Understanding young adults’ reasons for seeking ‘clinically unnecessary’ urgent and emergency care: A qualitative interview study

BackgroundStudies have identified young adults as more likely to use emergency departments for ‘clinically unnecessary’ problems, with limited similar evidence for emergency ambulance use. Media portrayals depict young adults as motivated by ‘convenience’, but little research has explored the reasons for their help‐seeking behaviour.MethodsQualitative interviews with 16 young adults (18‐30) considered by clinicians to have made unnecessary use of emergency ambulance, emergency department or an urgent GP appointment. Data analysis was informed by interpretive phenomenological analysis.FindingsA number of interrelated factors contributed to participants’ decisions. They were anxious about the seriousness of their symptoms, sometimes exacerbated by reduced coping capacity due to poor mental health or life stresses. They looked to others to facilitate their decision making, who sometimes encouraged urgent contact. They wanted to avoid impact on existing day‐to‐day commitments including work or study. They had strong views about different health services, sometimes based on frustration with lack of resolution of on‐going health problems. Convenience was not identified as a significant factor, although some actions could be interpreted in this light if the context was not considered.ConclusionsYoung adults make ‘clinically unnecessary’ use of urgent and emergency care for more than convenience. Their decisions need to be understood in relation to the complexity of their experience, including lack of confidence in making health‐related decisions, lowered coping capacity and concern to maintain normal daily life.     

Reluctant educators and self‐advocates: Older trans adults’ experiences of health‐care services and practitioners in seeking gender‐affirming services

BackgroundTrans‐identifying individuals experience unique barriers and challenges in negotiating health‐care systems due to the cisnormative attitudes and practices which obstruct the receipt of trans‐inclusive care. To date, there has been little exploration of older trans consumers’ experiences of contemporary health‐care services when seeking to transition medically in later life.ObjectivesQualitative findings are presented from a study of trans ageing and trans‐related health and social care needs in Wales, UK (2016‐18). The objectives are to (1) examine supportive and obstructive points of interaction with health‐care professionals, and (2) identify key learning messages for improving trans‐related health care from the perspectives of trans‐identifying adults in later life.DesignTrans‐identifying participants self‐selected to take part in two interviews—a life‐history interview and a semi‐structured interview. Interview data were analysed thematically using the framework method approach.Setting and participantsThis paper focuses on the accounts of 19 participants (50‐74 years of age) who identified as trans and were seeking to transition medically in mid‐ to later life.ResultsFindings indicate how older trans patients are positioned as reluctant educators for GPs in primary care settings and illustrate the transphobic practices and cisnormative assumptions encountered across health‐care interactions and systems that impede their journey of transitioning in later life.Discussion and conclusionsMessages from this study speak to the importance of improving professionals’ knowledge of gender identity diversity across the life course and making changes at a systemic level in redressing cisnormative assumptions and systems that reinforce inequities on the basis of gender identity.     

Aged care residents’ prioritization of care: A mixed‐methods study

BackgroundEliciting residents’ priorities for their care is fundamental to delivering person‐centred care in residential aged care facilities (RACFs). Prioritization involves ordering different aspects of care in relation to one another by level of importance. By understanding residents’ priorities, care can be tailored to residents’ needs while considering practical limitations of RACFs.ObjectivesTo investigate aged care residents’ prioritization of care.DesignA mixed‐methods study comprising Q methodology and qualitative methods.Setting and participantsThirty‐eight residents living in one of five Australian RACFs.MethodParticipants completed a card–sorting activity using Q methodology in which they ordered 34 aspects of care on a pre‐defined grid by level of importance. Data were analysed using inverted factor analysis to identify factors representing shared viewpoints. Participants also completed a think‐aloud task, demographic questionnaire, post‐sorting interview and semi‐structured interview. Inductive content analysis of qualitative data was conducted to interpret shared viewpoints and to identify influences on prioritization decision making.ResultsFour viewpoints on care prioritization were identified through Q methodology: Maintaining a sense of spirituality and self in residential care; information sharing and family involvement; self‐reliance; and timely access to staff member support. Across the participant sample, residents prioritized being treated with respect, the management of medical conditions, and their independence. Inductive content analysis revealed four influences on prioritization decisions: level of dependency; dynamic needs; indifference; and availability of staff.ConclusionsRecommendations for providing care that align with residents’ priorities include establishing open communication channels with residents, supporting residents’ independence and enforcing safer staffing ratios.     

