Decision-making In General Practice Research Articles

Management of child maltreatment suspicions in general practice: a mixed methods study

Background Maltreated children have many long-term consequences throughout their lives, but often maltreated children are not recognised in time by professionals. General practice could be central to the early recognition of child maltreatment due to the long-term relationship with families. Objective How do general practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses (PNs) deal with suspected maltreatment in children below 18 years of age, and which factors influence them to report cases to social authorities. Design and setting A mixed methods study set in general practice in Denmark. Method and subjects We combined data from a nationwide questionnaire with observations from five clinics and 20 interviews with GPs and PNs. We explored our data using the concept of uncertainty as a driver that shapes action and decision-making in general practice. Results Most GPs (94%) said they would discuss cases of suspected child maltreatment with social services, but in many cases they would prefer to discuss their suspicions with a colleague first (83%) – most likely where there are no clear-cut signs. The qualitative data added nuance to these findings by highlighting the difficulty of communicating across sectors, the importance of maintaining a connection with the child’s family, and practicing watchful waiting. Conclusion General practice has an opportunity to act early in cases of suspected child maltreatment if uncertainty is accepted as a critical part of the process of reaching a diagnosis. Communication across sectors is key, as is support for GPs with suspicions and for families in need of help. Key points GPs are often thought to underreport child maltreatment but despite low levels of reporting, this does not mean they ignore it. Building on the connection with the family, making follow appointments, and discussing suspicions with colleagues are typical of how GPs manage suspicions of child abuse. Accepting uncertainty as a condition of raising the alarm could help GPs to act quickly to support children at risk of abuse.

Prescribing antibiotics: Factors driving decision-making in general practice. A discrete choice experiment

BackgroundAntimicrobial resistance is a threat to human health. We need to strive for a rational use of antibiotics to reduce the selection of resistant bacteria. Most antibiotics are prescribed in general practice, but little is known about factors influencing general practitioners’ (GPs) decision-making when prescribing antibiotics. AimTo 1) assess the importance of factors that influence decisions by GPs to prescribe antibiotics for acute respiratory tract infections (RTIs) and 2) identify segments of GPs influenced differently when deciding to prescribe antibiotics. MethodsA questionnaire survey including a discrete choice experiment was conducted. Danish GPs were asked to indicate whether they would prescribe antibiotics in six hypothetical choice sets with six variables: whether the GP is behind schedule, patient's temperature, patient's general condition, lung auscultation findings, C-reactive protein (CRP) level, and whether the patient expects antibiotics. Error component and latent class models were estimated and the probabilities of prescribing in different scenarios were calculated. ResultsThe questionnaire was distributed to every Danish GP (n = 3,336); 1,152 (35%) responded. Results showed that GPs were influenced by (in prioritised order): CRP level (Relative importance (RI) 0.54), patient's general condition (RI 0.20), crackles at auscultation (RI 0.15), and fever (RI 0.10). Being behind schedule and patient expectations had no significant impact on antibiotic prescription at the aggregate level. The latent class analysis identified five classes of GPs: generalists, CRP-guided, general condition-guided, reluctant prescribers, and stethoscopy-guided. For all classes, CRP was the most important driver, while GPs were heterogeneously affected by other drivers. ConclusionThe most important factor affecting Danish GPs’ decision to prescribe antibiotics at the aggregate level, in subgroups of GPs, and across latent classes was the CRP value. Hence, the use of CRP testing is an important factor to consider in order to promote rational antibiotic use in the battle against antimicrobial resistance.

Shared decision-making in general practice from a patient perspective. A cross-sectional survey

Objectives We aimed to assess patient involvement in terms of shared decision-making in general practice from the perspectives of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or type 2 diabetes (T2DM) (or both). Design A cross-sectional survey using the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) ranging from 0 to 5 (best). Setting and subjects Patients diagnosed with either T2DM and/or COPD were asked to focus on their most recent consultation in general practice concerning their T2DM or lung disease. Responders were approached through the Danish Diabetes Association and Danish Lung Association. Results The sample included 468 responders. Mean scores for the total sample were between 3.3 and 4.2. The overall mean score for all items was 3.7. The highest overall mean score was for patients with T2DM, whereas the lowest overall mean score was for patients having both T2DM and COPD. Furthermore, we observed a slightly lower overall mean score for women compared to men and for those younger than 65 years compared to those aged 65 years or older. Conclusion Overall, patients are involved in shared decision-making in general practice Minor nuances were found because patients with COPD were less involved in shared decision-making compared to patients with T2DM. Similarly, younger patients and women were less involved than older patients and men.

