scholarly journals Primary care management of chronic insomnia: a qualitative analysis of the attitudes and experiences of Australian general practitioners

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenny Haycock ◽  
Nicole Grivell ◽  
Anne Redman ◽  
Bandana Saini ◽  
Andrew Vakulin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Geographic Location ◽  
Behavioural Therapy ◽  
Chronic Insomnia ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Treatment Pathways ◽  
Falling Asleep ◽  
Australian General Practice

Abstract Background Chronic insomnia is a highly prevalent disorder, with ten to thirty percent of Australian adults reporting chronic difficulties falling asleep and/or staying asleep such that it causes significant daytime impairment. Current Australian general practice guidelines recommend cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (CBTi) as first line treatment for insomnia, however research suggests that most general practice consultations for insomnia result in a prescription for hypnotic or sedative medicines. Although the first point of contact for patients experiencing symptoms of insomnia is often general practice, little is known about the current role, experiences and capacity of Australian general practitioners to manage insomnia. This study aimed to address that gap by exploring the attitudes and opinions of general practitioners regarding insomnia management, to inform the development and implementation of new models of best practice insomnia care within general practice. Methods A descriptive, pragmatic qualitative study. Purposive sampling was used to recruit practising Australian general practitioners, varying in age, years of experience and geographic location. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and data analysed using thematic analysis.  Results Twenty-eight general practitioners participated in the study. Three major themes were identified: 1) Responsibility for insomnia care; 2) Complexities in managing insomnia; and 3) Navigating treatment pathways. Whilst general practitioners readily accepted responsibility for the management of insomnia, provision of care was often demanding and difficult within the funding and time constraints of general practice. Patients presenting with comorbid mental health conditions and insomnia, and decision-making regarding long-term use of benzodiazepines presented challenges for general practitioners. Whilst general practitioners confidently provided sleep hygiene education to patients, their knowledge and experience of CBTi, and access and understanding of specialised referral pathways for insomnia was limited.  Conclusions General practitioners report that whilst assessing and managing insomnia can be demanding, it is an integral part of general practice. Insomnia presents complexities for general practitioners. Greater clarity about funding options, targeted education about effective insomnia treatments, and referral pathways to specialist services, such as benzodiazepine withdrawal support and psychologists, would benefit insomnia management within general practice.

scholarly journals Primary Care Management of Chronic Insomnia: A Qualitative Analysis of the Attitudes and Experiences of Australian General Practitioners

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenny Haycock ◽  
Nicole Grivell ◽  
Anne Redman ◽  
Bandana Saini ◽  
Andrew Vakulin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Geographic Location ◽  
Behavioural Therapy ◽  
Chronic Insomnia ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Treatment Pathways ◽  
Falling Asleep ◽  
Australian General Practice

Abstract Background Chronic insomnia is a highly prevalent disorder, with ten to thirty percent of Australian adults reporting chronic difficulties falling asleep and/or staying asleep such that it causes significant daytime impairment. Current Australian general practice guidelines recommend Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for insomnia (CBTi) as first line treatment for insomnia however, research suggests that most general practice consultations for insomnia result in a prescription for hypnotic or sedative medicines. Although the first point of contact for patients experiencing symptoms of insomnia is often general practice, little is known about the current role, experiences and capacity of Australian general practitioners to manage insomnia. This study aimed to address that gap by exploring the attitudes and opinions of general practitioners regarding insomnia management, to inform the development and implementation of new models of best practice insomnia care within general practice. Methods A descriptive, pragmatic qualitative study. Purposive sampling was used to recruit practising Australian general practitioners, varying in age, years of experience and geographic location. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and data analysed using Thematic Analysis. Results Twenty-eight general practitioners participated in the study. Three major themes were identified: 1) Responsibility for insomnia care; 2) Complexities in managing insomnia; and 3) Navigating treatment pathways. Whilst general practitioners readily accepted responsibility for the management of insomnia, provision of care was often demanding and difficult within the funding and time constraints of general practice. Patients presenting with comorbid mental health conditions and insomnia, and decision-making regarding long-term use of benzodiazepines presented challenges for general practitioners. Whilst general practitioners confidently provided sleep hygiene education to patients, their knowledge and experience of CBTi, and access and understanding of specialised referral pathways for insomnia was limited. Conclusions General practitioners report that whilst assessing and managing insomnia can be demanding, it is an integral part of general practice. Insomnia presents complexities for general practitioners, and greater clarity about funding options, targeted education about effective insomnia treatments, and referral pathways to specialist services would benefit insomnia management within general practice.

