The death of a patient:a model for reflection in GP training

Background: The Dutch government has chosen a policy of strengthening palliative care in order to enable patients to die at home according to their preference. In order to facilitate this care by GPs, we wanted to know how to support them in their training. Therefore we examined the ways in which the death of a patient influences the doctor both at a professional and at a personal level.Methods: Based on a qualitative study, we developed a model for reflection for GP trainees on the meaning of the death of patients and its influence on the GP. The qualitative study was done in 2007 and is based on open in-depth interviews and a focus group. We recruited 18 participants who were highly professional GPs and experienced in talking about the death of patients. We invited GPs from a list of experienced GPs, who in addition are also second-opinion GPs for euthanasia (SCEN-physicians) and from a pool of GP trainers, our intention being to include GPs holding a variety of world views. Interviews were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. A grounded theory approach was used to analyze the results. Themes were first identified independently by three researchers, then after discussion these three sets were rearranged to one list of themes and their mutual relation were determined. A model for the interaction of the GP at professional and at a personal level was formulated.Results: Forty three themes emerged from the interviews and focus group. These themes fell into three groups: professional values and experiences, personal values and experiences, and the opinions of the GPs as to what constitutes a good death. We constructed a model of the doctor-patient relationship on the basis of these findings. This model enables GP trainees identifying the unique character of the doctor-patient relationship as well as its reciprocity when the two were confronted by the patient's impending death.Conclusions: In dealing with the approaching death of a patient the unique interaction between patient and doctor and the cumulative experiences of doctors with their patients brings about a shift in the GP's own values. The professional development of GP trainees may be facilitated by reflection on the interaction of their own values and beliefs.</p

Care provided by general practitioners to patients with psychotic disorders: a cohort study

Background: Patients suffering from psychotic disorders have an increased risk of comorbid somatic diseases such as cardiovascular disorders and diabetes mellitus. Doctor-related factors, such as unfamiliarity with these patients, as well as patient-related factors, such as cognitive disturbance and negative symptoms, contribute to suboptimal health care for these patients. General practitioners (GPs) could play a key role in diagnosing and treating this somatic comorbidity as in the Netherlands, almost all residents are registered at a general practice. This study aims to find out whether there are any differences between the levels of health care provided by GPs to patients with psychotic disorders, compared to other types of patients. Methods: A cohort of patients with an ICPC code of psychosis and two matched control groups, one consisting of patients with other mental problems and the other one of patients without any mental problems, were followed over a period of 5 years. Results: Patients with psychotic disorders (N = 734) contacted the GP practice more often than patients in the control groups. These patients, both adults (p = 0.051) and the elderly (p < 0.005), received more home visits from their GPs. In the adult group (16 to 65 years old inclusive), the number of consultations was significantly higher among both psychosis patients and the group of patients with other mental problems (p < 0.0005). The number of telephone consultations was significantly higher in both age categories, adult group (p < 0.0005), and > 65 years old (p = 0.007). With regard to chronic illnesses, elderly psychosis patients had fewer contacts related to cardiovascular diseases or chronic lung diseases. Conclusion: Patients with psychotic disorders contact the GP practice more frequently than other types of patients. Adult psychosis patients with diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular diseases or chronic lung diseases receive the same amount of health care for these diseases as other primary care patients. The finding that older patients with psychotic disorders are diagnosed with cardiovascular diseases and obstructive lung diseases less frequently than other types of elderly patients requires further study

Correspondence between primary and secondary care about patients with cancer:a Delphi consensus study

Introduction To provide optimal care for patients with cancer, timely and efficient communication between healthcare providers is essential. In this study, we aimed to achieve consensus regarding the desired content of communication between general practitioners (GPs) and oncology specialists before and during the initial treatment of cancer. Methods In a two-round Delphi procedure, three expert panels reviewed items recommended for inclusion on referral and specialist letters. Results The three panels comprised 39 GPs (42%), 42 oncology specialists (41%) (i.e. oncologists, radiotherapists, urologists and surgeons) and 18 patients or patient representatives (69%). Final agreement was by consensus, with 12 and 35 items included in the GP referral and the specialist letters, respectively. The key requirements of GP referral letters were that they should be limited to medical facts, a short summary of symptoms and abnormal findings, and the reason for referral. There was a similar requirement for letters from specialists to include these same medical facts, but detailed information was also required about the diagnosis, treatment options and chosen treatment. After two rounds, the overall content validity index (CVI) for both letters was 71%, indicating that a third round was not necessary. Discussion This is the first study to differentiate between essential and redundant information in GP referral and specialist letters, and the findings could be used to improve communication between primary and secondary care