Perceptions of primary health care physicians about the prescription of antibiotics in Saudi Arabia: Based on the model of Theory of planned behaviour

IntroductionKnowledge of different factors that influence physician decision-making in general practice for prescribing antibiotics is vital for successfully implementing antimicrobial stewardship interventions. The Theory of planned behaviour (TPB) is an established model that describes how cognitions drive human behaviour. ObjectivesThe present study was performed to identify the socio-cultural and behavioural determinants that affect antibiotics prescription behaviour among primary care physicians and estimate the awareness about antibiotic resistance of public health importance. Methodology:The questionnaire was divided into three sections: Section-I, which contained demographic content. Section-II contained 21 question items measuring attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, and behavioural intentions of the prescribers. Section III had 12 questions related to knowledge about antibiotic resistance. As determined by Cronbach’s α for each set of measured constructs of questionnaire scale, the internal consistency was good (α ≥ 0.7). The participants' socio-cultural and behavioural determinants were graded in 3 categories depending upon the mean score, while frequencies were used to estimate antibiotic resistance awareness. The data was analyzed by calculating the one-way ANOVA and by post-hoc Tukey-Kramer HSD multiple comparison test. ResultsFour hundred thirty-four primary health care physicians responded to the questionnaire, and data was statistically investigated. Participants' knowledge of antibiotic-resistant bacteria was poor with greater behavioural intentions to prescribe antibiotics, but a positive attitude and acceptable perceived social pressure towards antibiotics. ConclusionOur study showed that awareness towards antibiotic-resistant bacteria among primary care physicians of Saudi Arabia stands insufficient but favourable attitude and satisfactory social pressure towards antibiotics with greater behavioural intentions to prescribe antibiotics. The continued medical education (CME) and frequent training interventions can increase these parameters of rational prescribing practice for antibiotics.

Corrigendum: Shared decision-making in general practice: an observational study comparing 2007 with 2015.

Corrigendum: Shared decision-making in general practice: an observational study comparing 2007 with 2015.

Clinical drug trials in general practice: how well are external validity issues reported?

BackgroundWhen reading a report of a clinical trial, it should be possible to judge whether the results are relevant for your patients. Issues affecting the external validity or generalizability of a trial should therefore be reported. Our aim was to determine whether articles with published results from a complete cohort of drug trials conducted entirely or partly in general practice reported sufficient information about the trials to consider the external validity.MethodsA cohort of 196 drug trials in Norwegian general practice was previously identified from the Norwegian Medicines Agency archive with year of application for approval 1998–2007. After comprehensive literature searches, 134 journal articles reporting results published from 2000 to 2015 were identified. In these articles, we considered the reporting of the following issues relevant for external validity: reporting of the clinical setting; selection of patients before inclusion in a trial; reporting of patients’ co-morbidity, co-medication or ethnicity; choice of primary outcome; and reporting of adverse events.ResultsOf these 134 articles, only 30 (22%) reported the clinical setting of the trial. The number of patients screened before enrolment was reported in 61 articles (46%). The primary outcome of the trial was a surrogate outcome for 60 trials (45%), a clinical outcome for 39 (29%) and a patient-reported outcome for 25 (19%). Clinical details of adverse events were reported in 124 (93%) articles. Co-morbidity of included participants was reported in 54 trials (40%), co-medication in 27 (20%) and race/ethnicity in 78 (58%).ConclusionsThe clinical setting of the trials, the selection of patients before enrolment, and co-morbidity or co-medication of participants was most commonly not reported, limiting the possibility to consider the generalizability of a trial. It may therefore be difficult for readers to judge whether drug trial results are applicable to clinical decision-making in general practice or when developing clinical guidelines.

