Delivering colon cancer survivorship care in primary care; a qualitative study on the experiences of general practitioners

Background With more patients in need of oncological care, there is a growing interest to transfer survivorship care from specialist to general practitioner (GP). The ongoing I CARE study was initiated in 2015 in the Netherlands to compare (usual) surgeon- to GP-led survivorship care, with or without access to a supporting eHealth application (Oncokompas). Methods Semi-structured interviews were held at two separate points in time (i.e. after 1- and 5-years of care) to explore GPs’ experiences with delivering this survivorship care intervention, and study its implementation into daily practice. Purposive sampling was used to recruit 17 GPs. Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used as a conceptual framework. Results Overall, delivering survivorship care was not deemed difficult and dealing with cancer repercussions was already considered part of a GPs’ work. Though GPs readily identified advantages for patients, caregivers and society, differences were seen in GPs’ commitment to the intervention and whether it felt right for them to be involved. Patients’ initiative with respect to planning, absence of symptoms and regular check-ups due to other chronic care were considered to facilitate the delivery of care. Prominent barriers included GPs’ lack of experience and routine, but also lack of clarity regarding roles and responsibilities for organising care. Need for a monitoring system was often mentioned to reduce the risk of non-compliance. GPs were reticent about a possible future transfer of survivorship care towards primary care due to increases in workload and financial constraints. GPs were not aware of their patients’ use of eHealth. Conclusions GPs’ opinions and beliefs about a possible future role in colon cancer survivorship care vary. Though GPs recognize potential benefit, there is no consensus about transferring survivorship care to primary care on a permanent basis. Barriers and facilitators to implementation highlight the importance of both personal and system level factors. Conditions are put forth relating to time, reorganisation of infrastructure, extra personnel and financial compensation. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register; NTR4860. Registered on the 2nd of October 2014.

Improving primary palliative care – a Delphi consensus study on measures for general practice in Germany

Background The majority of severely ill and dying people in Germany can be administered primary palliative care (PPC) by general practitioners (GP). However, the current provision of PPC does not match the needs of the population. Although several public health strategies aim at strengthening the role of GPs in PPC provision, it remains challenging for GP teams to integrate PPC into their daily routines. Aim A Delphi study with GPs was conducted to achieve consensus on specific measures for improving the integration of PPC into everyday GP practice. Methods The study is part of the junior research project “Primary Palliative Care in General Practice” (ALLPRAX). After having developed, tested and evaluated 26 practical measures for GP practices to improve their PPC, a Delphi consensus study among GPs took place. In 2020, 569 GPs were asked to rate the relevance and feasibility of the measures on a 4-point Likert scale via an anonymous online questionnaire. Consensus was defined as a sum percentage of ‘strongly agree’ and ‘somewhat agree’ responses ≥75% after two rounds. Between these rounds, measures that were not consented in the first round were adapted in light of respondents’ free text comments and suggestions. Results The response rate was 11.3% in round 1 (n = 64) and 53.1% in round 2 (n = 34). From the initial n = 26 measures, n = 20 measures achieved consensus and were included in the final intervention package. The consented measures pertained to four main topics: advance care planning with patients, consulting and informing patients and family caregivers, GP office organisation and continuing education. N = 6 measures did not achieve consensus, predominantly due to time and workload constraints. Conclusion The consented measures provide valuable support to improve the provision of PPC by GPs. They can be used freely and flexibly, according to the needs of individual GP teams, and are thus suitable for implementation nationwide. Trial registration The study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (Registration N° DRKS00011821; 4 December 2017; https://apps.who.int/trialsearch/) and the German Register of Health Care Research (Registration N° VfD_ALLPRAX_16_003817; 30 March 2017).

