Search

Background Spiritual needs gain importance in old age but are often ignored in health care. Within the ‘Holistic care program for elderly patients to integrate spiritual needs, social activity and self-care into disease management in primary care (HoPES3)’ a complex intervention was evaluated in a cluster-randomized trial. The aim of this study was to explore the acceptability, feasibility, benefits, and harms of a spiritual history taken by general practitioners (GPs) as part of the complex intervention. Methods In this mixed-methods study telephone interviews with 11 German GPs and 12 medical assistants (MAs) of the HoPES3 intervention group were conducted and analysed using a content-analytical approach. Furthermore, GPs were asked to complete a questionnaire after each spiritual history. One hundred and forty-one questionnaires from 14 GPs were analysed descriptively. Results GPs considered the spiritual history very/quite helpful for the patient in 27% (n= 38) and very/quite stressful in 2% (n = 3) of the cases. Interviews indicated that GPs found discussing spiritual history easier than anticipated. GPs and MAs saw a difficulty in that many patients associated spirituality with religion or church and reacted with surprise or rejection. Benefits for patients were seen in the opportunity to talk about non-medical topics, and increased awareness of their own resources. Benefits for GPs mainly related to information gain and an intensified patient–physician relationship. Conclusions A spiritual history in general practice has the potential to reveal important information about patients’ lives and to improve the patient–physician relationship. Implementation barriers identified in this study have to be considered and addressed.

Item does not contain fulltext Background: Key recommendations for the management of patients with polypharmacy are structured medication counselling (SMC), medication lists and systematic medication reviews. Objective: The aim of this study was to identify determinants (hindering and facilitating factors) for the implementation of the recommendations in general practice. Methods: This study was linked to a tailored intervention aimed at improving the implementation of the recommendations in German general practice. Interviews and focus groups with different healthcare professionals were carried out in the design phase and after delivery of the intervention. The material from both data collections was analysed separately in a content analytical approach resulting in two sets of categories. For this study, the subcategories of both sets were assigned to the Tailoring Interventions for Chronic Diseases (TICD) checklist, a comprehensive framework of determinants of practice. Results: Interviews with 24 general practitioners (GPs), 4 other medical specialists, 1 pharmacist, 3 nurses and 6 medical assistants as well as 2 mixed focus groups with 17 professionals were conducted. We identified 93 determinants: 29 referred to medication counselling, 21 to the use of medication lists, 20 to medications reviews and 23 to all recommendations. The determinants were related to all 7 main domains and to 25 of the 57 subdomains on the TICD checklist including guideline factors, patient factors, individual healthcare professional factors, social, political and legal factors, incentives and resources, and capacity for organizational change. Conclusion: While many interventions to improve polypharmacy focus on the provision of pharmacological knowledge, a much wider range of domains need to be addressed, such as communication skills, patient involvement and practice organization.