Search

Background: As the number of patients with complex healthcare needs grows, inter-professional collaboration between primary care professionals must be constantly optimized. General practitioners (GPs) and community nurses (CNs) are key professions in primary care; however, poor GP-CN communication is common, and research into the factors influencing its quality is limited.Objective: To explore patient-related GP-CN communication and facilitating and hindering factors, and to identify strategies to enhance this communication.Method: A qualitative focus group design was used to identify the facilitating and hindering factors and strategies for improvement. In a Dutch primary care setting, 6 mono-professional focus group interviews (3 meetings of 13 GPs; 3 meetings of 18 CNs) were organized between June 2015 and April 2016, recorded and transcribed verbatim. Two independent researchers performed the coding of these interviews, identifying their categories and themes.Results: Results show that, despite the regular contact between GPs and CNs, communication was generally perceived as poor in effectiveness and efficiency by both professions. Mutual trust was considered the most important facilitating factor for effective communication. Profession-specific factors (e.g. differences in responsibility and profession-specific language) and organizational factors (e.g. lack of shared care plans, no in-person communication, lack of time) may be of influence on communication. Participants' suggestions for improvement included organizing well-structured and reimbursed team meetings and facilitating face-to-face contact.Conclusion: GP-CN patient-related communication benefits most from trusting inter-personal relationships. Inter-professional training programmes should address both professional and organizational factors and should be evaluated for their effect on quality of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Adequate communication between care and medical disciplines is an important prerequisite for safe patient care. Studies have shown that personal, social and organizational barriers might hinder communication in hospital care and long term care. Literature in primary care on these topics is scarce, but studies on implementation of collaborative services in primary healthcare indicate that communication is an important prerequisite for collaboration. This study aims to identify factors that facilitate or hinder patient related communication between General Practitioners (GPs) and Community Nurses (CNs), in order to find strategies to improve poor communication, if present. Six mono-disciplinary focus groups (13 GPs, 3 meetings; 18 CNs, 3 meetings) were organized, to create an atmosphere of equality and trust, knowing that hierarchical relationships could hinder open discussions. The interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed ad verbatim. Professionals were invited to discuss topics concerning individual attitudes and experiences, barriers and facilitators, prerequisites and current and future strategies for improvement. ATLAS.ti was used to code transcripts. Results: Despite the fact that GPs and CNs have regular contacts (mostly via telephone, less often in person), poor communication was frequently perceived. Trustful relations appeared to be the most important prerequisite for effective communication. Organizational factors (e.g. lack of shared care plans, no contact in person and lack of time) and professional specific factors (e.g. discipline specific language, perspective, education level and position) influenced development of trustful relationships. Significant suggestions for improvement of communication by both GPs and CNs were made, for example the importance of communication skills training and use of practical communication tools that structure information. Discussions: The results of this study are in line with earlier studies in hospital and long term care settings with regard to miscommunication between doctors and nurses. However, in this primary care study, causes seem to be more divers and disruptive. Medical and nursing professionals are not part of one team, but work from different organizations, with different interests, visions, procedures and methods of working. Conclusions: Different professional and organizational factors might hinder effective patient related communication between GPs and CNs. Inter-professional training programmes should address these factors and should be evaluated for their effect on quality of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Relocations within and between nursing homes often induce stress, anxiety, and depression in residents and cause additional workload for and burnout in staff. To prevent this, many nursing homes deploy pre-transition initiatives, bridging initiatives, and post-transition initiatives to support residents and staff during the relocation process. As little is known about these initiatives, this study aims to explore the pre-relocation, bridging and post-relocation initiatives used for relocations within and between nursing homes. Methods: In seven Dutch nursing homes, eight focus groups were conducted with two to six participants (N = 37) who were actively involved in relocation processes in different roles (i.e., managers, healthcare professionals, support staff, client council members, residents and family). The focus groups were conducted based on a predefined topic list and lasted approximately 60 min. The transcripts were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic coding. Results: Nursing homes had to be inventive in developing relocation initiatives as neither shared guidelines nor knowledge exchange on this topic were available. A total of thirty-seven relocation initiatives were identified in these seven nursing homes. Nineteen pre-relocation initiatives were identified, of which eight emphasized information and engagement, three highlighted training and practice and eight stressed orientation and visualization. Seven bridging