How did general practices organize care during the COVID-19 pandemic: the protocol of the cross-sectional PRICOV-19 study in 38 countries

Background General practitioners (GPs) play a crucial role in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic as the first point of contact for possibly infected patients and are responsible for short and long-term follow-up care of the majority of COVID-19 patients. Nonetheless, they experience many barriers to fulfilling this role. The PRICOV-19 study investigates how GP practices in 38 countries are organized during the COVID-19 pandemic to guarantee safe, effective, patient-centered, and equitable care. Also, the shift in roles and tasks and the wellbeing of staff members is researched. Finally, PRICOV-19 aims to study the association with practice- and health care system characteristics. It is expected that both characteristics of the GP practice and health care system features are associated with how GP practices can cope with these challenges. This paper describes the protocol of the study. Methods Using a cross-sectional design, data are collected through an online questionnaire sent to GP practices in 37 European countries and Israel. The questionnaire is developed in multiple phases, including a pilot study in Belgium. The final version includes 53 items divided into six sections: patient flow (including appointments, triage, and management for routine care); infection prevention; information processing; communication; collaboration and self-care; and practice and participant characteristics. In the countries where data collection is already finished, between 13 and 636 GP practices per country participated in the study. Questionnaire data are linked with OECD and HSMR data regarding national policy responses to the pandemic and analyzed using multilevel models considering the system- and practice-level. Discussion To the best of our knowledge, the PRICOV-19 study is the largest and most comprehensive study that examines how GP practices function during the COVID-19 pandemic. Its results can significantly contribute to better preparedness of primary health care systems across Europe for future major outbreaks of infectious diseases.

What do patients experience? Interprofessional collaborative practice for chronic conditions in primary care: an integrative review

Background Improving the patient experience is one of the quadruple aims of healthcare. Therefore, understanding patient experiences and perceptions of healthcare interactions is paramount to quality improvement. This integrative review aimed to explore how patients with chronic conditions experience Interprofessional Collaborative Practice in primary care. Methods An integrative review was conducted to comprehensively synthesize primary studies that used qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods. Databases searched were Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science on June 1st, 2021. Eligible studies were empirical full-text studies in primary care that reported experiences or perceptions of Interprofessional Collaborative Practice by adult patients with a chronic condition, in any language published in any year. Quality appraisal was conducted on included studies using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. Data on patients’ experiences and perceptions of Interprofessional Collaborative Practice in primary care were extracted, and findings were thematically analyzed through a meta-synthesis. Results Forty-eight (n = 48) studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of n = 3803 participants. Study quality of individual studies was limited by study design, incomplete reporting, and the potential for positive publication bias. Three themes and their sub-themes were developed inductively: (1) Interacting with Healthcare Teams, subthemes: widening the network, connecting with professionals, looking beyond the condition, and overcoming chronic condition collectively; (2) Valuing Convenient Healthcare, subthemes: sharing space and time, care planning creates structure, coordinating care, valuing the general practitioner role, and affording healthcare; (3) Engaging Self-care, subthemes: engaging passively is circumstantial, and, engaging actively and leading care. Conclusions Patients overwhelmingly had positive experiences of Interprofessional Collaborative Practice, signaling it is appropriate for chronic condition management in primary care. The patient role in managing their chronic condition was closely linked to their experience. Future studies should investigate how the patient role impacts the experience of patients, carers, and health professionals in this context. Systematic review registration PROSPERO: CRD42020156536.

General practitioners’ experiences with, views of, and attitudes towards, general practice-based pharmacists: a cross-sectional survey

Background There is limited United Kingdom (UK) literature on general practice-based pharmacists’ (PBPs’) role evolution and few studies have explored general practitioners’ (GPs’) experiences on pharmacist integration into general practice. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate GPs’ experiences with, views of, and attitudes towards PBPs in Northern Ireland (NI). Methods A paper-based self-administered questionnaire comprising four sections was mailed in 2019 to 329 general practices across NI and was completed by one GP in every practice who had most contact with the PBP. Descriptive analyses were used and responses to open-ended questions were analysed thematically. Results The response rate was 61.7% (203/329). There was at least one PBP per general practice. All GPs had face-to-face meetings with PBPs, with three-quarters (78.7%, n = 159) meeting with the PBP more than once a week. Approximately two-thirds of GPs (62.4%, n = 126) reported that PBPs were qualified as independent prescribers, and 76.2% of these (n = 96/126) indicated that prescribers were currently prescribing for patients. The majority of GPs reported that PBPs always/very often had the required clinical skills (83.6%, n = 162) and knowledge (87.0%, n = 167) to provide safe and effective care for patients. However, 31.1% (n = 61) stated that PBPs only sometimes had the confidence to make clinical decisions. The majority of GPs (> 85%) displayed largely positive attitudes towards collaboration with PBPs. Most GPs agreed/strongly agreed that PBPs will have a positive impact on patient outcomes (95.0%, n = 192) and can provide a better link between general practices and community pharmacists (96.1%, n = 194). However, 24.8% of GPs (n = 50) were unclear if the PBP role moved community pharmacists to the periphery of the primary care team. An evaluation of the free-text comments indicated that GPs were in favour of more PBP sessions and full-time posts. Conclusion Most GPs had positive views of, and attitudes towards, PBPs. The findings may have implications for future developments in order to extend integration of PBPs within general practice, including the enhancement of training in clinical skills and decision-making. Exploring PBPs’, community pharmacists’ and patients’ views of this role in general practice is required to corroborate study findings.