scholarly journals P044 Primary care management of chronic insomnia by general practitioners: an Australian perspective

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. A35-A36
Author(s):  
N Grivell ◽  
J Haycock ◽  
A Redman ◽  
B Saini ◽  
A Vakulin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Behavioural Therapy ◽  
Chronic Insomnia ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Treatment Pathways ◽  
Recommended Treatment ◽  
Cognitive Behavioural ◽  
Specialist Services ◽  
Co Morbidity ◽  
Evidence Based Care

Abstract Introduction Chronic insomnia is a common sleep disorder, with an estimated 15% of Australian adults reporting symptoms of insomnia. Australian general practitioner (GP) guidelines recommend cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (CBTi) as first-line treatment for insomnia however research suggests that GPs instead rely heavily on sleep hygiene and pharmacotherapy. GPs commonly provide treatment for insomnia; however, little is known about the experiences of Australian GPs and their interest when managing patients with insomnia. This study was conducted to explore the perspectives of GPs towards insomnia management and to identify factors that could influence the implementation of new models of insomnia care within general practice. Methods A pragmatic, inductive qualitative study. Purposive sampling was used to recruit 28 Australian GPs varying in age, experience, and distance from specialist sleep services. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results Three themes were identified: 1) Responsibility for insomnia care; 2) Complexities in managing insomnia; and 3) Navigating treatment pathways. Whilst GPs accepted insomnia care as part of their role, they often found it difficult to provide evidence-based care within the time and funding limitations of general practice. Co-morbidity of mental health conditions and insomnia, and long-term use of benzodiazepines presented challenges for GPs. GPs’ knowledge and experience of CBTi and access to specialised referral pathways for insomnia was limited. Discussion Insomnia presents complexities for GPs. Education about insomnia treatments, funding that enables recommended treatment, and pathways to specialist services would support insomnia management within general practice.

scholarly journals ‘Motivational work’: a qualitative study of preventive health dialogues in general practice

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie Broholm-Jørgensen ◽  
Siff Monrad Langkilde ◽  
Tine Tjørnhøj-Thomsen ◽  
Pia Vivian Pedersen
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Support System ◽  
Preventive Intervention ◽  
Digital Health ◽  
Clinical Encounter ◽  
Preventive Health ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
General Practices ◽  
Municipal Health

Abstract Background The aim of this article is to explore preventive health dialogues in general practice in the context of a pilot study of a Danish primary preventive intervention ‘TOF’ (a Danish acronym for ‘Early Detection and Prevention’) carried out in 2016. The intervention consisted of 1) a stratification of patients into one of four groups, 2) a digital support system for both general practitioners and patients, 3) an individual digital health profile for each patient, and 4) targeted preventive services in either general practice or a municipal health center. Methods The empirical material in this study was obtained through 10 observations of preventive health dialogues conducted in general practices and 18 semi-structured interviews with patients and general practitioners. We used the concept of ‘motivational work’ as an analytical lens for understanding preventive health dialogues in general practice from the perspectives of both general practitioners and patients. Results While the health dialogues in TOF sought to reveal patients’ motivations, understandings, and priorities related to health behavior, we find that the dialogues were treatment-oriented and structured around biomedical facts, numeric standards, and risk factor guidance. Overall, we find that numeric standards and quantification of motivation lessens the dialogue and interaction between General Practitioner and patient and that contextual factors relating to the intervention framework, such as a digital support system, the general practitioners’ perceptions of their professional position as well as the patients’ understanding of prevention —in an interplay—diminished the motivational work carried out in the health dialogues. Conclusion The findings show that the influence of different kinds of context adds to the complexity of prevention in the clinical encounter which help to explain why motivational work is difficult in general practice.

