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]

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]

Objective.The aim of this study is to analyse the interaction between patients and GPs in preventive consultations with an emphasis on how patients answer GPs’ questions about lifestyle, and the conditions these answers impose on the process of establishing agreement about lifestyle as a problem or not.Design.Six general practitioners (GPs) video-recorded 15 annual preventive consultations. From these, 32 excerpts of discussions about lifestyle were analysed using conversation analysis (CA).Results.GPs used an interview format to assess risk in patients’ lifestyles. In some cases patients adhered to this format and answered the GPs’ questions, but in many cases patients gave what we have termed “anticipatory answers”. These answers indicate that the patients anticipate a response from their GPs that would highlight problems with their lifestyle. Typically, in an anticipatory answer, patients bypass the interview format to give their own evaluation of their lifestyle and GPs accept this evaluation. In cases of “no-problem” answers from patients, GPs usually encouraged patients by adding support for current habits.Conclusion.Patients anticipated that GPs might assess their lifestyles as problematic and they incorporated this possibility into their responses. They thereby controlled the definition of their lifestyle as a problem or not. GPs generally did not use the information provided in these answers as a resource for further discussion, but rather relied on standard interview procedures. Staying within the patients’ frame of reference and using the patients’ anticipatory answers might provide GPs with a better point of departure for discussion regarding lifestyle. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]