Search

UK general practitioner (GP) trainees are taught a consultation model which elicits the patients' main reason for consulting 'today'. This approach will often miss important issues for the increasing number of patients with multimorbidity. We developed the SHERPA model as a person-centred biopsychosocial framework for consulting patients with multimorbidity to address this. We aimed to examine GPs trainees' responses to SHERPA when integrated into their vocational training. The research design was qualitative and participants were GPs trainees in vocational training from one UK training location. GP trainees were introduced to the SHERPA model through interactive workshops. Qualitative data were collected from 16 participants, through four hours of teaching observation, 24 feedback templates, six practical applications of SHERPA and eight one-to-one interviews. Data were transcribed, and, using the Framework approach, systematically analysed, focussing on trainees' learning and application of the model. The results demonstrated that all participants engaged well with the teaching sessions, brought observations from their own experience, and reflected on particularly complex consultations. Half of the participants applied SHERPA successfully with their patients, particularly repeat attenders. Barriers to this approach were: selecting appropriate patients; perceived time pressure; lack of familiarity using the model; viewing SHERPA as 'additional', rather than integral, to shared decision-making in complex situations. The SHERPA model was viewed as helpful by these GP trainees for patients with whom they had established a relationship. Earlier introduction and regular support from trainers, where trainees reflect on experience of SHERPA, could increase confidence in using this method.

Background: Increasing number of service users diagnosed with schizophrenia and psychosis are being discharged from specialist secondary care services to primary care, many of whom are prescribed long-term antipsychotics. It is unclear if General Practitioners (GPs) have the confidence and experience to appropriately review and adjust doses of antipsychotic medication without secondary care support., Aim: To explore barriers and facilitators of conducting antipsychotic medication reviews in primary care for individuals with no specialist mental health input., Design & Setting: Realist review in general practice settings., Method: A realist review has been conducted to synthesise evidence on antipsychotic medication reviews conducted in primary care with service users diagnosed with schizophrenia or psychosis. Following initial scoping searches and discussions with stakeholders, a systematic search and iterative secondary searches were conducted. Articles were systematically screened and analysed to develop a realist programme theory explaining the contexts (C) and mechanisms (M) which facilitate or prevent antipsychotic medication reviews (O) in primary care settings, and the potential outcomes of medication reviews., Results: Meaningful Antipsychotic medication reviews may not occur for individuals with only primary care medical input. Several, often mutually reinforcing, mechanisms have been identified as potential barriers to conducting such reviews, including low expectations of recovery for people with severe mental illness, a perceived lack of capability to understand and participate in medication reviews, linked with a lack of information shared in appointments between GPs and Service Users, perceived risk and uncertainty regarding antipsychotic medication and illness trajectory., Conclusions: The review identified reciprocal and reinforcing stereotypes affecting both GPs and service users. Possible mechanisms to counteract these barriers are discussed, including realistic expectations of medication, and the need for increased information sharing and trust between GPs and service users., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: In the UK, general practitioners (GPs) are the most commonly used providers of care for emotional concerns., Objective: To update and synthesize literature on barriers and facilitators to GP-patient communication about emotional concerns in UK primary care., Design: Systematic review and qualitative synthesis., Method: We conducted a systematic search on MEDLINE (OvidSP), PsycInfo and EMBASE, supplemented by citation chasing. Eligible papers focused on how GPs and adult patients in the UK communicated about emotional concerns. Results were synthesized using thematic analysis., Results: Across 30 studies involving 342 GPs and 720 patients, four themes relating to barriers were: (i) emotional concerns are difficult to disclose; (ii) tension between understanding emotional concerns as a medical condition or arising from social stressors; (iii) unspoken assumptions about agency resulting in too little or too much involvement in decisions and (iv) providing limited care driven by little time. Three facilitative themes were: (v) a human connection improves identification of emotional concerns and is therapeutic; (vi) exploring, explaining and negotiating a shared understanding or guiding patients towards new understandings and (vii) upfront information provision and involvement manages expectations about recovery and improves engagement in treatment., Conclusion: The findings suggest that treatment guidelines should acknowledge: the therapeutic value of a positive GP-patient relationship; that diagnosis is a two-way negotiated process rather than an activity strictly in the doctor's domain of expertise; and the value of exploring and shaping new understandings about patients' emotional concerns and their management., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: NICE guidelines for the management of emotional concerns in primary care emphasise the importance of communication and a trusting relationship, which is difficult to operationalise in practice. Current pressures in the NHS mean that it is important to understand care from a patient perspective. This study aimed to explore patients' experiences of primary care consultations for emotional concerns and what patients valued when seeking care from their GP., Methods: Eighteen adults with experience of consulting a GP for emotional concerns participated in 4 focus groups. Data were analysed thematically., Results: (1) Doctor as Drug: Patients' relationship with their GP was considered therapeutic with continuity particularly valued. (2) Doctor as Detective and Validator: Patients were often puzzled by their symptoms, not recognising their emotional concerns. GPs needed to play the role of detective by exploring not just symptoms, but the person and their life circumstances. GPs were crucial in helping patients understand and validate their emotional concerns. (3) Doctor as Collaborator: Patients prefer a collaborative partnership, but often need to relinquish involvement because they are too unwell, or take a more active role because they feel GPs are ill-equipped or under too much pressure to help. Patients valued: GPs booking their follow up appointments; acknowledgement of stressful life circumstances; not relying solely on medication., Conclusions: Seeking help for emotional concerns is challenging due to stigma and unfamiliar symptoms. GPs can support disclosure and understanding of emotional concerns by fully exploring and validating patients' concerns, taking into account patients' life contexts. This process of exploration and validation forms the foundation of a curative, trusting GP-patient relationship. A trusting relationship, with an emphasis on empathy and understanding, can make patients more able to share involvement in their care with GPs. This process is cyclical, as patients feel that their GP is caring, interested, and treating them as a person, further strengthening their relationship. NICE guidance should acknowledge the importance of empathy and validation when building an effective GP-patient partnership, and the role this has in supporting patients' involvement in their care.

