Caring for people living with,and beyond,cancer: an online survey of GPs in England

Background

Increasing numbers of people are living with, and beyond, cancer. They are at risk of long-term morbidity and premature mortality due to the consequences of their disease and its treatment. Primary care can contribute to providing ongoing care.

Aim

To determine the current practice and views of GPs in England regarding cancer survivorship care.

Design and setting

Online survey of a sample of 500 GPs, stratified by NHS region in England.

Method

The survey included questions adapted from prior surveys assessing physician knowledge and attitudes regarding care of patients with cancer.

Results

In total, 500 GPs responded; approximately half reported often providing care to people living beyond cancer for treatment-related side effects (51%), psychological symptoms (65%), and lifestyle advice (55%). Only 29% felt very confident managing treatment-related side effects compared with 46% and 65% for psychological symptoms and lifestyle advice respectively. Half reported usually receiving cancer treatment summaries and survivorship care plans but most of the sample felt these would improve their ability to provide care (76%). Only 53% were convinced of the usefulness of cancer care reviews. Although most felt that primary and specialist care should share responsibility for managing bone (81%) and cardiovascular (77%) health consequences, fewer than half reported often taking previous history of cancer or cancer treatment into consideration when assessing bone health; only one-fifth did this in relation to cardiovascular health. Most responders were interested in receiving education to improve their knowledge and expertise.

Conclusion

GPs have a potentially important role to play in caring for people following cancer treatment. This study has highlighted areas where further support and education are needed to enable GPs to optimise their role in cancer survivorship care.     

Measuring preventive procedures by French GPs: an observational survey

Background

Prevention has become a legal obligation for French GPs, since a law was passed in March 2002.

Aim

Measurement and analysis of preventive procedures performed by French GPs.

Design of study

Observational survey.

Setting

GP surgeries in Puy-de-Dôme, France.

Method

Doctors completed a questionnaire about their socioprofessional characteristics, and a researcher completed another questionnaire about preventive procedures performed on the last 15 patients seen by each GP. Twenty preventive services were evaluated and, for each service, medical records, targets, and objectives were defined according to the national preventive care guidelines. The gap between guidelines and practice was explained by doctor characteristics. Statistical analyses were performed using χ² and logistic regression.

Results

Representative samples of 179 doctors and 2453 medical records were randomised. Four preventive services were performed in more than 75% of cases, and the gap was explained by the salaried job the doctors had. Ten preventive services were performed in 25% to 75% of cases and the gap was explained by the medical software used. The six remaining services were performed in less than 25% of cases and no explanatory variable was identified.

Conclusion

Sixteen preventive procedures were insufficiently performed. The more a preventive service is performed the more the gap will be explained by GPs'' socioprofessional characteristics. The gap for a preventive procedure performed in 25% to 75% of cases was mainly explained by management of the medical records. A nationwide policy to improve prevention performance in general practice seems to be essential.     

Effectiveness of GPs in accident and emergency departments

Background

Many self-attending patients make inappropriate use of accident and emergency departments.

Aim

To determine whether a new care method consisting of the involvement of a GP during the day with the staff of the accident and emergency department of an academic city hospital and application of the Nederlands Triage Systeem by a practice nurse is more effective than usual care.

Design

Before and after intervention design.

Setting

Accident and emergency department in the VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam.

Method

Participants were patients (n = 1527) attending the accident and emergency department without a referral, on weekdays from 10.00–17.00 hours, from 1 November 2006 to 30 April 2007. The intervention consisted of a new care method that combined the involvement of a GP in the accident and emergency department and allocation of patients by triage to either the GP or the accident and emergency department physician. Main outcome measures were patient satisfaction, number and type of additional examinations, quality of diagnosis, process time, and treatment time.

Results

Patient satisfaction with the treatment increased significantly. Compared to the usual care method, this new care method resulted in a 13% decrease in additional examinations. The percentage of incorrect diagnoses (1 %), as a measure of quality of care, was similar with the two methods. The mean process time decreased from 93 to 69 minutes (P<0.001). The mean treatment time decreased from 60 to 35 minutes (P<0.001).

Conclusion

The new care method resulted in greater patient satisfaction and maintained the quality of care, with fewer additional examinations. It reduced both the process time and the treatment time.     