initiatives were identified, of which four emphasized coordination and continuity and three highlighted entertainment and celebration. Eleven post-relocation initiatives were identified, of which seven emphasized evaluation and troubleshooting and four highlighted change and adjustment. Conclusion: The identified relocation initiatives were developed unassisted by nursing homes, due to a lack of shared guidelines, knowledge exchange and mutual learning on this topic. Therefore, it may be expedient and more effective to develop general guidelines for relocations within and between nursing homes in collaboration with nursing homes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background This study aims to provide greater insight into the current decision-making process on diagnostic testing for dementia by exploring the expectations, needs and experiences of patients with memory complaints, significant others and general practitioners (GPs). Methods We performed semi-structured interviews with patients (>60 years) who consulted their GP on memory complaints, significant others and GPs. Participants were recruited until data saturation was reached in thematic analysis of interview transcripts. Results We performed 51 interviews (patients n  = 20, significant others n  = 15, GPs n  = 16). Thematic analysis revealed four themes: (i) 'drivers to (not) testing', i.e. need to act on symptoms, beliefs on the necessity and expected outcomes of diagnostic testing; (ii) 'patient preferences and context are critical in the actual decision', i.e. in the actual decision-making process interpretation of symptoms, GPs' desire to meet patient preferences, social context and healthcare system dynamics guided the decision; (iii) 'need for individualised communication in the decision-making process', i.e. for patients feeling heard was a prerequisite for decision-making and GPs tailored communication strategies to individual patients and (iv) 'GP practice and barriers to shared decision-making (SDM)', i.e. although GPs value SDM in the decision on diagnostic testing for dementia, patients express limited awareness of the decision and options at stake. Conclusions Decision-making on diagnostic testing for dementia is a multifactorial and preference-guided process for all involved stakeholders, but decisions are often not explicitly jointly made. Development of patient decision aids could facilitate better involvement and more informed choices by patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Communication and coordination between primary healthcare professionals and informal caregivers involved in the care for frail older adults is suboptimal and could benefit from interprofessional digital communication tools. Implementation in daily practice however frequently fails. We aim to identify generic barriers and facilitators experienced by healthcare professionals and informal caregivers during implementation of interprofessional communication tools to improve their long-term use. Qualitative content analysis using individual semi-structured interviews was used for evaluating three different digital communication tools used by interprofessional primary care networks for frail older adults by 28 professionals and 10 caregivers. After transcription and open coding, categories and themes were identified. Barriers and facilitators were related to: tool characteristics, context of use, involvement of professionals and caregivers. The tool improved availability, approachability and users' involvement. The large number of digital systems professionals simultaneously use, and different work agreements hampered tool use. The tools facilitated care coordination, and professionals declared to be better informed about patients' current situations. Overall, interprofessional digital communication tools can facilitate communication in networks for primary elderly care. However, integration between digital systems is needed to reduce the number of tools. Organizations and policy makers have an important role in realizing the tools' long-term use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Prehabilitation is increasingly offered to patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) undergoing surgery as it could prevent complications and facilitate recovery. However, implementation of such a complex multidisciplinary intervention is challenging. This study aims to explore perspectives of professionals involved in prehabilitation to gain understanding of barriers or facilitators to its implementation and to identify strategies to successful operationalization of prehabilitation. Methods: In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were performed with healthcare professionals involved in prehabilitation for patients with CRC. Prehabilitation was defined as a preoperative program with the aim of improving physical fitness and nutritional status. Parallel with data collection, open coding was applied to the transcribed interviews. The Ottawa Model of Research Use (OMRU) framework, a comprehensive interdisciplinary model guide to promote implementation of research findings into healthcare practice, was used to categorize obtained codes and structure the barriers and facilitators into relevant themes for change. Results: Thirteen interviews were conducted. Important barriers were the conflicting scientific evidence on (cost-)effectiveness of prehabilitation, the current inability to offer a personalized prehabilitation program, the complex logistic organization of the program, and the unawareness of (the importance of) a prehabilitation program among healthcare professionals and patients. Relevant facilitators were availability of program coordinators, availability of physician leadership, and involving skeptical colleagues in the implementation process from the start. Conclusions: Important barriers to prehabilitation implementation are mainly related to the intervention being complex, relatively unknown and only evaluated in a research setting. Therefore, physicians' leadership