scholarly journals Finding common (research) ground between general practitioners and neuroscientists: the vital role of knowledge circulation in closing the evidence-to-practice gap

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Astrid Eich-Krohm ◽  
Bernt-Peter Robra ◽  
Yvonne Marx ◽  
Markus Herrmann
Keyword(s):  
General Practitioners ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Knowledge Exchange ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Joint Research ◽  
Treatment Pathways ◽  
Hermeneutic Approach ◽  
Knowledge Circulation ◽  
Practice Gap

Abstract Background It may take 15 years or longer before research evidence is integrated into clinical practice. This evidence-to-practice gap has deleterious effects on patients as well as research and clinical processes. Bringing clinical knowledge into the research process, however, has the potential to close the evidence-to-practice gap. The NEUROTRANS-Project attempts to bring research and practice together by focusing on two groups that usually operate separately in their communities: general practitioners and neuroscientists. Although both groups focus on dementia as an area of work, they do so in different contexts and without opportunities to share their expertise. Finding new treatment pathways for patients with dementia will require an equal knowledge exchange among researchers and clinicians along with the integration of that knowledge into research processes, so that both groups will benefit from the expertise of the other. Methods The NEUROTRANS-Project uses a qualitative, multi-stage research design to explore how neuroscientists and general practitioners (GPs) approach dementia. Using a grounded theory methodology, it analyzes semi-structured interviews, case vignettes, focus groups with GPs in Saxony-Anhalt, Germany, and informal conversations with, and observations of, neuroscientists from the German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases in Magdeburg. Results The NEUROTRANS-Project identified a clear division of labor between two highly specialized professional groups. Neuroscientists focus abstractly on nosology whereas general practitioners tend to patient care following a hermeneutic approach integrating the patients’ perspective of illness. These different approaches to dementia create a barrier to constructive dialogue and the capacity of these groups to do research together with a common aim. Additionally, the broader system of research funding and health care within which the two groups operate reinforces their divide thereby limiting joint research capacity. Conclusions Overcoming barriers to research collaboration between general practitioners and neuroscientists requires a shift in perspective in which both groups actively engage with the other’s viewpoints to facilitate knowledge circulation (KC). Bringing ‘art into science and science into art’, i.e. amalgamating the hermeneutic approach with the perspective of nosology, is the first step in developing joint research agendas that have the potential to close the evidence-to-practice gap.

scholarly journals Exploration of sedentary behaviour among general practitioners: protocol for a mixed methods study

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 51
Author(s):  
Richard S. Mayne ◽  
Nigel D. Hart ◽  
Neil Heron
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
New Ways Of Working ◽  
Adverse Health Outcomes ◽  
Sequential Mixed Methods ◽  
Working Day

<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> Many general practitioners (GPs) are sedentary for most of their working day. Levels of sedentary behaviour may have been exacerbated by increased use of telemedicine in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, as this is traditionally performed while sitting down. Excessive sedentary behaviour is associated with many adverse health outcomes and increased all-cause mortality. This study will gain quantitative data on levels of sedentary behaviour among GPs and general practice specialty trainees (GPSTs), to identify to what extent general practice is a sedentary occupation, as well as qualitative data regarding the barriers and facilitators to reducing sedentary behaviour in the general practice setting.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> The study follows a sequential, mixed-methods model. The first stage will involve the dissemination of a questionnaire survey, where participants self-estimate their sedentary behaviour on a working day and on a non-working day. The second stage will use thigh-worn accelerometers and a sleep/work log to obtain objective data regarding sedentary behaviour among a purposive subset of participants who responded to the questionnaire. The third stage will involve semi-structured interviews with a purposive subset of accelerometer study participants, analysed with the application of a theoretical framework regarding the acceptability of healthcare interventions.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This paper outlines a protocol for a sequential, mixed-methods study exploring sedentary behaviour among GPs and GPSTs. Findings of this study will shed light on the new ways of working as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, which will be relevant to clinicians working in similar primary care settings throughout the world.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Trial Registration:</strong> ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04556695. Date of registration: 21<sup>st</sup> September 2020.</p><p class="abstract"> </p>

scholarly journals Clinical practice guidelines for insomnia disorder

2017 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 45-51
Author(s):  
Lucille Malan ◽  
Nokuthula Dlamini
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Early Morning ◽  
Behavioural Therapy ◽  
Pharmacological Therapy ◽  
Chronic Insomnia ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Insomnia Disorder ◽  
Cognitive Behavioural ◽  
Falling Asleep