Seeking support after hospitalisation for injury: a nested qualitative study of the role of primary care

Background

In the UK, studies suggest that the transition from hospital to home after an injury can be a difficult time and many patients report feeling inadequately prepared. Patients often use primary care services after hospital discharge. These consultations provide opportunities to consider problems that patients experience and to facilitate recovery. Little is known, however, about how patients and service providers view care after hospital discharge and the role played by primary care services, specifically GPs.

Aim

To identify good practice and unmet needs in respect of post-discharge support for injured patients.

Design and setting

Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews at four sites (Bristol, Leicester/Loughborough, Nottingham, and Surrey).

Method

Qualitative interviews with 40 service providers and 45 hospitalised injured patients.

Results

Although there were examples of well-managed hospital discharges, many patients felt they were not provided with the information they needed about their injury, what to expect in terms of recovery, pain control, return to work, psychological problems, and services to help meet their needs. They also described difficulty accessing services such as physiotherapy or counselling. Service providers identified problems with communication between secondary and primary care, lack of access to physiotherapy, poor communication about other services that may help patients, GP service and resource constraints, and difficulties in providing information to patients concerning likely prognosis.

Conclusion

Discharge from hospital after an injury can be problematic for patients. Changes in both secondary and primary care are required to resolve this problem.     

Important treatment aims at the end of life: a nationwide study among GPs

Background

Little is known about treatment aims during the last 3 months of life.

Aim

To investigate important treatment aims in the last 3 months of patients’ lives in cases of non-sudden death.

Design and setting

Mortality follow-back study in the Netherlands.

Method

Data were collected retrospectively in 2009 within the representative Sentinel Network of GPs in the Netherlands. GPs completed a standardised registration form.

Results

Data for 279 patients were studied. Of these, 55% died of cancer and 45% of another disease. Treatment was aimed at palliation for 73% of the patients in months 2 and 3 before death, and for 95% of the patients in the last week of life. Seven per cent received treatment aimed at cure in the last week of life. In a minority of patients, cure/life prolongation and palliation were simultaneously important treatment aims. In the last week of life and in the 2–4 weeks before death, cure was more frequently reported as an important treatment aim in patients with a non-cancer disease than in patients with cancer. In the 2–4 weeks before death, palliation was an important treatment aim for a larger proportion of patients with cancer than patients with other diseases.

Conclusion

Registration by GPs show that, in the last weeks and days of life, cure was more frequently reported as an important treatment aim in patients with a non-cancer disease than in patients with cancer. For a small number of patients, palliation and cure/life prolongation were simultaneously important treatment aims.     

GPs with special interests: unanswered questions.

The NHS Plan signalled the creation of GPs with special interests (GPwSIs) in the UK. The role of a GPwSI involves the acquisition of knowledge and skills that enable GPs to dedicate a portion of their time to performing the role of consultants to their colleagues within the ambit of general practice, and with respect to specific health problems encountered. The objectives behind the introduction of GPwSIs are to improve the patient's access to specialist care, to cut waiting-list times, and to save on referral costs, (and as a consequence to increase the prestige of the GPs involved). However, the reality may not meet these expectations. Before accepting the proposition for universal implementation of GPwSIs empirical evidence is required to demonstrate that overall health is improved (of patients as well as the population); patients, especially patients of doctors working alone or in small groups (specifically in rural areas) are not disadvantaged; referral is improved and made more appropriate to the requirements of patients and their health problems; real prestige is generated, not only among GPs and students, but also among patients; biological views typical of the specialist are not promoted; and a brake is not applied to other alternatives in, or the reorganisation of, primary care.     

Patient-reported areas for quality improvement in general practice: a cross-sectional survey

Background

GPs are often a patient’s first point of contact with the health system. The increasing demands imposed on GPs may have an impact on the quality of care delivered. Patients are well placed to make judgements about aspects of care that need to be improved.

Aim

To determine whether general practice patients perceive that the care they receive is ‘patient-centred’ across eight domains of care, and to determine the association between sociodemographic, GP and practice characteristics, detection of preventive health risks, and receipt of patient-centred care.

Design and setting

Cross-sectional survey of patients attending Australian general practice clinics.