Correspondence between primary and secondary care about patients with cancer:A qualitative mixed-methods analysis

Cancer care is complex and involves many different healthcare providers, especially during diagnosis and initial treatment, and it has been reported that both general practitioners and oncology specialists experience difficulties with interdisciplinary communication. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore information sharing between primary and secondary care for patients with lung, breast or colorectal cancer. A qualitative content analysis of 50 medical files (419 documents) was performed, which identified 70 correspondence-related items. Six main topics were identified in most referral letters from primary to secondary care, but it was particularly notable that highly relevant information regarding the past medical history was often mixed with less relevant information. To lesser extents, the same held true for the medication list and presenting history. In the letters from specialists, nine topics were identified in most letters. Although information about actual treatment was always present, only limited detail, if any, was given about the intent of the treatment (curative or palliative) or the treatment alternatives. Interviews with nine healthcare providers confirmed these issues. These findings indicate that neither the initial referral nor the specialist correspondence is tailored to the needs of the recipient

Collaboration with general practitioners: preferences of medical specialists – a qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and specialists has been the focus of many collaborative care projects during the past decade. Unfortunately, quite a number of these projects failed. This raises the question of what motivates medical specialists to initiate and continue participating with GPs in new collaborative care models. The following question is addressed in this study: What motivates medical specialists to initiate and sustain new models for collaborating with GPs? METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with eighteen medical specialists in the province of Groningen, in the North of The Netherlands. The sampling criteria were age, gender, type of hospital in which they were practicing, and specialty. The interviews were recorded, fully transcribed, and analysed by three researchers working independently. The resulting motivational factors were grouped into categories. RESULTS: 'Teaching GPs' and 'regulating patient flow' (referrals) appeared to dominate when the motivational factors were considered. In addition, specialists want to develop relationships with the GPs on a more personal level. Most specialists believe that there is not much they can learn from GPs. 'Lack of time', 'no financial compensation', and 'no support from colleagues' were considered to be the main concerns to establishing collaborative care practices. Additionally, projects were often experienced as too complex and time consuming whereas guidelines were experienced as too restrictive. CONCLUSION: Specialists are particularly interested in collaborating because the GP is the gatekeeper for access to secondary health care resources. Specialists feel that they are able to teach the GPs something, but they do not feel that they have anything to learn from the GPs. With respect to professional expertise, therefore, specialists do not consider GPs as equals. Once personal relationships with the GPs have been established, an informal network with incidental professional contact seems to be sufficient to satisfy the collaborative needs of the specialist. The concerns seem to outweigh any positive motivational forces to developing new models of collaborative practice

How do General Practitioners experience providing care for their psychotic patients?

BACKGROUND: In primary care, GPs usually provide care for patients with chronic diseases according to professional guidelines. However, such guidelines are not available in the Netherlands for patients with recurring psychoses. It seems that the specific difficulties that GPs experience in providing care for these patients hinder the development and implementation of such guidelines. This study aims to explore the chances and problems GPs meet when providing care for patients susceptible for recurring psychoses, including schizophrenia and related disorders, bipolar disorder, and psychotic depression. METHODS: A qualitative study of focus group discussions with practising GPs in both town and rural areas. Transcripts from three focus groups with 19 GPs were analysed with the computer program 'Kwalitan'. Theoretical saturation was achieved after these three groups. RESULTS: Analysis showed that eight categories of factors influenced the GPs' care for psychotic patients: patient presentation (acute vs. chronic phase), emotional impact, expertise, professional attitude, patient related factors, patient's family, practice organization, and collaboration with psychiatric specialists. CONCLUSION: Current primary care for psychotic patients depends very much on personal characteristics of the GP and the quality of local collaboration with the Mental Health Service. A quantitative study among GPs using a questionnaire based on the eight categories mentioned above would determine the extent of the problems and limitations experienced with this type of care. From the results of this quantitative study, new realistic guidelines could be developed to improve the quality of care for psychotic patients