is needed to transform care towards more integration of personalized prehabilitation programs. Implications for cancer survivors: By strengthening prehabilitation programs and evidence of their efficacy using these recommendations, it should be possible to enhance both the pre- and postoperative quality of life for colorectal cancer patients during survivorship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with incurable cancer face complex medical decisions. Their family caregivers play a prominent role in shared decision making processes, but we lack insights into their experiences. In this study, we explored how bereaved family caregivers experienced the shared decision making process. Methods: We performed a qualitative interview study with in-depth interviews analysed with inductive content analysis. We used a purposive sample of bereaved family caregivers (n = 16) of patients with cancer treated in a tertiary university hospital in the Netherlands. Results: Four themes were identified: 1. scenarios of decision making, 2. future death of the patient 3. factors influencing choices when making a treatment decision, and 4. preconditions for the decision making process. Most family caregivers deferred decisions to the patient or physician. Talking about the patient's future death was not preferred by all family caregivers. All family caregivers reported life prolongation as a significant motivator for treatment, while the quality of life was rarely mentioned. A respectful relationship, close involvement, and open communication with healthcare professionals in the palliative setting were valued by many interviewees. Family caregivers' experiences and needs seemed to be overlooked during medical encounters. Conclusions: Family caregivers of deceased patients with cancer mentioned life prolongation, and not quality of life, as the most important treatment aim. They highly valued interactions with the medical oncologist and being involved in the conversations. We advise medical oncologists to take more effort to involve the family caregiver, and more explicitly address quality of life in the consultations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with incurable cancer face complex medical decisions. Their family caregivers play a prominent role in shared decision making processes, but we lack insights into their experiences. In this study, we explored how bereaved family caregivers experienced the shared decision making process. Methods: We performed a qualitative interview study with in-depth interviews analysed with inductive content analysis. We used a purposive sample of bereaved family caregivers (n = 16) of patients with cancer treated in a tertiary university hospital in the Netherlands. Results: Four themes were identified: 1. scenarios of decision making, 2. future death of the patient 3. factors influencing choices when making a treatment decision, and 4. preconditions for the decision making process. Most family caregivers deferred decisions to the patient or physician. Talking about the patient's future death was not preferred by all family caregivers. All family caregivers reported life prolongation as a significant motivator for treatment, while the quality of life was rarely mentioned. A respectful relationship, close involvement, and open communication with healthcare professionals in the palliative setting were valued by many interviewees. Family caregivers' experiences and needs seemed to be overlooked during medical encounters. Conclusions: Family caregivers of deceased patients with cancer mentioned life prolongation, and not quality of life, as the most important treatment aim. They highly valued interactions with the medical oncologist and being involved in the conversations. We advise medical oncologists to take more effort to involve the family caregiver, and more explicitly address quality of life in the consultations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The complex care needs of frail older persons living at home is a major challenge for health care systems worldwide. One possible solution is to employ a primary care physician (PCP) with additional geriatric expertise. In the Netherlands, elderly care physicians (ECPs), who traditionally work in nursing homes, are increasingly encouraged to utilize their expertise within primary care. However, little is known about how PCPs and ECPs collaborate. Therefore, we aimed to unravel the nature of the current PCP-ECP collaboration in primary care for frail older persons, and to identify key concepts for success. A qualitative multiple case study with semistructured interviews. A selection of 22 participants from 7 "established collaboration practices" within the primary care setting in the Netherlands, including at least 1 ECP, 1 PCP, and 1 other health care professional for every included established collaboration practice. Transcripts of individual interviews were analyzed using largely double and independent open and axial coding, and formulation of themes and subthemes. Data analysis revealed 4 key concepts for success: (1) clarification of roles and expectations (ie, patient-centered care and embedding in existing care networks), (2) trust, respect, and familiarity as drivers for collaboration (ie, mutual trust through knowing each other and having shared goals); (3) framework for regular communication (ie, structural meetings and a shared vision); and (4) government, payer, and organization support (ie, financial support and emphasis on the collaboration's urgency by organizations and national policy makers). For a successful generalist-specialist collaboration, health care professionals need to invest in building relationships and mutual trust, and incorporating their efforts in the existing care networks to guarantee patient-centeredness. When provided with reimbursement and appreciation, this collaboration is a promising change in general practice to improve the care and outcomes of frail older persons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]