How do general practitioners recognize the definition of multimorbidity? A European qualitative study

Background: Multimorbidity is a challenging concept for general practice. An EGPRN working group has published a comprehensive definition of the concept of multimorbidity. As multimorbidity could be a way to explore complexity in general practice, it was of importance to explore whether European general practitioners (GPs) recognize this concept and whether they would change it.

Objectives: To investigate whether European GPs recognize the EGPRN concept of multimorbidity and whether they would change it.

Methods: Focus group meetings and semi-structured interviews as data collection techniques with a purposive sample of practicing GPs from every country. Data collection continued until saturation was reached in every country. The analysis was undertaken using a grounded theory based method. In each national team, four independent researchers, working blind and pooling data, carried out the analysis. To ensure the internationalization of the data, an international team of 10 researchers pooled the axial and selective coding of all national teams to check the concept and highlight emerging themes.

Results: The maximal variation and saturation of the sample were reached in all countries with 211 selected GPs. The EGPRN definition was recognized in all countries. Two additional ideas emerged, the use of Wonca’s core competencies of general practice, and the dynamics of the doctor–patient relationship for detecting and managing multimorbidity and patient’s complexity.

Conclusion: European GPs recognized and enhanced the EGPRN concept of multimorbidity. These results open new perspectives regarding the management of complexity using the concept of multimorbidity in general practice.

Key Messages

• European general practitioners recognize the EGPRN enhanced, comprehensive concept of multimorbidity.

• They add the use of Wonca’s core competencies and the patient–doctor relationship dynamics for detecting and managing multimorbidity.

• The EGPRN concept of multimorbidity leads to new perspectives for the management of complexity.

     

How do general practitioners respond to reports of abnormal chest X-rays?

General practitioners (GPs) in the UK have long had direct access to hospital radiological services, which in theory shortens investigation time and improves the quality of service. Chest X-rays (CXRs) account for a substantial proportion of requests, and we investigated what happened when an abnormality was detected. In one year, 204 GPs in the Nottingham area requested CXRs in 605 patients. 362 were reported normal, 165 abnormal but hospital follow-up not indicated and 71 abnormal with radiological follow-up or hospital referral indicated (mass lesion suspicious of tumours 27, infective shadowing 35, other 9). 64 of the 71 were seen in hospital within three months, and in those with suspected cancer the median time to follow-up was 20 days. These results show that GPs do act on the results of abnormal CXRs, but only 37% of those with a mass suspicious of cancer were seen in hospital within two weeks as recommended by the British Thoracic Society. Time might be saved if GPs agreed to direct referral from the radiology department to respiratory physicians.     

How do general practitioners use ‘safety netting’ in acutely ill children?

Background: ‘Safety netting’ advice allows general practitioners (GPs) to cope with diagnostic uncertainty in primary care. It informs patients on ‘red flag’ features and when and how to seek further help. There is, however, insufficient evidence to support useful choices regarding ‘safety netting’ procedures.

Objectives: To explore how GPs apply ‘safety netting’ in acutely ill children in Flanders.

Methods: We designed a qualitative study consisting of semi-structured interviews with 37 GPs across Flanders. Two researchers performed qualitative analysis based on grounded theory components.

Results: Although unfamiliar with the term, GPs perform ‘safety netting’ in every acutely ill child, guided by their intuition without the use of specific guidelines. They communicate ‘red flag’ features, expected time course of illness and how and when to re-consult and try to tailor their advice to the context, patient and specific illness. Overall, GPs perceive ‘safety netting’ as an important element of the consultation, acknowledging personal and parental limitations, such as parents’ interpretation of their advice. GPs do not feel a need for any form of support in the near future.

Conclusion: GPs apply ‘safety netting’ intuitively and tailor the content. Further research should focus on the impact of ‘safety netting’ on morbidity and how the advice is conveyed to parents.     

How do general practitioners understand health inequalities and do their professional roles offer scope for mitigation? Constructions derived from the deep end of primary care

Scotland is faced with pernicious health inequalities, which stem from inequalities in living conditions and the societal structures that create them. While action is needed to address the wider structural causes of health inequalities, the role of general practitioners (GPs) merits attention due to health care’s potential to mitigate or exacerbate health inequalities. Minimal research, however, has explored how GPs understand the fundamental causes of health inequalities nor how they conceptualise their role in mitigating these. This paper aims to fill this gap using in-depth qualitative interviews with 24 GPs working in some of Scotland’s most socio-economically disadvantaged, urban areas. Using Raphael’s SDH discourse framework, this paper found clear linkages between GPs’ perceptions of their patients, how they defined the ‘problem’ of health inequalities, and what they thought could be done to tackle them in disadvantaged areas. In general, there was convergence on how interviewees viewed their role in mitigating health inequalities through their work with individual patients. However, greater variation was found when describing the boundaries of their role and how far these extended beyond individual encounters. Specifically, only those GPs fluent in discussing structural causes of health inequalities discussed obligations to change local systems via strengthening community linkages and to influence higher level policies related to the SDH. This suggests that while there is a degree of what Metzl and Hansen deem ‘structural competency’ amongst some GPs working in disadvantaged areas, the scope remains to deepen this competency more broadly.     

