Consensus about GP interprofessional competencies:A nominal group study

BACKGROUND: Since the requirements for collaboration in primary care increase, effective interprofessional teamwork between general practitioners (GPs) and other primary care professionals is crucial. The need for more training in interprofessional collaborative competencies is widely recognised. However, existing competency frameworks do not sufficiently specify interprofessional collaboration to guide interprofessional competency development. AIM: Consensus among GPs and other primary care professionals on interprofessional competencies that GP and GP-trainees should learn. DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative consensus study among Dutch GPs and other primary care professionals, all with expertise in primary care interprofessional collaborative practice. METHOD: Three nominal group sessions were held, each resulting in its own group consensus on GP interprofessional collaborative competencies. The researchers conducted a content analysis to merge and thematise the prioritised competencies into one list. Participants prioritised this list of competencies. A pre-set cut-off point was applied to determine the overall consensus on core GP interprofessional competencies. RESULTS: Eighteen professionals from nine different disciplines participated. The content analysis resulted in 31 unique competencies of which fourteen competencies were prioritised in the final ranking into three main themes: 1. Professional identity development and role definition by the GP. (three competencies); 2. Developing and executing shared care plans for individual patients (6); 3. Setting up and maintaining interprofessional collaborative partnerships.(5) CONCLUSION: An interprofessional group of experts reached consensus on 14 competencies within 3 themes. This framework provides a steppingstone for GPs to focus on their development regarding interprofessional collaboration

The effect of watchful waiting compared to immediate test ordering instructions on general practitioners' blood test ordering behaviour for patients with unexplained complaints; a randomized clinical trial (ISRCTN55755886)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Immediate blood testing for patients presenting with unexplained complaints in family practice is superfluous from a diagnostic point of view. However, many general pracitioners (GPs) order tests immediately. Watchful waiting reduces the number of patients to be tested and the number of false-positive results. The objectives of this study are: to determine the feasibility of watchful waiting compared to immediate test ordering; to determine if a special quality improvement strategy can improve this feasibility; and to determine if watchful waiting leads to testing at a later time.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study is a cluster-randomized clinical trial with three groups, on blood test ordering strategies in patients with unexplained complaints. GPs in group one were instructed to order tests immediately and GPs in group two to apply a watchful waiting approach. GPs in group three received the same instruction as group two, but they were supported by a systematically designed quality improvement strategy. A total of 498 patients with unexplained complaints from 63 practices of Dutch GPs participated. We measured: the percentage of patients for whom tests were ordered and number of tests ordered at the first consultation; performance on the strategy's performance objectives (i.e., ordering fewer tests and specific communication skills); the number of tests ordered after four weeks; and GP and patient characteristics.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Immediate test ordering proved feasible in 92% of the patients; watchful waiting in 86% and 84%, respectively, for groups two and three. The two watchful waiting groups did not differ significantly in the achievement of any of the performance objectives. Of the patients who returned after four weeks, none from group one and six from the two watchful waiting groups had tests ordered for them.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Watchful waiting is a feasible approach. It does not lead to testing immediately afterwards. Furthermore, watchful waiting was not improved by the quality improvement strategy.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Clinical trial registration: <a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN55755886">ISRCTN55755886</a></p

Blood test ordering for unexplained complaints in general practice: the VAMPIRE randomised clinical trial protocol. [ISRCTN55755886]