Method

Patients completed a touchscreen survey in the waiting room to rate the care received from their GP across eight domains of patient-centred care. Patients also completed the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and self-reported health risk factors. GPs completed a checklist for each patient asking about the presence of health risk factors.

Results

In total 1486 patients and 51 GPs participated. Overall, 83% of patients perceived that the care they received was patient-centred across all eight domains. Patients most frequently perceived the ‘access to health care when needed’ domain as requiring improvement (8.3%). Not having private health insurance and attending a practice located in a disadvantaged area were significantly associated with perceived need for improvements in care (P<0.05).

Conclusion

Patients in general practice report that accessibility is an aspect of care that could be improved. Further investigation of how indicators of lower socioeconomic status interact with the provision of patient-centred care and health outcomes is required.     

Perceived future career prospects in general practice: quantitative results from questionnaire surveys of UK doctors

BackgroundThere are more studies of current job satisfaction among GPs than of their views about their future career prospects, although both are relevant to commitment to careers in general practice.AimTo report on the views of GPs compared with clinicians in other specialties about their future career prospects.MethodQuestionnaires were sent to the doctors at different times after graduation, ranging from 3 to 24 years.ResultsBased on the latest survey of each graduation year of the 20 940 responders, 66.2% of GPs and 74.2% of hospital doctors were positive about their prospects and 9.7% and 8.3%, respectively, were negative. However, with increasing time since graduation and increasing levels of seniority, GPs became less positive about their prospects; by contrast, over time, surgeons became more positive. Three to 5 years after graduation, 86.3% of those training in general practice were positive about their prospects compared with 52.9% of surgical trainees: in surveys conducted 12–24 years after graduation, 60.2% of GPs and 76.6% of surgeons were positive about their prospects.ConclusionGPs held broadly positive views of their career prospects, as did other doctors. However, there was an increase in negativity with increasing time since graduation that was not seen in hospital doctors. Research into the causes of this negativity and policy measures to ameliorate it would contribute to the continued commitment of GPs and may help to reduce attrition.     

Views of newly-qualified GPs about their training and preparedness: lessons for extended generalist training

BackgroundGeneral practice is becoming increasingly complex due to an ageing population with multiple morbidities and the shift of services from secondary to primary care, yet GP training remains largely the same. Extended training is now recommended, initially proposed as a fourth GP specialty trainee year, but more recently as a broad-based 4-year specialty training programme.AimTo explore the views of newly-qualified GPs about their training and preparedness for specific aspects of the GP’s role.MethodSemi-structured interviews with 18 GPs between November 2011 and April 2012.ResultsGaining experience in a variety of primary care environments widens insight into patient populations as well as helping GPs develop adaptability and confidence, although this is not routinely part of GP training. However, alongside variety, having continuity with patients in practice remains important. Opportunities to be involved in the management of a practice or to take on substantial leadership roles also vary widely and this may limit preparedness and development of generalist skills.ConclusionExtended training could help prepare GPs for the current challenges of general practice. It could ensure all trainees are exposed to a greater variety of primary care settings including those outside GP practice, as well as experience of business, finance, and leadership roles. Collectively, these changes have the potential to produce GPs with both generalist and enhanced skills, who are better prepared to work collaboratively across the organisational boundaries between primary, secondary, and community care.     

The benefits and costs of a master's programme in primary health care: a cross-sectional postal survey

Background

Master''s programmes can provide continuing professional development, equipping GPs to teach, research, and lead general practice. A previous evaluation of the MSc in primary health care found that graduates were contributing significantly to the discipline of general practice. Given the changes in general practice over the last 10 years, it was considered useful to investigate longer-term outcomes.

Aim

To assess the benefits GPs have derived from the MSc in terms of the intended learning outcomes and their own plans for involvement in research and teaching.

Design of study

A cross-sectional survey using a postal questionnaire.

Setting

Department of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King''s College London.

Method

A postal questionnaire was sent to the graduates of MSc in primary health care from 1997 until 2008.

Results

A total of 50 completed questionnaires were returned (response rate 76%). After graduation, 22 GPs had completed another degree or diploma and 21 had work accepted for publication, resulting in 74 papers. Nine held academic posts at lecturer or senior lecturer level, 21 were GP trainers, and 21 undergraduate teachers. Twenty-five GPs held more than one teaching-related post. The majority of the graduates confirmed the attainment of the MSc''s intended outcomes. Positive influences of the MSc were identified, including career development, personal development, and job satisfaction.