How do NHS general hospitals in England deal with patients with alcohol-related problems? A questionnaire survey

AIMS: Alcohol-related disease represents a major burden on hospitals. However, it is unclear whether hospitals have developed the necessary expertise and guidelines to deal with this burden. The aim of this survey was to determine what measures general hospital NHS Trusts in England had in place to deal with alcohol-related problems, including the employment of dedicated alcohol specialist nurses. METHODS: Two postal surveys of all NHS general hospital Trusts in England, the first in 2000 (n = 138; 54% response rate) and the second in 2003 after the publication of the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) report on alcohol in secondary care (n = 164; 75% response rate). RESULTS: Between the two surveys, there was a significant increase (P = 0.005) in the number of dedicated alcohol nurses employed by general hospital trusts; however, the numbers remain low (n = 21). Additionally, the availability of prescribing guidelines for the management of alcohol withdrawal increased significantly (P = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The survey indicates that most general hospitals do not have appropriate services in place to deal with such patients. Although there is a need and willingness to develop alcohol services in general hospitals, which is one of the key recommendations of the RCP report, the lack of funding is going to act as a major barrier.     

How do Zimbabweans value health states?

Background  

Quality of life weights based on valuations of health states are often used in cost utility analysis and population health measures. This paper reports on an attempt to develop quality of life weights within the Zimbabwe context.     

Elder abuse: do general practitioners know or care?

A pilot survey in Tower Hamlets, London, indicated that many general practitioners (GPs) might not be recognizing abuse of elderly patients through lack of training. The survey was replicated on a large scale in Birmingham, to allow further analysis. 561 Birmingham GPs were mailed questionnaires and responses from 291 were analysed, providing data from 95% of the practices. The findings were similar to those in Tower Hamlets: just under half had diagnosed elder abuse in the previous year. Regression analysis of the combined data-sets (n = 363) indicated that the strongest factor predicting GP diagnosis of abuse was knowledge of 5 or more risk situations (odds ratio 6.77, 95% confidence interval 4.19, 10.93). The findings of these surveys suggest that research-based education and training would help GPs to become better at identifying and managing elder abuse.     

WA health practitioners and cooking: How well do they mix?

Aim: The aim of the present study was to assess the views and experiences of WA practitioners on the use of cooking as a public health nutrition intervention. Methods: A 39‐point online questionnaire was constructed using Survey Monkey. The questionnaire was distributed via email distribution lists targeting practitioners working in public health nutrition. Questions were focused around four objectives relating to: the value of cooking skills in public health, practitioner cooking skills and training, practitioner views on cooking as a health intervention and practitioner experiences in conducting cooking demonstrations. Results: A total of 84 practitioners completed the questionnaire, of which over half (58%) were employed in dietetic specific positions at the time of the survey. There was overwhelming agreement that cooking skills are an important factor in the prevention of nutrition‐related disease, and that cooking skill interventions have the potential to change dietary intakes. However, only one quarter of practitioners indicated that cooking skill interventions were a significant part of their current role. Over half (58%) of the practitioners surveyed had either conducted or assisted in a cooking demonstration or cooking class in the last 12 months. Conclusions: WA practitioners place a high value on the use of cooking as a public health nutrition intervention. Practitioners felt they have good knowledge and skills in cooking but indicated the need to know more about conducting cooking skill interventions. The findings suggest the need to improve outcome evaluation as a component of cooking skill interventions to assess long‐term behaviour change.     

Research report: do general practitioners tell their patients about side effects to common treatments?

The principle of respect for patients' autonomy, or right to self-determination, has gained increasing importance in health care legislation during the last decade. To respect this principle the patients' informed consent to a proposed treatment is required. In relation to ordinary treatments in general practice, where several reasonable alternatives may be available and where non-treatment may be an acceptable alternative, this requirement is at least as strong as in other parts of the health care system. In this context, information about side effects may be crucial for the patient's decision to accept a proposed treatment or not. The aims of this study were to investigate the extent to which general practitioners in Denmark inform their patients about possible side effects without being asked when a common treatment is proposed. We also wished to examine the relation between physicians' estimation of the severity and frequency of these side effects, and their willingness to inform patients spontaneously as well as their preferred reasons for choosing to inform or not inform the patients. A questionnaire was sent to a random sample of 450 Danish general practitioners. The respondents differed considerably with regard to their willingness to inform patients about side effects but they were significantly more likely to give the information spontaneously if they considered the side effects frequent than when side effects were considered rare. In contrast, estimations of severity did not seem to be of any importance. The majority of the respondents informed their patients primarily to enable them to react appropriately to the side effects in question or to make sure that the patient would comply with the treatment. These findings indicate that the information given to patients about side effects by Danish general practitioners is not in accordance with the principle of respect for the patients' autonomy and not in accordance with the requirements of Danish legislation.     

How willing are general practitioners to manage narcotic misuse?

In 1989 a self-administered questionnaire concerning current management of, attitudes to, and knowledge of, narcotic misuse was completed by 206 Inner London general practitioners. Results showed that whilst over three quarters were prepared to offer patients supportive interviews, few were willing to prescribe for them, most preferring to refer to specialist facilities. Only 33 respondents had received adequate training in the management of narcotic misuse, but over a quarter expressed an interest in small group training to improve their skills. These findings are discussed in relation to Department of Health guidelines concerning the management of narcotic misuse.