Up to 40% of general practitioners (GP) consultations contain an emotional component. General practitioners (GPs) have to provide care with limited time and resources. This qualitative study aimed to explore how GPs care for patients experiencing emotional concerns within the constraints of busy clinical practice. Seven GPs participated in three focus groups. Groups were recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. Three themes were identified. (a) Collaboratively negotiated diagnosis: How patients' emotional concerns are understood and managed is the result of a negotiation between patient and GP belief models and the availability of treatments including talking therapy. (b) Doctor as drug: Not only is a continuous relationship between GPs and patients therapeutic in its own right, it is also necessary to effectively diagnose and engage patients in treatment as patients may experience stigma regarding emotional concerns. (c) Personal responsibility and institutional pressure: GPs feel personally responsible for supporting patients through their care journey, however, they face barriers due to lack of time and pressure from guidelines. GPs are forced to prioritise high-risk patients and experience an emotional toll. In conclusion, guidelines focus on diagnosis and a stepped-care model, however, this assumes diagnosis is relatively straightforward. GPs and patients have different models of psychological distress. This and the experience of stigma mean that establishing rapport is an important step before the GP and patient negotiate openly and develop a shared understanding of the problem. This takes time and emotional resources to do well. Longer consultations, continuity of care and formal supervision for GPs could enable them to better support patients., (© 2019 The Authors. Health and Social Care in the Community published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Offenders frequently have substantial healthcare needs and, like many other socially marginalised groups, often receive healthcare in inverse proportion to their needs. Improved continuity of healthcare over time could contribute to addressing these needs. General Practitioners need to be able to support people with complex social and medical problems, even in systems that are not specifically designed to manage individuals with such degrees of complexity. We aimed to examine offenders' perspectives on factors that contributed to, or worked against, creating and sustaining their access to healthcare., Methods: From a sample of 200 participants serving community or prison sentences in South West (SW) and South East (SE) England, who were interviewed about their health care experiences as part of the Care for Offenders: Continuity of Access (COCOA) study, we purposively sampled 22 participants for this sub-study, based on service use. These interviews were transcribed verbatim. A thematic analytic approach initially applied 5 a priori codes based on access and different components of continuity. Data were then examined for factors that contributed to achieving and disrupting access and continuity., Results: Participants described how their own life situations and behaviours contributed to their problems in accessing healthcare and also identified barriers created by existing access arrangements. They also highlighted how some General Practitioners used their initiative and skills to 'workaround' the system, and build positive relationships with them; feeling listened to and building trust were particularly valued, as was clear communication. Limitations faced by General Practitioners included a lack of appropriate services to refer people to, where the offender patients would meet the access criteria, and disagreements regarding medication prescriptions., Conclusions: General Practitioners can make a positive contribution to supporting access to healthcare for an under-served population by facilitating more flexible and less formal access arrangements, by using their relationship skills, and by problem-solving. General Practitioners should recognise their potential to transform people's experience of healthcare whilst working in imperfect systems, particularly with vulnerable and marginalised groups who have complex medical and social needs.

Existing research indicates that many patients and doctors find the process of negotiating sickness certification for time off work to be a difficult one. This study examined how patients and general practitioners (GPs) managed these negotiations in a sample of UK primary care consultations. The study made use of an existing dataset of audio-recorded consultations between 13 GPs and 506 unselected adult patients in five general practices in London. Forty-nine consultations included discussions for both initial and repeat sickness certification across a wide range of conditions. Here we report our findings on doctor practices for recommending, as opposed to patient practices for advocating for, sickness certification (n = 26 cases). All cases were transcribed in detail and analysed using conversation analytic methods. Four main communication practices were observed: (1) declarative statements of need for sickness certification; (2) 'do you need' offers for sickness certification; (3) 'do you want' offers for sickness certification; and (4) conditional 'If X, Y' offers for sickness certification. These different communication practices indexed doctor agency, doctor endorsement and patient entitlement to varying degrees. In the main, recommendations to patients presenting with biomedical problems or a repeat occurrence of a psychosocial problem displayed stronger doctor endorsement and patient entitlement. Contrastingly, recommendations to patients presenting with new psychosocial and biopsychosocial problems, displayed weaker endorsement and patient entitlement. This study offers new evidence to support the Parsonian argument that becoming sick involves entering a social role with special rights and obligations. Through documenting doctors' orientations to their gatekeeping role as well as patients' orientations to differential rights vis à vis legitimacy, we demonstrate the contrasting stances of doctors in situ when giving sick notes for biomedical problems as opposed to difficulties of a more psychosocial nature., (Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)