Search

In Vietnam, each primary care community health center (CHC) consists of a multi-professional team with six disciplines, including a physician, assistant physician, nurse, pharmacist, midwife, and Vietnamese traditional physician, who are able to meet the majority of patient’s needs at the primary care level. How they collaborate, especially in chronic disease management (CDM), is still limited described in the literature. This study aims to gain insight into the perceptions and the experiences of primary health care providers (PHCPs) toward interprofessional collaboration (IPC) in CDM in CHCs in (Hue) Vietnam. A qualitative study of descriptive phenomenology was performed using two focus groups and 15 semi-structured interviews with PHCPs from six professions relevant to CDM in CHCs. The data were analyzed using NVivo 12.0 with a thematic analysis method by a multiprofessional research team. From the analysis, the data were classified into three main themes: “lack of collaborative practice,” “knowledge,” and “facilitators and barriers to IPC.” This study provided evidence of the awareness that actual collaboration in daily care is fragmentarily organized and that PHCPs try to finish their tasks within their profession. PHCPs work multiprofessionally and lack shared decision-making in patient-centered care. There is a need to develop an interprofessional education program and training to address these deficiencies in the Vietnamese context to improve interprofessional collaboration in health care.

Background: For general practitioners (GPs) to implement early palliative care, the first step is to identify patients with palliative care needs, e.g. with a no-response to the Surprise Question (SQ) (not surprised if a patient would die within a year). Aim: To describe setting-specific screening results of patients eligible for early palliative care in family practices, here defined as patients aged 45 years with a GPs’ no-answer to the SQ. Design and setting: Secondary analysis. Cross-sectional descriptive study in family practices in 5 Belgian areas. Methods: GPs were recruited by targeted sampling. As a first part of an implementation research project, participating GPs provided demographic information about themselves and also provided a response to the SQ for all patients who came to the practice in ten consecutive office days. A summary table describing the gender, age, location of contact (surgery, patient’s home, or nursing home) of the patients was provided by each GP. Results: 56 GPs provided complete data for the practice summary tables. In total 9,150 patients were described (all ages, all settings), of which 506 patients (6%) had a SQ-no-as-answer. The distribution of SQ-no-as-answer patients per setting was 152/7659 (2%) patients seen in family practice surgeries, 139/998 (14%) patients seen in their homes, and 215/493 (44%) patients seen innursing homes. Conclusions: There was quite a large number of SQ-no-as-answer patients, with possible palliative care needs. To enhance implementation of early palliative care, future research should compare results of SQ and other screening tools with palliative care symptoms assessments.

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-pmj-10.1177_02692163211048340 for An online international comparison of palliative care identification in primary care using the Surprise Question by Nicola White, Linda JM Oostendorp, Victoria Vickerstaff, Christina Gerlach, Yvonne Engels, Maud Maessen, Christopher Tomlinson, Johan Wens, Bert Leysen, Guido Biasco, Sofia Zambrano, Steffen Eychm��ller, Christina Avgerinou, Rabih Chattat, Giovanni Ottoboni, Carel Veldhoven and Patrick Stone in Palliative Medicine

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-pmj-10.1177_02692163211048340 for An online international comparison of palliative care identification in primary care using the Surprise Question by Nicola White, Linda JM Oostendorp, Victoria Vickerstaff, Christina Gerlach, Yvonne Engels, Maud Maessen, Christopher Tomlinson, Johan Wens, Bert Leysen, Guido Biasco, Sofia Zambrano, Steffen Eychm��ller, Christina Avgerinou, Rabih Chattat, Giovanni Ottoboni, Carel Veldhoven and Patrick Stone in Palliative Medicine

Background: Most current care models are disease- or symptom-focused and mostly do not account for the individual needs of patients with chronic diseases. The aim of this study was to develop an innovative, evidence-based and expert-based practice model for the management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Method: An iterative approach was used combining systematic literature search with qualitative methods, including a standardised survey of experts in chronic care (n = 92), an expert workshop of professionals (n = 22) and a multilingual online survey (n = 659). Using three consensus meetings involving researchers, policy makers and experts in chronic care, a limited number of core components and care recommendations was set up to develop a new chronic care model. Results: The developed ‘MANAGE CARE MODEL’ includes aspects of the health and social care system, resources derived from the living environment, aspects of health promotion and prevention, as well as an expanded understanding of improved outcomes as an integral part of chronic care. Conclusion: The MANAGE CARE MODEL provides guidance for the development and implementation of chronic care programs, regional networks and national strategies. Future research is needed to validate the model as an instrument of regional chronic care management.