Deprescribing medication in very elderly patients with multimorbidity: the view of Dutch GPs. A qualitative study

BackgroundElderly patients with multimorbidity who are treated according to guidelines use a large number of drugs. This number of drugs increases the risk of adverse drug events (ADEs). Stopping medication may relieve these effects, and thereby improve the patient’s wellbeing. To facilitate management of polypharmacy expert-driven instruments have been developed, sofar with little effect on the patient’s quality of life. Recently, much attention has been paid to shared decision-making in general practice, mainly focusing on patient preferences. This study explores how experienced GPs feel about deprescribing medication in older patients with multimorbidity and to what extent they involve patients in these decisions.MethodsFocusgroups of GPs were used to develop a conceptual framework for understanding and categorizing the GP’s view on the subject. Audiotapes were transcribed verbatim and studied by the first and second author. They selected independently relevant textfragments. In a next step they labeled these fragments and sorted them. From these labelled and sorted fragments central themes were extracted.ResultsGPs discern symptomatic medication and preventive medication; deprescribing the latter category is seen as more difficult by the GPs due to lack of benefit/risk information for these patients.Factors influencing GPs’deprescribing were beliefs concerning patients (patients have no problem with polypharmacy; patients may interpret a proposal to stop preventive medication as a sign of having been given up on; and confronting the patient with a discussion of life expectancy vs quality of life is ‘not done’), guidelines for treatment (GPs feel compelled to prescribe by the present guidelines) and organization of healthcare (collaboration with prescribing medical specialists and dispensing pharmacists.ConclusionsThe GPs’ beliefs concerning elderly patients are a barrier to explore patient preferences when reviewing preventive medication. GPs would welcome decision support when dealing with several guidelines for one patient. Explicit rules for collaborating with medical specialists in this field are required. Training in shared decision making could help GPs to elicit patient preferences.

Decision-making in General Practice: The Importance of a Near Patient Test When Choosing Medical Actions

There is a lack of studies on the impact of near patient test results in primary care, which should be an important prerequisite for reimbursing such tests. Our main purpose is therefore to develop a model to study what effect the results of a near patient test may have on medical actions in primary care. A clinical vignette, describing a young woman with dyspepsia was sent to GPs in Norway, who were asked to suggest actions in response to either a negative or a positive result of the Helicobacter pylori rapid test (HPRT). Discrete choice analysis with multinomial logit models was used to analyse the choice of medical actions. We find that the result of the rapid test has a major influence on actions suggested, and an important prerequisite for reimbursing such tests is fulfilled. Therefore the analytical quality of test results is likely to affect patients' health and social costs.

Decision-making in general practice: the effect of financial incentives on the use of laboratory analyses

This paper examines the reaction of general practitioners (GPs) to a reform in 2004 in the remuneration system for using laboratory services in general practice. The purpose of this paper is to study whether income motivation exists regarding the use of laboratory services in general practice, and if so, the degree of income motivation among general practitioners (GPs) in Norway. We argue that the degree of income motivation is stronger when the physicians are uncertain about the utility of the laboratory service in question. We have panel data from actual physician-patient encounters in general practices in the years 2001-2004 and use discrete choice analysis and random effects models. Estimation results show that an increase in the fees will lead to a small but significant increase in use. The reform led to minor changes in the use of laboratory analyses in GPs' offices, and we argue that financial incentives were diluted because they were in conflict with medical recommendations and existing medical practice. The patient's age has the most influence and the results support the hypothesis that the impact of income increases with increasing uncertainty about diagnosis and treatment. The policy implication of our results is that financial incentives alone are not an effective tool for influencing the use of laboratory services in GPs' offices.

The RISAP-study: a complex intervention in risk communication and shared decision-making in general practice

BackgroundGeneral practitioners (GPs) and patients find it difficult to talk about risk of future disease, especially when patients have asymptomatic conditions, and treatment options are unlikely to cause immediate perceptible improvements in well-being. Further studies in risk communication training are needed. Aim:1) to systematically develop, describe and evaluate a complex intervention comprising a training programme for GPs in risk communication and shared decision-making, 2) to evaluate the effect of the training programme on real-life consultations between GPs and patients with high cholesterol levels, and 3) to evaluate patients' reactions during and after the consultations.Methods/DesignThe effect of the complex intervention, based around a training programme, will be evaluated in a cluster-randomised controlled trial with an intervention group and an active control group with 40 GPs and 280 patients in each group.The GPs will receive a questionnaire at baseline and after 6 months about attitudes towards risk communication and cholesterol-reducing medication. After each consultation with a participating high cholesterol-patient, the GPs will complete a questionnaire about decision satisfaction (Provider Decision Process Assessment Instrument). The patients will receive a questionnaire at baseline and after 3 and 6 months. It includes questions about adherence to chosen treatment (Morisky Compliance Scale), self-rated health (SF-12), enablement (Patient Enablement Instrument), and risk communication and decision-making effectiveness (COMRADE Scale). Prescriptions, contacts to the health services, and cholesterol level will be drawn from the registers.In each group, 12 consultations will be observed and tape-recorded. The patients from these 24 consultations will be interviewed immediately after the consultation and re-interviewed after 6 months.Eight purposefully selected GPs from the intervention group will be interviewed in a focus group 6 months after participation in the training programme.The process and context of the RISAP-study will be investigated in detail using an action research approach, in order to analyse adaptation of the intervention model to the specific context.DiscussionThis study aims at providing GPs and patients with a firm basis for active deliberation about preventive treatment options, with a view to optimising adherence to chosen treatment.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration System NCT01187056

