreach training programme has been developed and applied.ObjectivesThe aim of this study is to describe GPs' views and experiences of caring for postsepsis patients and of participating a specific outreach training.DesignSemistructured qualitative interviews.Setting14 primary care practices in the metropolitan area of Berlin, Germany.Participants14 GPs who had participated in a structured sepsis aftercare programme in primary care.ResultsThemes identified in sepsis aftercare were: continuity of care and good relationship with patients, GP's experiences during their patient's critical illness and impact of persisting symptoms. An outreach education as part of the intervention was considered by the GPs to be acceptable, helpful to improve knowledge of the management of postintensive care complications and useful for sepsis aftercare in daily practice.ConclusionsGPs provide continuity of care to patients surviving sepsis. Better communication at the intensive care unit-GP interface and training in management of long-term complications of sepsis may be helpful to improve sepsis aftercare.Trial registration numberISRCTN61744782.
| S-EPMC7878160 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Around 20% of the Dutch population is living with chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP), which is a complex and multifactorial problem. This complexity makes it hard to define a classification system, which results in non-satisfactory referring from the general practitioner (GP). CMP is often explained using the biopsychosocial model in which biological, psychological and social factors cause and maintain the pain. The presented study investigated the factors related to the GPs' referral for patients with CMP to further treatment.Using convenience sampling, semi-structured interviews and a focus group were conducted among 14 GPs. The interviews were iteratively analyzed using inductive conventional content analysis.Analysis of the interviews demonstrated that there were 28 referral factors that were mentioned by more than 50% of the interviewed GPs. The results showed that the GPs were mostly focussing on the physical (e.g. pain location) and psychological (e.g. acceptation of pain) factors, indicating that they lack focus on the social factors. Furthermore, unfamiliarity of GPs with treatment options was a noteworthy finding.The referral of patients with CMP by GPs is complex and based on multiple factors. To improve referral, it is recommended to include social factors in the decision-making process and to increase the familiarity of the GPs with available treatments.
| S-EPMC9129062 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn Germany, a decreasing number of general practitioners (GPs) face a growing number of patients with multimorbidity. Whilst care for patients with multimorbidity involves various healthcare providers, the coordination of this care is one of the many responsibilities of GPs. The aims of this study are to identify the barriers to the successful coordination of multimorbid patient care and these patients' complex needs, and to explore the support needed by GPs in the care of multimorbid patients. Interviewees were asked for their opinion on concepts which involve the support by additional employees within the practice or, alternatively, external health care professionals, providing patient navigation.MethodsThirty-two semi-structured, qualitative interviews were conducted with 16 GPs and 16 medical practice assistants (MPAs) from 16 different practices in Berlin. A MPA is a qualified non-physician practice employee. He or she undergoes a three years vocational training which qualifies him or her to provide administrative and clinical support. The interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed and analysed using the framework analysis methodology.ResultsThe results of this paper predominantly focus on GPs' perspectives of coordination within and external to general practice. Coordination in the context of care for multimorbid patients consists of a wide range of different tasks. Organisational and administrative obstacles under the regulatory framework of the German healthcare system, and insufficient communication with other healthcare providers constitute barriers described by the interviewed GPs and MPAs. In order to ensure optimal care for patients with multimorbidity, GPs may have to delegate responsibilities associated with coordinating tasks. GPs consider the deployment of an additional specifically qualified employee inside the general practice to take on coordinative and social and legal duties to be a viable option.ConclusionsThe cross-sectoral cooperation between all involved key players working within the healthcare system, as well as the coordination of the whole care process, is seemingly challenging for GPs within the complex care system of multimorbid patients. GPs are generally open to the assignment of a person to support them in coordination tasks, preferably situated within the practice team.
| S-EPMC6865037 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo identify the ways in which patients with medically unexplained symptoms present their problems and needs to general practitioners and to identify the forms of presentation that might lead general practitioners to feel pressurised to deliver somatic interventions.DesignQualitative analysis of audiorecorded consultations between patients and general practitioners.Setting7 general practices in Merseyside, England.Participants36 patients selected consecutively from 21 general practices, in whom doctors considered that patients' symptoms were medically unexplained.Main outcome measuresInductive qualitative analysis of ways in which patients presented their symptoms to general practitioners.ResultsAlthough 34 patients received somatic interventions (27 received drug prescriptions, 12 underwent investigations, and four were referred), only 10 requested them. However, patients presented in other ways that had the potential to pressurise general practitioners, including: graphic and emotional language; complex patterns of symptoms that resisted explanation; description of emotional and social effects of symptoms; reference to other individuals as authority for the severity of symptoms; and biomedical explanations.ConclusionsMost patients with unexplained symptoms received somatic interventions from their general practitioners but had not requested them. Though such patients apparently seek to engage the general practitioner by conveying the reality of their suffering, general practitioners respond symptomatically.
| S-EPMC403850 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Referral for both lifestyle and surgical interventions are recommended as part of the clinical management of obesity in general practice. However, current practice falls short of this. This qualitative study aimed to describe the factors influencing general practitioners' (GPs) referral intentions for their obese patients.Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 24 GPs from four geographically different areas in New South Wales, Australia about the management of their obese patients. A qualitative analysis was applied using inductive thematic analysis.The predominant factors influencing GPs' referral were their own attitudes and experience, and their patient's motivation. Lifestyle intervention Referrals were usually initiated by GPs and influenced by their patients and the local health system. Referrals to conduct bariatric surgery were frequently initiated by the patient and influenced by GPs' limited previous experience, patients' expectations and ability to pay, as well as professional and legal issues. There was no strong link between referral and the remoteness of areas or the availability of surgical referral services.There were differences between GPs reported referral behaviour for lifestyle and surgical interventions. GPs' attitudes to referral were often formed by their limited case experience rather than by a review of more systematic evidence, especially for surgical interventions. These patterns may be improved by educating and better communicating with GPs about the outcomes for their patients when they are referred.
| S-EPMC4396120 | biostudies-other