Attitudes & behaviors toward the management of tobacco smoking patients: qualitative study with French primary care physicians

Background Smoking cessation is a major public health issue. In France, primary care physicians (PCP) are the first contact points for tobacco management. The objective of this study was to understand how PCPs are involved in the management of smoking cessation: ownership, commitment, barriers. Methods A qualitative study was conducted using group and individual semi-structured techniques with PCPs. A thematic analysis of verbatim transcripts was performed to identify concepts and sub-concepts of interest. Saturation was evaluated retrospectively to ensure adequate sample size. Results A sample of 35 PCPs were interviewed, 31 in four focus groups and four in individual interviews. PCPs discussed their roles in the management of tobacco smoking cessation, including the different strategies they are using (e.g., Minimal Intervention Strategy, Motivational Interviewing), the multiple barriers encountered (e.g., lack of time, patients’ resistance to medical advice), the support resources and the treatment and intervention they prescribed (e.g. nicotine replacement therapy, supporting therapist). Conclusions This study provides a better understanding of the beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of PCPs in managing smoking cessation. Guiding and encouraging patients toward smoking cessation remains a major objective of PCPs. While PCPs reported that progress has been made in recent years in terms of tools, technology and general awareness, they still face major barriers, some of which could be overcome by appropriate training.

Are primary care and continuity of care associated with asthma-related acute outcomes amongst children? A retrospective population-based study

Background Having a primary care provider and a continuous relationship may be important for asthma outcomes. In this study, we sought to determine the association between 1) having a usual provider of primary care (UPC) and asthma-related emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalization in Québec children with asthma and 2) UPC continuity of care and asthma outcomes. Methods Population-based retrospective cohort study using Québec provincial health administrative data, including children 2-16 years old with asthma (N = 39, 341). Exposures and outcomes were measured from 2010-2011 and 2012-2013, respectively. Primary exposure was UPC stratified by the main primary care models in Quebec (team-based Family Medicine Groups, family physicians not in Family Medicine Groups, pediatricians, or no assigned UPC). For those with an assigned UPC the secondary exposure was continuity of care, measured by the UPC Index (high, medium, low). Four multivariate logistic regression models examined associations between exposures and outcomes (ED visits and hospitalizations). Results Overall, 17.4% of children had no assigned UPC. Compared to no assigned UPC, having a UPC was associated with decreased asthma-related ED visits (pediatrician Odds Ratio (OR): 0.80, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) [0.73, 0.88]; Family Medicine Groups OR: 0.84, 95% CI [0.75,0.93]; non-Family Medicine Groups OR: 0.92, 95% CI [0.83, 1.02]) and hospital admissions (pediatrician OR: 0.66, 95% CI [0.58, 0.75]; Family Medicine Groups OR: 0.82, 95% CI [0.72, 0.93]; non-Family Medicine Groups OR: 0.76, 95% CI [0.67, 0.87]). Children followed by a pediatrician were more likely to have high continuity of care. Continuity of care was not significantly associated with asthma-related ED visits. Compared to low continuity, medium and high continuity of care decreased asthma-related hospital admissions, but none of these associations were significant. Conclusion Having a UPC was associated with reduced asthma-related ED visits and hospital admissions. However, continuity of care was not significantly associated with outcomes. The current study provides ongoing evidence for the importance of primary care in children with asthma.

