Search

Background: Patients dealing with severe mental illnesses (SMI) often face suboptimal clinical outcomes and higher mortality rates due to a range of factors, including undetected physical health conditions. The provision of care for individuals with SMI is frequently disjointed, as they engage with diverse healthcare providers. Despite this fragmentation, primary care, particularly general practitioners (GPs), assumes a pivotal role in the care of SMI patients. Our study aimed to delve into the first-hand experiences of GPs in delivering somatic care to SMI patients, concentrating on the challenges they encounter and the strategies they employ to navigate these difficulties. Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews with fifteen GPs, utilizing a semi-structured interview guide, supplemented by ethnographic observations during clinical consultations in general practice. Through inductive coding, interview transcripts and observational field notes were systematically analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). The findings were then deliberated upon within the author group. Results: GPs revealed that managing the chronic somatic care of SMI patients posed significant challenges. These challenges encompassed the multifaceted needs of patients, their behavior tied to symptoms, a lack of care continuity, and overarching time constraints. To tackle these challenges, the GPs had devised various strategies. However, all participants underscored the critical importance of having adequate time to properly prepare for, conduct, and follow up on consultations. Conclusion: The GPs' interactions with SMI patients brought numerous challenges, although treating these patients were concurrently acknowledged as vital and fulfilling. The findings suggest that increased allocated time in general practice consultations for patients with SMI is important to support the somatic treatment requirements of this patient group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many elderly people wish to die at home but end up dying at the hospital. If the patient wishes to die at home, palliative care provided by General Practitioners (GPs) may increase the chance of dying at home, however, there is a lack of knowledge on how GPs should provide palliative care. We aimed to identify roles, tasks and approaches of GPs enabling palliative care, by exploring the experiences of GPs, other healthcare professionals, patients, and relatives through a systematic review of the qualitative literature. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and CINAHL in March 2022. Thematic analysis was used for synthesizing the results. Results: Four thousand five hundred sixty three unique records were retrieved, and 12 studies were included for review. Of these, ten were interview or focus group studies and two were survey studies with additional open-ended questions. Only qualitative findings from the studies were used in synthesizing the results. Thematic analysis produced four main themes describing the roles, tasks and approaches of GPs enabling palliative care to increase the chance for patients to die at home. GPs can support patients in the final phases of life by applying a holistic, patient-centred, and proactive approach to palliative care and by having sufficient education and training. Furthermore, the palliative care consultation should include symptom management, handling psychosocial and spiritual needs, maintaining a fragile balance, and proper communication with the patient. Lastly, GPs must address several palliative care elements surrounding the consultation including initiating the palliative care, being available, being the team coordinator/collaborator, providing continuous care and having sufficient knowledge about the patient. Conclusions: The roles, tasks and approaches of the GPs enabling palliative care include being aware of elements in the palliative care consultation and elements surrounding the consultation and by having sufficient education and training and a broad, proactive, and patient-centred approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Accreditation is used increasingly in health systems worldwide. However, there is a lack of evidence on the effects of accreditation, particularly in general practice. In 2016 a mandatory accreditation scheme was initiated in Denmark, and during a 3-year period all practices, as default, should undergo accreditation according to the Danish Healthcare Quality Program. The aim of this study is primarily to evaluate the effects of a mandatory accreditation scheme.Methods/design: The study is conducted as a cluster-randomized controlled trial among 1252 practices (clusters) with 2211 general practitioners in Denmark. Practices allocated to accreditation in 2016 serve as the intervention group, and practices allocated to accreditation in 2018 serve as controls. The selected outcomes should meet the following criteria: (1) a high degree of clinical relevance; (2) the possibility to assess changes due to accreditation; (3) availability of data from registers with no self-reporting data. The primary outcome is the number of prescribed drugs in patients older than 65 years. Secondary outcomes are changes in outcomes related to other perspectives of safe medication, good clinical practice and mortality. All outcomes relate to quality indicators included in the Danish Healthcare Quality Program, which is based on general principles for accreditation.Discussion: The consequences of accreditation and standard-setting processes are generally under-researched, particularly in general practice. This is the largest study in general practice with a randomized implementation approach to evaluate the clinical effects of a nation-wide mandatory accreditation scheme in general practice.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02762240 . Registered on 24 May 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with severe mental illness (SMI) have shorter life expectancy than people without SMI, mainly due to overmortality from physical diseases. They are treated by professionals in three different health and social care sectors with sparse collaboration between them, hampering coherent treatment. Previous studies have shown difficulties involved in establishing such collaboration. As the preparatory phase of an intervention to improve physical health of people with SMI and increase collaboration across sector borders, we explored different actors' experiences of barriers for collaboration. Method: We collected qualitative data from patients, professionals in general practice, psychiatry and social psychiatry involved in the treatment of these patients. Data consisted of notes from meetings and observations, interviews, focus groups and workshops. Analysis was by Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Results: The study revealed many obstacles to collaboration and coherent treatment, including the consultation structures in general practice, sectors being subject to different legislation, and incompatible IT systems. Professionals in general practice and social psychiatry felt that they were left with the responsibility for actions taken by hospital psychiatry without opportunity to discuss their concerns with psychiatrists. There were also cultural differences between health care and social psychiatry, expressed in ideology and language. Social psychiatry had an existential approach to recovery, whereas the views of health professionals were linked to symptom control and based on outcomes. Meanwhile, patients were left in limbo between these separate ideologies with no leadership in place to promote dialogue and integrate treatments between the sectors. Conclusion: Many obstacles to integrated trans-sectoral treatment of patients with SMI seem related to a lack of an overriding leadership and organizational support to establish collaboration and remove barriers related to legislation and IT. However, professional and ideological barriers also contribute. Psychiatry does not consider general practice to be part of the treatment team although general practitioners are left with responsibility for decisions taken in psychiatry; and different ideologies and treatment principles in psychiatry and municipal social psychiatry hamper the dialogue between them. There is a need to rethink the organization to avoid that the three sectors live autonomous lives with different cultures and lack of collaboration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]