Transition of care: experiences and preferences of patients across the primary/secondary interface – a qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Coordination between care providers of different disciplines is essential to improve the quality of care, in particular for patients with chronic diseases. The way in which general practitioners (GP's) and medical specialists interact has important implications for any healthcare system in which the GP plays the role of gatekeeper to specialist care. Patient experiences and preferences have proven to be increasingly important in discussing healthcare policy. The Dutch government initiated the development of a special website with information for patients on performance indicators of hospitals as well as information on illness or treatment.In the present study we focus on the transition of care at the primary - secondary interface with reference to the impact of patients' ability to make choices about their secondary care providers. The purpose of this study is to (a) explore experiences and preferences of patients regarding the transition between primary and secondary care, (b) study informational resources on illness/treatment desired by patients and (c) determine how information supplied could make it easier for the patient to choose between different options for care (hospital or specialist). METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured focus group interviews among 71 patients referred for various indications in the north and west of The Netherlands. RESULTS: Patients find it important that they do not have to wait, that they are taken seriously, and receive adequate and individually relevant information. A lack of continuity from secondary to primary care was experienced. The patient's desire for free choice of type of care did not arise in any of the focus groups. CONCLUSION: Hospital discharge information needs to be improved. The interval between discharge from specialist care and the report of the specialist to the GP might be a suitable performance indicator in healthcare. Patients want to receive information, tailored to their own situation. The need for information, however, is quite variable. Patients do not feel strongly about self-chosen healthcare, contrary to what administrators presently believe

Evaluating an intervention to reduce fear of falling and associated activity restriction in elderly persons: design of a randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN43792817]

BACKGROUND: Fear of falling and associated activity restriction is common in older persons living in the community. Adverse consequences of fear of falling and associated activity restriction, like functional decline and falls, may have a major impact on physical, mental and social functioning of these persons. This paper presents the design of a trial evaluating a cognitive behavioural group intervention to reduce fear of falling and associated activity restriction in older persons living in the community. METHODS/DESIGN: A two-group randomised controlled trial was developed to evaluate the intervention. Persons 70 years of age or over and still living in the community were eligible for study if they experienced at least some fear of falling and associated activity restriction. A random community sample of elderly people was screened for eligibility; those eligible for study were measured at baseline and were subsequently allocated to the intervention or control group. Follow-up measurements were carried out directly after the intervention period, and then at six months and 12 months after the intervention. People allocated to the intervention group were invited to participate in eight weekly sessions of two hours each and a booster session. This booster session was conducted before the follow-up measurement at six months after the intervention. People allocated to the control group received no intervention as a result of this trial. Both an effect evaluation and a process evaluation were performed. The primary outcome measures of the effect evaluation are fear of falling, avoidance of activity due to fear of falling, and daily activity. The secondary outcome measures are perceived general health, self-rated life satisfaction, activities of daily life, feelings of anxiety, symptoms of depression, social support interactions, feelings of loneliness, falls, perceived consequences of falling, and perceived risk of falling. The outcomes of the process evaluation comprise the performance of the intervention according to protocol, the attendance and adherence of participants, and the participants' and facilitators' opinion about the intervention. Data of the effect evaluation will be analysed according the intention-to-treat and on-treatment principle. Data of the process evaluation will be analysed using descriptive techniques

Motives and preferences of general practitioners for new collaboration models with medical specialists: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and specialists has been the focus of many collaborative care projects during the past decade. Unfortunately, quite a number of these projects failed. This raises the question of what motivates GPs to initiate and continue participating with medical specialists in new collaborative care models. The following two questions are addressed in this study: What motivates GPs to initiate and sustain new models for collaborating with medical specialists? What kind of new collaboration models do GPs suggest? METHODS: A qualitative study design was used. Starting in 2003 and finishing in 2005, we conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 21 Dutch GPs. The sampling criteria were age, gender, type of practice, and practice site. The interviews were recorded, fully transcribed, and analysed by two researchers working independently. The resulting motivational factors and preferences were grouped into categories. RESULTS: 'Developing personal relationships' and 'gaining mutual respect' appeared to dominate when the motivational factors were considered. Besides developing personal relationships with specialists, the GPs were also interested in familiarizing specialists with the competencies attached to the profession of family medicine. Additionally, they were eager to increase their medical knowledge to the benefit of their patients. The GPs stated a variety of preferences with respect to the design of new models of collaboration. CONCLUSION: Developing personal relationships with specialists appeared to be one of the dominant motives for increased collaboration. Once the relationships have been formed, an informal network with occasional professional contact seemed sufficient. Although GPs are interested in increasing their knowledge, once they have reached a certain level of expertise, they shift their focus to another specialty. The preferences for new collaboration models are diverse. A possible explanation for the differences in the preferences is that professionals are more knowledge driven than organisation driven as the acquiring of new knowledge is considered more important than the route by which this is achieved. A new collaboration model seems a way to acquire knowledge. Once this is achieved the importance of a model possibly diminishes, whereas the professional relationships last