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: In 2018, an amendment to the Danish Health Care Act was passed making it a requirement for patients not proficient in Danish to pay for interpretation services in health care settings. Thereafter there has been a drastic decline in the use of professional interpreters, especially in general practice. We aimed to investigate the experiences of general practitioners (GPs) in establishing an understanding with these patients in consultations, without the presence of a professional interpreter. Methods: The study was qualitative, based on semi-structured interviews with nine purposively selected GPs. Analysis was by interpretative phenomenological analysis. Results: The GPs said that after the amendment was passed, the patients chose to almost exclusively use family members or friends as ad hoc interpreters, or they attended consultations with no interpreter present at all. The GPs experienced that the use of family interpreters caused specific problems, due to both their relationship with the patient and their lack of professional interpretation skills. If no mediator was present the GPs perceived the establishment of understanding as extremely challenging. This was particularly the case if patients had chronic conditions, mental or psychosocial problems or if cultural barriers were present. According to the GPs, the challenges were not exclusively restricted to a lack of language translation, but could also involve intertwined cultural barriers or social problems. The impairment in mutual understanding had different consequences, and led to poorer treatment at many levels in health care. The lack of access to a professional interpreter also presented the GP with ethical and legal dilemmas. Conclusions: The GPs experienced that the changes in interpretation provision for patients in health care had led to professional interpretation being almost absent from general practice settings for patients subject to the fee. This led to several communication challenges, insufficient understanding in consultations, and poorer treatment of these, often very vulnerable, patients. The situation could, however, also involve the risk of epistemic injustice. The GPs experienced the situation as very unsatisfactory; it both comprised their ability to exercise their professionalism and their ethical obligations and restricted their legal rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]