Conclusion

Graduates reported a number of benefits to themselves, their practices, and their patients. As the requirements for continuing professional development of GPs become more stringent, and with the advent of revalidation, the current ad hoc approach to career development in general practice is becoming unsustainable. To enhance its credibility as an academic discipline, general practice must continue to develop its capacity for research and scholarship. Master''s programmes are likely to have an important role in supporting professional development in general practice in the future.     

Prophylactic treatment of migraine by GPs: a qualitative study

Background

Despite the considerable impact of migraine, the use of preventive medication in primary care is limited. Only about 5% of migraine patients who qualify for prophylaxis actually receive it, and adherence is far from optimal.

Aim

To explore the opinions of GPs regarding preventive medication for migraine.

Design and setting

A qualitative focus group study in Dutch general practice.

Method

Four focus groups (six GPs each) were formed. GPs were purposively sampled to acquire a range of participants, reflecting the more general GP population.

Results

GPs perceived patients'' concerns about the impact of migraine and the potential benefits of prophylaxis. However, some were hesitant to start prescribing prophylaxis due to doubts about effectiveness, potential side effects, and the risk of developing drug dependency. GPs'' decisions were often based on considerations other than those presented in national guidelines, for example, the patient''s need to control their own problem. Many GPs placed responsibility for initiating prophylaxis with the patient.

Conclusion

Various considerations hamper GPs from managing migraine with preventive medication, and various patient-related concerns cause GPs to deviate from national headache guidelines.     

Online data on opening hours of general practices in England: a comparison with telephone survey data

Background

The NHS Choices website (www.nhs.uk) provides data on the opening hours of general practices in England. If the data are accurate, they could be used to examine the benefits of extended hours.

Aim

To determine whether online data on the opening times of general practices in England are accurate regarding the number of hours in which GPs provide face-to-face consultations.

Design and setting

Cross-sectional comparison of data from NHS Choices and telephone survey data reported by general practice staff, for a nationally representative sample of 320 general practices (December 2013 to September 2014).

Method

GP face-to-face consultation times were collected by telephone for each sampled practice for each day of the week. NHS Choices data on surgery times were available online. Analysis was based on differences in the number of surgery hours (accounting for breaks) and the times of the first and last consultations of the day only between the two data sources.

Results

The NHS Choices data recorded 8.8 more hours per week than the survey data on average (40.1 versus 31.2; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.4 to 10.3). This was largely accounted for by differences in the recording of breaks between sessions. The data were more similar when only the first and last consultation times were considered (mean difference = 1.6 hours; 95% CI = 0.9 to 2.3).

Conclusion

NHS Choices data do not accurately measure the number of hours in which GPs provide face-to-face consultations. They better record the hours between the first and last consultations of the day.     

Identification of an updated set of prescribing-safety indicators for GPs

Background

Medication error is an important contributor to patient morbidity and mortality and is associated with inadequate patient safety measures. However, prescribing-safety tools specifically designed for use in general practice are lacking.

Aim

To identify and update a set of prescribing-safety indicators for assessing the safety of prescribing in general practice, and to estimate the risk of harm to patients associated with each indicator.

Design and setting

RAND/UCLA consensus development of indicators in UK general practice.

Method

Prescribing indicators were identified from a systematic review and previous consensus exercise. The RAND Appropriateness Method was used to further identify and develop the indicators with an electronic-Delphi method used to rate the risk associated with them. Twelve GPs from all the countries of the UK participated in the RAND exercise, with 11 GPs rating risk using the electronic-Delphi approach.

Results

Fifty-six prescribing-safety indicators were considered appropriate for inclusion (overall panel median rating of 7–9, with agreement). These indicators cover hazardous prescribing across a range of therapeutic indications, hazardous drug–drug combinations and inadequate laboratory test monitoring. Twenty-three (41%) of these indicators were considered high risk or extreme risk by 80% or more of the participants.

Conclusion

This study identified a set of 56 indicators that were considered, by a panel of GPs, to be appropriate for assessing the safety of GP prescribing. Twenty-three of these indicators were considered to be associated with high or extreme risk to patients and should be the focus of efforts to improve patient safety.