Misbeliefs about non-specific low back pain and attitudes towards treatment by primary care providers in Spain: a qualitative study

Aim To identify misbeliefs about the origin and meaning of non-specific chronic low back pain and to examine attitudes towards treatment by primary health care providers. Design Generic qualitative study. Methods Ten semi-structured interviews were conducted between October and November 2016 with physicians and nurses from primary health care centres in Lleida. The interviews were transcribed and analysed using inductive thematic analysis via Atlas.ti-8 software. Results Five themes were identified: i. beliefs about the origin and meaning of chronic low back pain, ii. psychosocial aspects of pain modulators, iii. Therapeutic exercise as a treatment for chronic low back pain, iv. biomedical attitudes of primary health care providers, and v. difficulties in the clinical approach to chronic low back pain. Conclusion Primary health care providers have a unifactorial view of chronic low back pain and base their approach on the biomedical model. Professionals attribute chronic low back pain to structural alterations in the lumbar spine while psychosocial factors are only recognized as pain modulators. For professionals, therapeutic exercise represents a possible solution to chronic low back pain; however, they still do not prescribe it and continue to educate on postural hygiene and recommend limiting physical and/or occupational activities, as opposed to clinical practice guidelines. These findings suggest that to improve the adherence of primary health care providers to the biopsychosocial model, it may be necessary first to modify their misbeliefs about non-specific chronic low back pain by increasing their knowledge on pain neurophysiology. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02962817. Date of registration: 11/11/2016.

Physical examination performed by general practitioners in 5 community health service institutions in Beijing: an observational study

Background Physical examination is a core component of consultation. Little is known about the status quo of physical examinations performed by general practitioners in community health service institutions in China. The aim of this study was to investigate general practitioners’ performance of physical examinations in consultations. Methods An observational study was conducted in 5 community health service institutions in Beijing between November 2019 and January 2020. Eleven general practitioners were observed for one workday. Information of consecutive consultations was recorded including patient characteristics, reasons for encounter, physical examinations performed by general practitioners, length of consultation time and time spent on specific activities in consultations. Results A total of 682 consultations of 11 general practitioners were recorded. Physical examinations were performed in 126 consultations (15.8%). Physical examination was more likely to be performed in patients visiting with symptoms (P < 0.001). Majority of the 126 physical examinations were distributed in “Head, face, and neck examination” (n = 54, 42.9%) and “Cardiovascular examination” (n = 55, 43.7%). No physical examination was performed on skin, male genitalia, female breasts and genitalia, and neurological systems. Total 2823 min of activities were observed and recorded. General practitioners only spent 3.1% of the recorded time on physical examination, which was less than the time spent on taking history (18.2%), test (4.9%), diagnosis (22.7%), therapy (38.4%), and health education (8.6%). The average time spent on physical examinations was 0.8±0.4 min per consultation. Conclusion Physical examination was insufficiently performed by general practitioners in community health service institutions in Beijing. More time and commitment should be advocated for improving the quality of physical examinations in primary care.

Health care utilization following “digi-physical” assessment compared to physical assessment for infectious symptoms in primary care

Background The use of chat-based digital visits (eVisits) to assess infectious symptoms in primary care is rapidly increasing. The “digi-physical” model of care uses eVisits as the first line of assessment while assuming a certain proportion of patients will inevitably need to be further assessed through urgent physical examination within 48 h. It is unclear to what extent this approach can mitigate physical visits compared to assessing patients directly using office visits. Methods This pre-COVID-19-pandemic observational study followed up “digi-physical” eVisit patients (n = 1188) compared to office visit patients (n = 599) with respiratory or urinary symptoms. Index visits occurred between March 30th 2016 and March 29th 2019. The primary outcome was subsequent physical visits to physicians within two weeks using registry data from Skåne county, Sweden (Region Skånes Vårddatabas, RSVD). Results No significant differences in subsequent physical visits within two weeks (excluding the first 48 h) were noted following “digi-physical” care compared to office visits (179 (18.0%) vs. 102 (17.6%), P = .854). As part of the “digital-physical” concept, a significantly larger proportion of eVisit patients had a physical visit within 48 h compared to corresponding office visit patients (191 (16.1%) vs. 19 (3.2%), P < .001), with 150 (78.5%) of these eVisit patients recommended some form of follow-up by the eVisit physician. Conclusions Most eVisit patients (68.9%) with respiratory and urinary symptoms have no subsequent physical visits. Beyond an unavoidable portion of patients requiring urgent physical examination within 48 h, “digi-physical” management of respiratory and urinary symptoms results in comparable subsequent health care utilization compared to office visits. eVisit providers may need to optimize use of resources to minimize the proportion of patients being assessed both digitally and physically within 48 h as part of the “digi-physical” concept. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03474887.