10 research outputs found
Intellectual disability and mental health problems: a qualitative study of general practitioners' views
Vitenskapelig, fagfellevurdert artikkelObjectives: To investigate general practitioners’ (GPs)
experiences in managing patients with intellectual
disabilities (ID) and mental and behavioural problems
(MBP).
Design: Qualitative study using in-depth interviews.
Setting: General practice in Hedmark county, Norway.
Participants: 10 GPs were qualitatively interviewed
about their professional experience regarding patients
with ID and MBP. Data were analysed by all authors
using systematic text condensation.
Results: The participants’ knowledge was primarily
experience-based and collaboration with specialists
seemed to be individual rather than systemic. The GPs
provided divergent attitudes to referral, treatment,
collaboration, regular health checks and home visits.
Conclusions: GPs are in a position to provide
evidence-based and individual treatment for both
psychological and somatic problems among patients
with ID. However, they do not appear to be making use
of evidence-based treatment decisions. The GPs feel
that they are left alone in decision-making, and find it
difficult to find trustworthy collaborative partners. The
findings in this study provide useful information for
further research in the field
TPS-grupper i praksis (Tverrprofesjonell samarbeidslæring i praksisstudier) Delprosjekt 1b i OPERASJON BACHELORPRAKSIS, FHS
I denne rapporten presenteres modeller for tverrprofesjonell praksis-læring som
benyttes både i primærhelsetjenester (TVEPS) og i spesialisthelsetjenesten (TPS i
sykehuspraksis). I tillegg presenteres en mal for informasjonsskriv til ledere og
veiledere i helseforetak og kommuner, der det oppfordres til å legge til rette for
tverrprofesjonelt studentsamarbeid når studenter fra flere profesjonsutdanninger har
samtidig praksis i samme institusjon. Utvikling av modellene som beskrives har
pågått gjennom flere år. Som del av prosjekt Operasjon Bachelorpraksis er modellene
presentert samlet og er prøvd ut på nye praksis-arenaer og på flere HVL-campus.
Modeller og mal for informasjonsskriv er også presentert i «Ressursemne for TPS
i teori og praksis, opprettet i læringsplattformen Canvas (se rapport fra TPSgruppens oppdrag fra punktene 1 og 3)
Collaboration between general practitioners and mental health care professionals: a qualitative study
Background
Collaboration between general practice and mental health care has been recognised as necessary to provide good quality healthcare services to people with mental health problems. Several studies indicate that collaboration often is poor, with the result that patient' needs for coordinated services are not sufficiently met, and that resources are inefficiently used. An increasing number of mental health care workers should improve mental health services, but may complicate collaboration and coordination between mental health workers and other professionals in the treatment chain. The aim of this qualitative study is to investigate strengths and weaknesses in today's collaboration, and to suggest improvements in the interaction between General Practitioners (GPs) and specialised mental health service.
Methods
This paper presents a qualitative focus group study with data drawn from six groups and eight group sessions with 28 health professionals (10 GPs, 12 nurses, and 6 physicians doing post-doctoral training in psychiatry), all working in the same region and assumed to make professional contact with each other.
Results
GPs and mental health professionals shared each others expressions of strengths, weaknesses and suggestions for improvement in today's collaboration. Strengths in today's collaboration were related to common consultations between GPs and mental health professionals, and when GPs were able to receive advice about diagnostic treatment dilemmas. Weaknesses were related to the GPs' possibility to meet mental health professionals, and lack of mutual knowledge in mental health services. The results describe experiences and importance of interpersonal knowledge, mutual accessibility and familiarity with existing systems and resources. There is an agreement between GPs and mental health professionals that services will improve with shared knowledge about patients through systematic collaborative services, direct cell-phone lines to mental health professionals and allocated times for telephone consultation.
Conclusions
GPs and mental health professionals experience collaboration as important. GPs are the gate-keepers to specialised health care, and lack of collaboration seems to create problems for GPs, mental health professionals, and for the patients. Suggestions for improvement included identification of situations that could increase mutual knowledge, and make it easier for GPs to reach the right mental health care professional when needed
Collaboration between general practitioners and mental health care professionals: a qualitative study
Abstract Background Collaboration between general practice and mental health care has been recognised as necessary to provide good quality healthcare services to people with mental health problems. Several studies indicate that collaboration often is poor, with the result that patient' needs for coordinated services are not sufficiently met, and that resources are inefficiently used. An increasing number of mental health care workers should improve mental health services, but may complicate collaboration and coordination between mental health workers and other professionals in the treatment chain. The aim of this qualitative study is to investigate strengths and weaknesses in today's collaboration, and to suggest improvements in the interaction between General Practitioners (GPs) and specialised mental health service. Methods This paper presents a qualitative focus group study with data drawn from six groups and eight group sessions with 28 health professionals (10 GPs, 12 nurses, and 6 physicians doing post-doctoral training in psychiatry), all working in the same region and assumed to make professional contact with each other. Results GPs and mental health professionals shared each others expressions of strengths, weaknesses and suggestions for improvement in today's collaboration. Strengths in today's collaboration were related to common consultations between GPs and mental health professionals, and when GPs were able to receive advice about diagnostic treatment dilemmas. Weaknesses were related to the GPs' possibility to meet mental health professionals, and lack of mutual knowledge in mental health services. The results describe experiences and importance of interpersonal knowledge, mutual accessibility and familiarity with existing systems and resources. There is an agreement between GPs and mental health professionals that services will improve with shared knowledge about patients through systematic collaborative services, direct cell-phone lines to mental health professionals and allocated times for telephone consultation. Conclusions GPs and mental health professionals experience collaboration as important. GPs are the gate-keepers to specialised health care, and lack of collaboration seems to create problems for GPs, mental health professionals, and for the patients. Suggestions for improvement included identification of situations that could increase mutual knowledge, and make it easier for GPs to reach the right mental health care professional when needed.</p
Intellectual disability and mental health problems: a qualitative study of general practitioners' views
Objectives: To investigate general practitioners’ (GPs)
experiences in managing patients with intellectual
disabilities (ID) and mental and behavioural problems
(MBP).
Design: Qualitative study using in-depth interviews.
Setting: General practice in Hedmark county, Norway.
Participants: 10 GPs were qualitatively interviewed
about their professional experience regarding patients
with ID and MBP. Data were analysed by all authors
using systematic text condensation.
Results: The participants’ knowledge was primarily
experience-based and collaboration with specialists
seemed to be individual rather than systemic. The GPs
provided divergent attitudes to referral, treatment,
collaboration, regular health checks and home visits.
Conclusions: GPs are in a position to provide
evidence-based and individual treatment for both
psychological and somatic problems among patients
with ID. However, they do not appear to be making use
of evidence-based treatment decisions. The GPs feel
that they are left alone in decision-making, and find it
difficult to find trustworthy collaborative partners. The
findings in this study provide useful information for
further research in the field