Insomnia disorder is defined as difficulty in falling asleep, maintaining sleep, and early morning awakenings. Common daytime consequences experienced are fatigue, mood instability and impaired concentration. In chronic insomnia these symptoms persist over a period of at least three months. Chronic insomnia can also be a symptom of a variety of disorders. The pathophysiology of insomnia is theorised as a disorder of nocturnal and daytime hyper-arousal as a result of increased somatic, cortical and cognitive activation. The causes of insomnia can be categorized into situational, medical, psychiatric and pharmacologically-induced. To diagnose insomnia, it is required to evaluate the daytime and nocturnal symptoms, as well as psychiatric and medical history. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 5 Criteria (DSM-5) also provides guidelines and criteria to be followed when diagnosing insomnia disorder. Goals of treatment for insomnia disorder are to correct the underlying sleep complaint and this, together with insomnia symptoms, their severity and duration, as well as co-morbid disorders will determine the choice of treatment. In the majority of patients, insomnia can be treated without pharmacological therapy and cognitive behavioural therapy is considered first-line therapy for all patients with insomnia. The most common pharmacological insomnia treatments include benzodiazepines and benzodiazepines receptor agonists. To avoid tolerance and dependence, these hypnotics are recommended to be used at the lowest possible dose, intermittently and for the shortest duration possible. A combination of cognitive behavioural therapy and pharmacological treatment options is recommended for chronic insomnia.

The uses and implications of standards in general practice consultations

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Laura Lippert ◽  
Susanne Reventlow ◽  
Marius Brostrøm Kousgaard
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Professional Practice ◽  
Chronic Care ◽  
Analytical Approach ◽  
Quality Standards ◽  
Clinical Approach ◽  
Quality Development ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Patient Centredness

Quality standards play an increasingly important role in primary care through their inscription in various technologies for improving professional practice. While ‘hard’ biomedical standards have been the most common and debated, current quality development initiatives increasingly seek to include standards for the ‘softer’ aspects of care. This article explores the consequences of both kinds of quality standards for chronic care consultations. The article presents findings from an explorative qualitative field study in Danish general practice where a standardized technology for quality development has been introduced. Data from semi-structured interviews and observations among 17 general practitioners were analysed using an iterative analytical approach, which served to identify important variations in the uses and impacts of the technology. The most pronounced impact of the technology was observed among general practitioners who strictly adhered to the procedural standards on the interactional aspects of care. Thus, when allowed to function as an overall frame for consultations, those standards supported adherence to general recommendations regarding which elements to be included in chronic disease consultations. However, at the same time, adherence to those standards was observed to narrow the focus of doctor–patient dialogues and to divert general practitioners’ attention from patients’ personal concerns. Similar consequences of quality standards have previously been framed as manifestations of an inherent conflict between principles of patient-centredness and formal biomedical quality standards. However, this study suggests that standards on the ‘softer’ aspects of care may just as well interfere with a clinical approach relying on situated and attentive interactions with patients.