Patient representatives: Crucial members of health‐care working groups facing an uncertain role and conflicting expectations. A qualitative study

BackgroundPatient representatives (PRs) have been involved for decades in health‐care development, and their participation is increasingly sought in health‐care working groups (HCWGs) on every level. However, information on how the role could be further developed and teamwork improved remains sparse.ObjectiveTo explore the role of patient representatives in clinical practice guideline (CPG) monitoring groups, to describe their contributions and identify possibilities of improvement.DesignQualitative design using semi‐structured interviews analysed by content analysis.Setting and participantsInterviews were conducted with 11 PRs, 13 registered nurses, and 9 physicians, all members of national committees monitoring CPGs for cancer in Sweden.ResultsMost participants considered the PR role important but mentioned several problems. PRs’ contributions were hampered by uncertainties about their role, the low expectations of other group members and their sense that their contributions were often disregarded. Some professionals questioned whether PRs were truly representative and said some topics could not be discussed with PRs present.ConclusionThis study highlights the fundamental problems that remain to be solved despite the long involvement of PRs in HCWGs. Even though the PR role and teamwork differed between the groups, most PRs need to be empowered to be actively involved in the teamwork and have their engagement and knowledge fully utilized. Enhancing teamwork through clarifying roles and expectations could lead to more inclusive and equal teams able to work more effectively towards the goal of improving health care.Patient or public contributionPRs were information givers in data collection.     

Blood tests in primary care: A qualitative study of communication and decision‐making between doctors and patients

ObjectiveBlood tests are commonly used in primary care as a tool to aid diagnosis, and to offer reassurance and validation for patients. If doctors and patients do not have a shared understanding of the reasons for testing and the meaning of results, these aims may not be fulfilled. Shared decision‐making is widely advocated; yet, most research focusses on treatment decisions rather than diagnostic decisions. The aim of this study was to explore communication and decision‐making around diagnostic blood tests in primary care.MethodsQualitative interviews were undertaken with patients and clinicians in UK primary care. Patients were interviewed at the time of blood testing, with a follow‐up interview after they received test results. Interviews with clinicians who requested the tests provided paired data to compare clinicians'' and patients'' expectations, experiences and understandings of tests. Interviews were analysed thematically using inductive and deductive coding.ResultsA total of 80 interviews with 28 patients and 19 doctors were completed. We identified a mismatch in expectations and understanding of tests, which led to downstream consequences including frustration, anxiety and uncertainty for patients. There was no evidence of shared decision‐making in consultations preceding the decision to test. Doctors adopted a paternalistic approach, believing that they were protecting patients from anxiety.ConclusionPatients were not able to develop informed preferences and did not perceive that choice is possible in decisions about testing, because they did not have sufficient information and a shared understanding of tests. A lack of shared understanding at the point of decision‐making led to downstream consequences when test results did not fulfil patients'' expectations. Although shared decision‐making is recommended as best practice, it does not reflect the reality of doctors'' and patients'' accounts of testing; a broader model of shared understanding seems to be more relevant to the complexity of primary care diagnosis.Patient or Public ContributionA patient and public involvement group comprising five participants with lived experience of blood testing in primary care met regularly during the study. They contributed to the development of the research objectives, planning recruitment methods, reviewing patient information leaflets and topic guides and also contributed to discussion of emerging themes at an early stage in the analysis process.