Search

Background: The clinical general practitioner (GP) workforce is decreasing. Many studies have analysed the negative aspects of the profession but, few examine the positive aspects and job satisfaction. A European collaborative group including 8 participating countries recently conducted a qualitative study to analyse the positive factors and found 31 job satisfaction factors.Objectives: To determine which of these 31 factors are important and applicable to future policies to improve family medicine attractiveness, recruitment, and retention in France.Method: The Delphi consensus method was chosen. Two Delphi rounds were conducted in March-April 2017 and retained satisfaction factors with at least 70% of scores ≥7. The Nominal Group Technique (NGT) was used to rank these retained factors. Participants assigned 5 points to the factor they considered most important, 3 points to the second, and 1 point to the third. Factors receiving at least 5% (10 points) of the total points (198 points) were included in the final list. The expert panel included GPs and non-GPs.Results: Twenty-nine experts began the procedure and 22 completed it. Thirty factors were retained after the 2 Delphi rounds. The NGT resulted in 8 factors: (i) Engage in family medicine to take care of the patients; (ii) Care coordination, patient advocacy; (iii) Flexibility in work; (iv) Trying to be a person-centred doctor; (v) Involvement in healthcare organization; (vi) Benefiting from a well-managed practice; (vii) Being a teacher, a trainer; (viii) Efficient professional collaboration.Conclusion: These 8 job satisfaction factors are important to consider and apply to future policy development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Quality of care remains a priority issue and is correlated with patient experience. Measuring multidimensional patient primary care experiences in multiprofessional clinics requires a robust instrument. Although many exist, little is known about their quality.Objective: To identify patient perception instruments in multiprofessional primary care and evaluate their quality.Methods: Systematic review using Medline, Pascal, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, Cochrane, Scopus, and CAIRN. Eligible articles developed, evaluated, or validated 1 or more self-assessment instruments. The instruments had to measure primary care delivery, patient primary care experiences and assess at least 3 quality-of-care dimensions. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist was used to assess methodological quality of included studies. Instrument measurement properties were appraised using 3 possible quality scores. Data were combined to provide best-evidence synthesis based on the number of studies, their methodological quality, measurement property appraisal, and result consistency. Subscales used to capture patient primary care experiences were extracted and grouped into the 9 Institute of Medicine dimensions.Results: Twenty-nine articles were found. The included instruments captured many subscales illustrating the diverse conceptualization of patient primary care experiences. No included instrument demonstrated adequate validity and the lack of scientific methodology for assessing reliability made interpreting validity questionable. No study evaluated instrument responsiveness.Conclusion: Numerous patient self-assessment instruments were identified capturing a wide range of patient experiences, but their measurement properties were weak. Research is required to develop and validate a generic instrument for assessing quality of multiprofessional primary care.Trial Registration: Not applicable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To explore dementia management from a primary care physician perspective. One-page seven-item multiple choice questionnaire; free text space for every item; final narrative question of a dementia case story. Inductive explorative grounded theory analysis. Derived results in cluster analyses. Appropriateness of dementia drugs assessed by tertiary care specialist. Twenty-five European General Practice Research Network member countries. Four hundred and forty-five key informant primary care physician respondents of which 106 presented 155 case stories. Processes and typologies of dementia management. Proportion of case stories with drug treatment and treatment according to guidelines. Unburdening dementia – a basic social process – explained physicians' dementia management according to a grounded theory analysis using both qualitative and quantitative data. Unburdening starts with Recognizing the dementia burden by Burden Identification and Burden Assessment followed by Burden Relief. Drugs to relieve the dementia burden were reported for 130 of 155 patients; acetylcholinesterase inhibitors or memantine treatment in 89 of 155 patients – 60% appropriate according to guidelines and 40% outside of guidelines. More Central and Northern primary care physicians were allowed to prescribe, and more were engaged in dementia management than Eastern and Mediterranean physicians according to cluster analyses. Physicians typically identified and assessed the dementia burden and then tried to relieve it, commonly by drug prescriptions, but also by community health and home help services, mentioned in more than half of the case stories. Primary care physician dementia management was explained by an Unburdening process with the goal to relieve the dementia burden, mainly by drugs often prescribed outside of guideline indications. Implications: Unique data about dementia management by European primary care physicians to inform appropriate stakeholders. Dementia as a syndrome of cognitive and functional decline and behavioural and psychological symptoms causes a tremendous burden on patients, their families, and society. •We found that a basic social process of Unburdening dementia explained dementia management according to case stories and survey comments from primary care physicians in 25 countries. •First, Burden Recognition by Identification and Assessment and then Burden Relief – often by drugs. •Prescribing physicians repeatedly broadened guideline indications for dementia drugs. The more physicians were allowed to prescribe dementia drugs, the more they were responsible for the dementia work-up. Our study provides unique data about dementia management in European primary care for the benefit of national and international stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Smoking is a major risk factor for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and for many types of cancers. Despite recent policies, 1.1 billion people are active smokers and tobacco is the leading cause of mortality and illness throughout the world. The aim of this work was to identify smoking cessation interventions which could be implemented in primary care and/or at a community level.Methods: A systematic review of CVDs prevention guidelines was realized using the ADAPTE Process. These were identified on G-I-N and TRIP databases. Additionally, a purposive search for national guidelines was successfully undertaken. Guidelines focusing on non-pharmacological lifestyle interventions, published or updated after 2011, were included. Exclusion criteria were specific populations, management of acute disease and exclusive focus on pharmacological or surgical interventions. After appraisal with the AGREE II tool, high-quality guidelines were included for analysis. High-grade recommendations and the supporting bibliographic references were extracted. References had to be checked in detail where sufficient information was not available in the guidelines.Results: Nine hundred and ten guidelines were identified, 47 evaluated with AGREE II and 26 included. Guidelines recommended that patients quit smoking and that health care professionals provided advice to smokers but failed to propose precise implementation strategies for such recommendations. Only two guidelines provided specific recommendations. In the guideline bibliographic references, brief advice (BA) and multiple session strategies were identified as effective interventions. These interventions used Prochaska theory, motivational interviewing or cognitive-behavioral therapies. Self-help documentation alone was less effective than face-to-face counseling. Community-based or workplace public interventions alone did not seem effective.Discussion: Behavioral change strategies were effective in helping patients to give up smoking. BA alone was less effective than multiple session strategies although it required fewer resources. Evidence for community-based interventions effectiveness was weak, mainly due to the lack of robust studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]