Nutrition advice in general practice: the role of general practitioners and practice nurses

2011 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lana J. Mitchell ◽  
Lesley MacDonald-Wicks ◽  
Sandra Capra
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Nutrition Education ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Private Practice ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Efficient Manner ◽  
Practice Nurses ◽  
Best Practice Guidelines

General practice is an ideal setting to be providing nutrition advice; however, it is important that the role of general practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses in providing nutrition advice is acknowledged and defined. This article aims to discuss the role of GPs and practice nurses in the delivery of nutrition advice. Ten general practitioners and 12 practice nurses from a NSW urban Division of General Practice participated in questionnaires and a Lifescripts© implementation study, as well as their consenting patients receiving Lifescripts© (n = 13). An online survey was conducted with 90 Australian private practice dietitians. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 52 Australian private practice dietitians. The provision of basic nutrition advice is acknowledged to be part of the role of GPs and practice nurses, as they are the first point of contact for patients, allowing them to raise nutrition awareness. However, it is important that this advice is evidence based and able to be delivered in a time-efficient manner. Increased nutrition education and the availability of appropriate resources and nutrition-related best practice guidelines will assist in this process.

scholarly journals ‘Motivational work’: a qualitative study of preventive health dialogues in general practice

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie Broholm-Jørgensen ◽  
Siff Monrad Langkilde ◽  
Tine Tjørnhøj-Thomsen ◽  
Pia Vivian Pedersen
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Support System ◽  
Preventive Intervention ◽  
Digital Health ◽  
Clinical Encounter ◽  
Preventive Health ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
General Practices ◽  
Municipal Health

Abstract Background The aim of this article is to explore preventive health dialogues in general practice in the context of a pilot study of a Danish primary preventive intervention ‘TOF’ (a Danish acronym for ‘Early Detection and Prevention’) carried out in 2016. The intervention consisted of 1) a stratification of patients into one of four groups, 2) a digital support system for both general practitioners and patients, 3) an individual digital health profile for each patient, and 4) targeted preventive services in either general practice or a municipal health center.Methods The empirical material in this study was obtained through 10 observations of preventive health dialogues conducted in general practices and 18 semi-structured interviews with patients and general practitioners. We used the concept of ‘motivational work’ as an analytical lens for understanding preventive health dialogues in general practice from the perspectives of both general practitioners and patients.Results While the health dialogues in TOF sought to reveal patients’ motivations, understandings, and priorities related to health behavior, we find that the dialogues were treatment-oriented and structured around biomedical facts, numeric standards, and risk factor guidance. Overall, we find that numeric standards and quantification of motivation lessens the dialogue and interaction between GP and patient and that contextual factors relating to the intervention framework, such as a digital support system, the general practitioners’ perceptions of their professional position as well as the patients’ understanding of prevention —in an interplay—diminished the motivational work carried out in the health dialogues.Conclusion The findings show that the influence of different kinds of context adds to the complexity of prevention in the clinical encounter which help to explain why motivational work is difficult in general practice.

Engaging general practitioners in pay-for-performance scheme design

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Verna Smith
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Performance Management ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Pay For Performance ◽  
National Level ◽  
Professional Values ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Scheme Design

PurposePolicymakers implementing pay-for-performance schemes within general practice should seek to design schemes which work with rather than against the professional values and goals of general practitioners. In this way, schemes are more likely to enhance the practitioners' engagement. The purpose of this paper is to show how this was done in two case studies of pay-for-performance design and present the lessons from this study for policymakers.Design/methodology/approachA Most Similar Systems collective case study of the design of two pay-for-performance schemes for general practitioners, the United Kingdom's Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) and the New Zealand’s Performance Management Programme (PMP) was undertaken, involving 26 semi-structured interviews with policymakers, documentary and literature analysis.FindingsInnovation in processes was found in both case studies which facilitated engagement by general practitioners in the formulation and implementation of these schemes. These were careful selection of highly skilled design teams, use of principle-based negotiation techniques and academic mediation of indicator selection. In addition, in England the majority of members in the combined QOF design team were general practitioners. The evidence from these two case studies reinforces approaches to scheme design which seek to harness rather than challenge medical professional values and which maximise the participation of general practitioners in the design process. Achieving funder/practitioner collaboration should be a key goal in the policymaking process.Practical implicationsPay-for-performance scheme designers can improve their ability to engage general practitioners in scheme design and scheme uptake by adopting approaches which actively engage general practitioners as designers and users of such schemes.Originality/valueThis study compares two contemporaneous processes of pay-for-performance scheme design and implementation in similar systems of general practice funding and delivery at the national level, offering a rare quasi-experimental opportunity for learning lessons from comparative analysis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document