Search

Background: Good primary care for people with substance use disorders (SUDs) is crucial given the high prevalence of SUDs and overdose deaths.Objective: To explore general practice care for people with a history of SUDs from the perspectives of women involved with the criminal justice system.Methods: Qualitative interview study with pre- and postrelease interviews, undertaken in Australian prisons and community settings. We utilized thematic analysis informed by constructivist grounded theory.Results: We undertook 65 interviews with 39 women. Access to and experience of general practitioner (GP) care was affected by perceived welcomeness, decisions around disclosure, and consultation experiences related to medication prescription. Participants reported that they were not as welcome as other patients, welcome could be conditional on not disclosing SUDs or only requesting unrelated healthcare, and GPs did not always differentiate between past and current drug use. Participants perceived difficulty finding general practices where the potential benefit of disclosing SUDs outweighed the risks of stigmatized reactions and lack of GP skills and interest. Participants did not always recognize that care beyond physical health could occur in general practice. The pejorative implications of labelling patients as "doctor shoppers" were challenged by participants, as they considered it could be necessary to attend multiple GPs to find a welcoming practice.Conclusions: People with histories of SUDs do not uniformly experience welcomeness in general practice, perpetuating poor engagement in healthcare and poor outcomes related to SUDs. Programmes targeting prescription drug misuse through general practice should also promote welcomeness for people with SUDs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: End-of-life discussions often are not initiated until close to death, even in the presence of life-limiting illness or frailty. Previous research shows that doctors may not explicitly verbalize approaching end-of-life in the foreseeable future, despite shifting their focus to comfort care. This may limit patients' opportunity to receive information and plan for the future. General Practitioners (GPs) have a key role in caring for increasing numbers of patients approaching end-of-life.Objective: To explore GPs' thought processes when deciding whether to initiate end-of-life discussions.Methods: A qualitative approach was used. We purposively recruited 15 GPs or GP trainees from South-East Queensland, Australia, and each participated in a semi-structured interview. Transcripts were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.Results: Australian GPs believe they have a responsibility to initiate end-of-life conversations, and identify several triggers to do so. Some also describe caution in raising this sensitive topic, related to patient, family, cultural and personal factors.Conclusions: These findings enable the development of approaches to support GPs to initiate end-of-life discussions that are cognizant both of GPs' sense of responsibility for these discussions, and factors that may contribute to caution initiating them, such as anticipated patient response, cultural considerations, societal taboos, family dynamics and personal challenges to doctors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Antibiotic prescribing for acute self-limiting respiratory tract infections (ARTIs) in Australia is higher than international benchmarks. Antibiotics have little or no efficacy in these conditions, and unnecessary use contributes to antibiotic resistance. Delayed prescribing has been shown to reduce antibiotic use. GP registrars are at a career-stage when long-term prescribing patterns are being established.Aim: To explore experiences, perceptions and attitudes of GP registrars and supervisors to delayed antibiotic prescribing for ARTIs.Design and Setting: A qualitative study of Australian GP registrars and supervisors using a thematic analysis approach.Method: GP registrars and supervisors were recruited across three Australian states/territories, using maximum variation sampling. Telephone interviews explored participants' experience and perceptions of delayed prescribing of antibiotics in ARTIs. Data collection and analysis were concurrent and iterative.Results: A total of 12 registrars and 10 supervisors were interviewed. Key themes included the use of delayed prescribing as a safety-net in cases of diagnostic uncertainty or when clinical review was logistically difficult. Delayed prescribing was viewed as a method of educating and empowering patients, and building trust and the doctor-patient relationship. Conversely, it was also seen as a loss of control over management decisions. Supervisors, more so than registrars, appreciated the psychosocial complexity of ARTI consultations and the importance of delayed antibiotic prescribing in this context.Conclusion: Better awareness and understanding by GP registrars of the evidence for delayed antibiotic prescription may be a means of reducing antibiotic prescribing. Understanding both registrar and supervisor usage, uncertainties and attitudes should inform educational approaches on this topic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background As doctors who provide care across the life-course, general practitioners (GPs) play a key role in initiating timely end-of-life discussions. Nonetheless, these discussions are often not initiated until close to death. Given the ageing of the population, GPs will be confronted with end-of-life care more often, and this needs to become a core skill for all GPs. Objective To describe GPs' approach to initiating end-of-life discussions. Methods Fifteen GPs or GP trainees from South-East Queensland, Australia, were purposively recruited to participate in a semi-structured interview. We analysed transcripts using a thematic analysis. Results GPs' approach to initiating end-of-life discussions was summarized by four themes: (1) Preparing the ground; (2) finding an entry point; (3) tailoring communication and (4) involving the family. Conclusions Emphasis on the doctor–patient relationship; assessing patient readiness for end-of-life discussions; and sensitive information delivery is consistent with factors previously reported to be important to both GPs and patients in this context. Our findings provide a framework for GPs initiating end-of-life discussions, which must be tailored to patient and GP personality factors. Further research is required to evaluate its outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]