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) frequently order blood tests when they see patients presenting with unexplained complaints. Due to the low prevalence of serious pathology in general practice, the risk of false-positive test results is relatively high. This may result in unnecessary further testing, leading to unfavourable effects such as patient anxiety, high costs, somatisation and morbidity. A policy of watchful waiting is expected to lower both the number of patients to be tested and the risk of false-positive test results, without missing serious pathology. However, many general practitioners experience barriers when trying to postpone blood testing by watchful waiting. The objectives of this study are (1) to determine the accuracy of blood tests in patients presenting with unexplained complaints in terms of detecting pathology, (2) to determine the accuracy of a watchful waiting strategy and (3) to determine the effects of a quality improvement strategy to promote the postponement of blood test ordering by GPs for patients with unexplained complaints. DESIGN: General practices are randomised over three groups. Group 1 is instructed to order blood tests immediately, group 2 to apply a watchful waiting policy and group 3 also to postpone testing, but supported by our quality improvement strategy. The trial consists of two sub-studies: a diagnostic study at patient level (group 1 versus groups 2 and 3) and a quality improvement study at GP level (group 2 versus group 3). The diagnostic strategy to be used involves of both customary and innovative tests. The quality improvement strategy consists of two small-group meetings and a practice outreach visit. Patient follow-up ends at 12 months after the initial consultation. Primary outcome measures are the accuracy and added value of blood tests for detecting pathology, the effect of a 4-week postponement of test ordering on the blood test characteristics and the quantity of tests ordered. Secondary outcome measures are the course of complaints, quality of life, satisfaction with care, anxiety of patients and practitioners, determinants of physicians' behaviour, health care utilisation and costs. DISCUSSION: The innovative aspect of this trial is that it combines a clinical-epidemiological study and a quality of care study

Consensus on gut feelings in general practice

Contains fulltext : 81134.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: General practitioners sometimes base clinical decisions on gut feelings alone, even though there is little evidence of their diagnostic and prognostic value in daily practice. Research to validate the determinants and to assess the test properties of gut feelings requires precise and valid descriptions of gut feelings in general practice which can be used as a reliable measuring instrument. Research question: Can we obtain consensus on descriptions of two types of gut feelings: a sense of alarm and a sense of reassurance? METHODS: Qualitative research including a Delphi consensus procedure with a heterogeneous sample of 27 Dutch and Belgian GPs or ex-GPs involved in academic educational or research programmes. RESULTS: After four rounds, we found 70% or greater agreement on seven of the eleven proposed statements. A "sense of alarm" is defined as an uneasy feeling perceived by a GP as he/she is concerned about a possible adverse outcome, even though specific indications are lacking: There's something wrong here. This activates the diagnostic process by stimulating the GP to formulate and weigh up working hypotheses that might involve a serious outcome. A "sense of alarm" means that, if possible, the GP needs to initiate specific management to prevent serious health problems. A "sense of reassurance" is defined as a secure feeling perceived by a GP about the further management and course of a patient's problem, even though the doctor may not be certain about the diagnosis: Everything fits in. CONCLUSION: The sense of alarm and the sense of reassurance are well-defined concepts. These descriptions enable us to operationalise the concept of gut feelings in further research

Why do patients want to have their blood tested? A qualitative study of patient expectations in general practice

BACKGROUND: General practitioners often take their impression of patients' expectations into account in their decision to have blood tests done. It is commonly recommended to involve patients in decision-making during consultations. The study aimed to obtain detailed information on patients' expectations about blood tests. METHODS: Qualitative study among patients in waiting rooms of general practices. Each patient was presented with a short questionnaire about their preferences in terms of diagnostics. Patients who would like blood tests to be done were interviewed. RESULTS: Fifty-seven (26%) of the 224 respondents wanted blood tests. Twenty-two were interviewed. Patients overestimated the qualities of blood tests. Favourable test results were regarded as proof of good health. Patients regarded blood tests as a useful instrument to screen for serious disorders, and were confirmed in this belief by people in their social environment and by the media. Many patients expected their GP to take an active test ordering approach, though some indicated that they might be convinced if their GP proposed a wait-and-see policy. CONCLUSIONS: GPs' perceptions about patient expectations seem justified: patients appear to have high hopes for testing as a diagnostic tool. They expect diagnostic certainty without mistakes and a proof of good health. The question is whether it would be desirable to remove patients' misconceptions, allowing them to participate in policy decisions on the basis of sound information, or whether it would be better to leave the misconceptions uncontested, in order to retain the 'magic' of additional tests and reassure patients. We expect that clarifying the precise nature of patients' expectations by the GP may be helpful in creating a diagnostic strategy that satisfies both patients and GPs. GPs will have to balance the benefits of reassuring their patients by means of blood tests which may be unnecessary against the benefits of avoiding unnecessary tests. Further research is needed into the effects of different types of patient information and the effects of testing on satisfaction and anxiety

