Universitätspublikationen
Refine
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- Primary health care (3) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (3)
Background: Experienced and anticipated regret influence physicians’ decision-making. In medicine, diagnostic decisions and diagnostic errors can have a severe impact on both patients and physicians. Little empirical research exists on regret experienced by physicians when they make diagnostic decisions in primary care that later prove inappropriate or incorrect. The aim of this study was to explore the experience of regret following diagnostic decisions in primary care.
Methods: In this qualitative study, we used an online questionnaire on a sample of German primary care physicians. We asked participants to report on cases in which the final diagnosis differed from their original opinion, and in which treatment was at the very least delayed, possibly resulting in harm to the patient. We asked about original and final diagnoses, illness trajectories, and the reactions of other physicians, patients and relatives. We used thematic analysis to assess the data, supported by MAXQDA 11 and Microsoft Excel 2016.
Results: 29 GPs described one case each (14 female/15 male patients, aged 1.5–80 years, response rate < 1%). In 26 of 29 cases, the final diagnosis was more serious than the original diagnosis. In two cases, the diagnoses were equally serious, and in one case less serious. Clinical trajectories and the reactions of patients and relatives differed widely. Although only one third of cases involved preventable harm to patients, the vast majority (27 of 29) of physicians expressed deep feelings of regret.
Conclusion: Even if harm to patients is unavoidable, regret following diagnostic decisions can be devastating for clinicians, making them ‘second victims’. Procedures and tools are needed to analyse cases involving undesirable diagnostic events, so that ‘true’ diagnostic errors, in which harm could have been prevented, can be distinguished from others. Further studies should also explore how physicians can be supported in dealing with such events in order to prevent them from practicing defensive medicine.
Background: Although polypharmacy can cause adverse health outcomes, patients often know little about their medication. A regularly conducted medication review (MR) can help provide an overview of a patient’s medication, and benefit patients by enhancing their knowledge of their drugs. As little is known about patient attitudes towards MRs in primary care, the objective of this study was to gain insight into patient-perceived barriers and facilitators to the implementation of an MR.
Methods: We conducted a qualitative study with a convenience sample of 31 patients (age ≥ 60 years, ≥3 chronic diseases, taking ≥5 drugs/d); in Hesse, Germany, in February 2016. We conducted two focus groups and, in order to ensure the participation of elderly patients with reduced mobility, 16 telephone interviews. Both relied on a semi-structured interview guide dealing with the following subjects: patients’ experience of polypharmacy, general design of MRs, potential barriers and facilitators to implementation etc. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed by two researchers using thematic analysis.
Results: Patients’ average age was 74 years (range 62–88 years). We identified barriers and facilitators for four main topics regarding the implementation of MRs in primary care: patient participation, GP-led MRs, pharmacist-led MRs, and the involvement of healthcare assistants in MRs. Barriers to patient participation concerned patient autonomy, while facilitators involved patient awareness of medication-related problems. Barriers to GP-led MRs concerned GP’s lack of resources while facilitators related to the trusting relationship between patient and GP. Pharmacist-led MRs might be hindered by a lack of patients’ confidence in pharmacists’ expertise, but facilitated by pharmacies’ digital records of the patients’ medications. Regarding the involvement of healthcare assistants in MRs, a potential barrier was patients’ uncertainty regarding the extent of their training. Patients could, however, imagine GPs delegating some aspects of MRs to them.
Conclusions: Our study suggests that patients regard MRs as beneficial and expect indications for their medicines to be checked, and possible interactions to be identified. To foster the implementation of MRs in primary care, it is important to consider barriers and facilitators to the four identified topics.
Background/Objective: Evidence-based clinical pathways can be a useful tool for guideline implementation. However, there seem to be barriers to the use of clinical pathways. The aim of the present questionnaire survey was to assess the perceived usability of the clinical pathway “Overweight/obesity in children and adolescents at primary care level” and to identify factors promoting and hindering the use of the clinical pathway.
Methods: In January 2020, an online questionnaire survey was sent out to 3,916 general practitioners and 470 pediatricians in Austria. The data collected were analysed descriptively.
Results: A total of 148 people took part in the questionnaire survey (response rate 3.7 %). The majority of respondents indicated that they, in general, perceive evidence-based clinical pathways as helpful (90 %) and also make use of them (57 %). Few respondents (9 %) felt well-informed about new clinical pathways developed in Austria. Most of the respondents considered the clinical pathway “Overweight/obesity in children and adolescents at primary care level” as a useful support (60 %), as a reference work (72 %) or as a facilitator for justifying their approach to their patients (68 %). However, a large proportion of the respondents stated that the clinical pathway is not easily applicable in everyday practice. The three most frequently cited barriers to using the clinical pathway were lack of time resources, lack of structures and lack of financial incentives. Other display and access options (e. g., individualisation, integration into practice software) were most frequently cited as factors that might promote the use of the pathway.
Conclusion: Although the majority of the respondents had positive expectations regarding the use of the clinical pathway “Overweight/obesity in children and adolescents at primary care level”, many of them still perceived its usability in everyday clinical practice as difficult. The necessary next steps to improve the use of evidence-based clinical pathways seem to be: an economic and practicable design, easy accessibility of clinical pathways and the creation of framework conditions that facilitate their use in everyday practice.