8091 INVITED Uncertainty, optimism and psychological distress: conceptual and communication issues

To explore the application of the original Charles et al. model of shared treatment decision-making [Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med 1997;44:681–92; Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Soc Sci Med 1999;49:651–61] in the context of general practice, and to determine whether the model needs tailoring for use in this clinical context.Conceptual paper, presenting the defining characteristics of general practice compared to the original clinical context for which the model was developed (i.e. life threatening disease with different treatment options), and exploring how the model can be tailored for use in the context of general practice.We identify two areas where the original model requires tailoring: sharing the decision-making around agreeing on an agenda for each consultation; and adapting the information transfer component of the model to acknowledge that doctors may not be the only, or even the main, source of technical information for patients. Finally, we explore the importance of shared decision-making in the context of chronic disease.The Charles et al. model can be tailored for use in general practice.Tailoring the model for use in general practice has implications for research, in terms of identifying the additional physician competencies needed for implementation. Policy makers who wish to promote shared decision-making need to ensure that incentives which prioritize access and health outcomes do not militate against shared decision-making in general practice.

Protocol for the Quick Clinical study: a randomised controlled trial to assess the impact of an online evidence retrieval system on decision-making in general practice

BackgroundOnline information retrieval systems have the potential to improve patient care but there are few comparative studies of the impact of online evidence on clinicians' decision-making behaviour in routine clinical work.Methods/designA randomized controlled parallel design is employed to assess the effectiveness of an online evidence retrieval system, Quick Clinical (QC) in improving clinical decision-making processes in general practice. Eligible clinicians are randomised either to receive access or not to receive access to QC in their consulting rooms for 12 months. Participants complete pre- and post trial surveys.Two-hundred general practitioners are recruited. Participants must be registered to practice in Australia, have a computer with Internet access in their consulting room and use electronic prescribing. Clinicians planning to retire or move to another practice within 12 months or participating in any other clinical trial involving electronic extraction of prescriptions data are excluded from the study.The primary end-points for the study is clinician acceptance and use of QC and the resulting change in decision-making behaviour. The study will examine prescribing patterns related to frequently prescribed medications where there has been a recent significant shift in recommendations regarding their use based upon new evidence. Secondary outcome measures include self-reported changes in diagnosis, patient education, prescriptions written, investigations and referrals.DiscussionA trial under experimental conditions is an effective way of examining the impact of using QC in routine general practice consultations.

Shared decision-making in primary care: Tailoring the Charles et al. model to fit the context of general practice

Objective To explore the application of the original Charles et al. model of shared treatment decision-making [Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med 1997;44:681–92; Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Soc Sci Med 1999;49:651–61] in the context of general practice, and to determine whether the model needs tailoring for use in this clinical context. Methods Conceptual paper, presenting the defining characteristics of general practice compared to the original clinical context for which the model was developed (i.e. life threatening disease with different treatment options), and exploring how the model can be tailored for use in the context of general practice. Results We identify two areas where the original model requires tailoring: sharing the decision-making around agreeing on an agenda for each consultation; and adapting the information transfer component of the model to acknowledge that doctors may not be the only, or even the main, source of technical information for patients. Finally, we explore the importance of shared decision-making in the context of chronic disease. Conclusion The Charles et al. model can be tailored for use in general practice. Practice implications Tailoring the model for use in general practice has implications for research, in terms of identifying the additional physician competencies needed for implementation. Policy makers who wish to promote shared decision-making need to ensure that incentives which prioritize access and health outcomes do not militate against shared decision-making in general practice.