The diagnostic role of gut feelings in general practice A focus group study of the concept and its determinants

Contains fulltext : 81297.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: General practitioners sometimes base clinical decisions on gut feelings alone, even though there is little evidence of their diagnostic and prognostic value in daily practice. Research into these aspects and the use of the concept in medical education require a practical and valid description of gut feelings. The goal of our study was therefore to describe the concept of gut feelings in general practice and to identify their main determinants METHODS: Qualitative research including 4 focus group discussions. A heterogeneous sample of 28 GPs. Text analysis of the focus group discussions, using a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Gut feelings are familiar to most GPs in the Netherlands and play a substantial role in their everyday routine. The participants distinguished two types of gut feelings, a sense of reassurance and a sense of alarm. In the former case, a GP is sure about prognosis and therapy, although they may not always have a clear diagnosis in mind. A sense of alarm means that a GP has the feeling that something is wrong even though objective arguments are lacking. GPs in the focus groups experienced gut feelings as a compass in situations of uncertainty and the majority of GPs trusted this guide. We identified the main determinants of gut feelings: fitting, alerting and interfering factors, sensation, contextual knowledge, medical education, experience and personality. CONCLUSION: The role of gut feelings in general practice has become much clearer, but we need more research into the contributions of individual determinants and into the test properties of gut feelings to make the concept suitable for medical education

Demographic characteristics and quality of life of patients with unexplained complaints: a descriptive study in general practice

OBJECTIVE: About 13% of GPs' consultations involve unexplained complaints (UCs). These complaints can progress to chronic conditions like medically unexplained symptoms, chronic functional symptoms or somatoform disorders. Little is known about the demographic characteristics and quality of life of patients with early stage UCs. Our study objective was to describe these characteristics. Additionally we compared them with other patient groups to serve as a frame of reference. METHODS: Descriptive study in general practices. Patients with early stage UCs who had not had elaborate diagnostic investigations were included. Demographic characteristics were compared to a Dutch general practice population. Quality of life scores were measured with the RAND-36 and compared to another Dutch general practice population and to depressed patients. RESULTS: Data of 466 patients were available for analysis. Mean age was 44 years and 74% were females, mostly higher educated. Of the patients, 63% presented with unexplained fatigue. On average, quality of life was poor (mean RAND-36 domain scores 37-73), also in comparison with other groups. CONCLUSION: General practice patients presenting with UCs have a remarkably poor quality of life. Future research should explore how early identification of patients at risk of developing chronicity can take place. Awareness of potential poor quality of life may influence GPs' medical decision makin

Gut Feelings as a Third Track in General Practitioners’ Diagnostic Reasoning

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) are often faced with complicated, vague problems in situations of uncertainty that they have to solve at short notice. In such situations, gut feelings seem to play a substantial role in their diagnostic process. Qualitative research distinguished a sense of alarm and a sense of reassurance. However, not every GP trusted their gut feelings, since a scientific explanation is lacking. OBJECTIVE: This paper explains how gut feelings arise and function in GPs' diagnostic reasoning. APPROACH: The paper reviews literature from medical, psychological and neuroscientific perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: Gut feelings in general practice are based on the interaction between patient information and a GP's knowledge and experience. This is visualized in a knowledge-based model of GPs' diagnostic reasoning emphasizing that this complex task combines analytical and non-analytical cognitive processes. The model integrates the two well-known diagnostic reasoning tracks of medical decision-making and medical problem-solving, and adds gut feelings as a third track. Analytical and non-analytical diagnostic reasoning interacts continuously, and GPs use elements of all three tracks, depending on the task and the situation. In this dual process theory, gut feelings emerge as a consequence of non-analytical processing of the available information and knowledge, either reassuring GPs or alerting them that something is wrong and action is required. The role of affect as a heuristic within the physician's knowledge network explains how gut feelings may help GPs to navigate in a mostly efficient way in the often complex and uncertain diagnostic situations of general practice. Emotion research and neuroscientific data support the unmistakable role of affect in the process of making decisions and explain the bodily sensation of gut feelings.The implications for health care practice and medical education are discussed