Search

ObjectivesThe aim of our study was to explore patient types in general practitioner (GP) practices and to quantify the regional differences of the frequencies of these patient types in northern Germany.Design and settingWe conducted a mixed-methods study based on focus groups and standardised interviews with GPs. All counties and independent cities within a radius of 120 km around Hamburg were assigned one of three regional categories (urban areas, environs, rural areas). The focus groups were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Relative frequencies of consultations by patient types and differences between the regions were calculated. Logistic regression analyses were used to identify differences among regions.ParticipantsNine focus groups with 65 GPs (67.7% male). From the 280 initially recruited GPs 211 (65.4% male) could be personally interviewed.ResultsFour themes with 27 patient types were derived from the focus groups: patients classified by morbidity, sociodemographic characteristics, special care needs and patient behaviour. Five patient characteristics were significantly more prevalent in urban areas than rural areas: patients with migration background and culturally different disease concepts (OR 1.23; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.42), privately insured patients (OR 1.17; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.31), educationally disadvantaged patients with low health literacy (OR 1.11; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.19), patients with psychiatric disorders (OR 1.07; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.12) and senior citizens living on their own without caregivers (OR 1.05; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.31). Three patient types were significantly less prevalent in urban areas: minors accompanied by their parents (OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.83), patients with poor therapy adherence (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.95) and patients with dementia (OR 0.90; 95% CI 0.82 to 0.99).ConclusionsGPs could compensate the specific needs of their patients with medical training aligned with the requirements of their region. Urban GPs need skills treating patients with psychiatric, social and cultural problems, rural GPs regarding the care for children or noncompliant patients.Trial registration numberNCT02558322

Background Adherence to current monomorbidity-focused, mono-disciplinary guidelines may result in undesirable effects for persons with several comorbidities, in adverse interactions between drugs and diseases, conflicting management strategies, and polypharmacy. As yet no satisfactory approaches exist to address multimorbidity (MM) in clinical guidelines since this patient group is too heterogeneous as to be met by guideline recommendations. Objectives to develop a set of case-based (N = 1) guidelines for common disease combinations identified through epidemiological research and expert (GP) consultations. Methods We followed a new 5-step, mixed methods approach comprising: (1) review of epidemiological data on MM patterns; (2) interdisciplinary focus groups developed case vignettes according to both internal evidence and the results of step 1; (3) development of case-based recommendations according to case vignettes (N of one guidelines); (4) informal consensus of recommendations; (5) formal consensus. Results Step one revealed three different approaches for the selection criteria of case vignettes: first, cases addressing MM disease patterns from epidemiological studies (MM clusters); second, cases addressing triads of the 6 most prevalent chronic conditions; third, cases according to a problem-oriented prioritisation of focus group participants. All in all 10 N-of-one guidelines according to 10 cases could be developed according to the new 5-step-process. Discussion We present a new approach in order to capture the complex and heterogeneous problems of MM through evidence-based and case-based recommendations. This set of N-of-one-guidelines may serve as a framework of evidence-based recommendations for MM patients as the base for the development of meta-tools for both guideline developers and clinicians.