Search

Background: Multimorbidity is prevalent in general practice and general practitioners internationally report challenges in its management. Understanding the perspectives of general practitioners at the frontline of care is important for system sustainability and accessibility as populations age., Objective: To explore Australian general practitioner perspectives on managing multimorbidity, the factors supporting their work, and those impeding their ability to meet their own standards of care provision., Method: A qualitative study conducted with Australian general practitioners using semistructured, in-depth interviews and inductive thematic data analysis., Results: Twelve interviews with general practitioners were conducted. Three main themes were constructed from the data: Multimorbidity as an encounter with complexity and contingency; Evidence constraints in multimorbidity care; and Concerns for patient safety. System structure and the Australian general practice model restrict general practitioners' ability to provide care to their level of satisfaction by linking short consultation times to practice remuneration. Attitudes toward the applicability of guideline evidence were mixed despite most general practitioners questioning its generalizability. Patient safety concerns pervaded most interviews and largely centered on system fragmentation and insufficient intersectoral communication. General practitioners rely on multiple sources of information to provide patient-centered care but chiefly the accumulated knowledge of their patients., Conclusions: Australian general practitioners share many multimorbidity concerns with international colleagues. While multimorbidity-specific evidence may be unrealistic to expect in the immediate term, system investment and adaptation is needed to support general practice sustainability and clinician ability to provide adequate multimorbidity care, suitably remunerated, into the future., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

This study assessed Australian clinical practice guidelines for life-limiting index conditions for the extent to which they acknowledged comorbidities and framed management recommendations within the context of older age and reduced life expectancy. A comprehensive search identified current, evidence-based Australian guidelines for chronic life-limiting conditions directed at general practitioners. Guideline content was analysed qualitatively before comorbidity acknowledgements were quantified using a 17-item checklist. Full guidelines were quality appraised using AGREE-II. Ten documents covering chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, cancer pain, dementia and palliative care in aged care were identified. Most guidelines addressed one 'comorbid' condition and prompted clinicians to consider patient quality of life and personal preferences. Fewer addressed burden of treatment and half suggested modifying treatments to account for limited life expectancy, age or time horizon to benefit. Half warned of potential adverse drug interactions. Guidelines were of moderate to very high quality. Guidelines naturally prioritised their index condition, directing attention to only the most common comorbidities. However, there may be scope to include more condition-agnostic guidance on multimorbidity management. This might be modelled on the 'guiding principles' approach now emerging internationally from organisations such as the American Geriatrics Society in response to increasing multimorbidity prevalence and evidence limitations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: General practitioners (GPs) increasingly manage patients with multimorbidity but report challenges in doing so. Patients describe poor experiences with health care systems that treat each of their health conditions separately, resulting in fragmented, uncoordinated care. For GPs to provide the patient-centred, coordinated care patients need and want, research agendas and health system structures and policies will need to adapt to address this epidemiologic transition. This systematic review seeks to understand if and how multimorbidity impacts on the work of GPs, the strategies they employ to manage challenges, and what they believe still needs addressing to ensure quality patient care. Methods: Systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies reporting GP experiences of managing patients with multimorbidity. The search included nine major databases, grey literature sources, Google and Google Scholar, a hand search of Journal of Comorbidity, and the reference lists of included studies. Results: Thirty-three studies from fourteen countries were included. Three major challenges were identified: practising without supportive evidence; working within a fragmented health care system whose policies and structures remain organised around single condition care and specialisation; and the clinical uncertainty associated with multimorbidity complexity and general practitioner perceptions of decisional risk. GPs revealed three approaches to mitigating these challenges: prioritising patient-centredness and relational continuity; relying on knowledge of patient preferences and unique circumstances to individualise care; and structuring the consultation to create a sense of time and minimise patient risk. Conclusions: GPs described an ongoing tension between applying single condition guidelines to patients with multimorbidity as security against uncertainty or penalty, and potentially causing patients harm. Above all, they chose to prioritise their long-term relationships for the numerous gains this brought such as mutual trust, deeper insight into a patient's unique circumstances, and useable knowledge of each individual's capacity for the work of illness and goals for life. GPs described a need for better multimorbidity management guidance. Perhaps more than this, they require policies and models of practice that provide remunerated time and space for nurturing trustful therapeutic partnerships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

General practitioners (GPs) are increasingly expected to provide palliative care as ageing populations put pressure on specialist services. Some GPs, however, cite barriers to providing this care including prognostication challenges and lack of confidence. Palliative care content within clinical practice guidelines might serve as an opportunistic source of informational support to GPs. This review analysed palliative care content within Australian guidelines for life-limiting conditions to determine the extent to which it might satisfy GPs' stated information needs and support them to provide quality end-of-life care. Six databases and guideline repositories were searched (2011–2018). Eligible guidelines were those for a GP audience and explicitly based on an appraisal of all available evidence. Content was mapped against an established palliative care domain framework (PEPSI-COLA) and quality was assessed using AGREE-II. The nine guidelines meeting inclusion criteria were heterogenous in scope and depth of palliative care domain coverage. The 'communication' needs domain was best addressed while patient physical and emotional needs were variably covered. Spiritual, out-of-hours, terminal care and aftercare content was scant. Few guidelines addressed areas GPs are known to find challenging or acknowledged useful decision-support tools. A template covering important domains might reduce content variability across guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]