Search

Quality standards play an increasingly important role in primary care through their inscription in various technologies for improving professional practice. While 'hard' biomedical standards have been the most common and debated, current quality development initiatives increasingly seek to include standards for the 'softer' aspects of care. This article explores the consequences of both kinds of quality standards for chronic care consultations. The article presents findings from an explorative qualitative field study in Danish general practice where a standardized technology for quality development has been introduced. Data from semi-structured interviews and observations among 17 general practitioners were analysed using an iterative analytical approach, which served to identify important variations in the uses and impacts of the technology. The most pronounced impact of the technology was observed among general practitioners who strictly adhered to the procedural standards on the interactional aspects of care. Thus, when allowed to function as an overall frame for consultations, those standards supported adherence to general recommendations regarding which elements to be included in chronic disease consultations. However, at the same time, adherence to those standards was observed to narrow the focus of doctor-patient dialogues and to divert general practitioners' attention from patients' personal concerns. Similar consequences of quality standards have previously been framed as manifestations of an inherent conflict between principles of patient-centredness and formal biomedical quality standards. However, this study suggests that standards on the 'softer' aspects of care may just as well interfere with a clinical approach relying on situated and attentive interactions with patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The international literature shows that primary care is well placed to address mental health problems in young people, but that primary care professionals experience a range of challenges in this regard. In Denmark, young adults who have complex psychosocial problems, and who are not in education or work, cause political and academic concern. They are also in regular contact with their general practitioners, the Danish municipalities and psychiatric services. However, little is known about general practitioners' perspectives on caring for this vulnerable group of patients. In this article, we investigate how general practitioners' care work is shaped by the bureaucratic management of care in a complex infrastructure network comprising the general practitioners, psychiatry, the municipalities and the young adults. The analysis is based on interviews and focus groups with general practitioners, psychiatric nurses and social workers. We employ Tronto's concept of care and the concept of boundary work as a theoretical framework. We argue that general practitioners strive to provide care, but they are challenged by the following: contested diagnostic interpretations and the bureaucratic significance of diagnoses for the provision of care from psychiatry and the municipalities, systemic issues with handling intertwined social and mental health problems, and the young adults' difficulties with accessing and receiving available care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]