Improving personal continuity in general practice: a focus group study.

IF 5.3 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Lex Jozef Johannes Groot, Esther Janssen, Marjan Westerman, Henk Schers, Jako S Burgers, Martin Smalbrugge, Annemarie A Uijen, Henriëtte van der Horst, Otto R Maarsingh
{"title":"Improving personal continuity in general practice: a focus group study.","authors":"Lex Jozef Johannes Groot, Esther Janssen, Marjan Westerman, Henk Schers, Jako S Burgers, Martin Smalbrugge, Annemarie A Uijen, Henriëtte van der Horst, Otto R Maarsingh","doi":"10.3399/BJGP.2024.0099","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background</b> Personal continuity is an important dimension of continuity of care in general practice and is associated with many benefits including a higher quality of GP care and lower mortality rate. Over time, changes in society and healthcare have challenged the provision of personal continuity. Especially older patients experience more negative consequences from receiving discontinuous care. <b>Aim</b> To explore perspectives of general practitioners (GPs), older patients, practice nurses, and assistants on improving personal continuity in general practice, and to identify barriers and facilitators that affect this improvement process. <b>Design and setting</b> A Qualitative study using focus groups was conducted from May to August 2019. <b>Method</b> We organised four focus groups: two with GPs (n=17), one with patients (n=7), and one with practice assistants (n=4) and nurses (n=2). Focus groups were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. <b>Results</b> Personal continuity was viewed as being provided by the entire general practice team and not just by the own GP. To improve personal continuity, it was suggested to invest in team communication and stability (e.g., by efficient use of the EHR) and retaining availability and accessibility of the own GP (e.g., by delegating tasks). Barriers and facilitators were perceived on individual (e.g., GPs' involvement in tasks), organisation (e.g., staff shortages) and societal level (e.g., payment system). <b>Conclusion</b> As general practice moves towards a more team-based approach to ensure personal continuity, efforts to improve personal continuity should focus on supporting team-based provision of continuous care.</p>","PeriodicalId":55320,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of General Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of General Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2024.0099","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Personal continuity is an important dimension of continuity of care in general practice and is associated with many benefits including a higher quality of GP care and lower mortality rate. Over time, changes in society and healthcare have challenged the provision of personal continuity. Especially older patients experience more negative consequences from receiving discontinuous care. Aim To explore perspectives of general practitioners (GPs), older patients, practice nurses, and assistants on improving personal continuity in general practice, and to identify barriers and facilitators that affect this improvement process. Design and setting A Qualitative study using focus groups was conducted from May to August 2019. Method We organised four focus groups: two with GPs (n=17), one with patients (n=7), and one with practice assistants (n=4) and nurses (n=2). Focus groups were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results Personal continuity was viewed as being provided by the entire general practice team and not just by the own GP. To improve personal continuity, it was suggested to invest in team communication and stability (e.g., by efficient use of the EHR) and retaining availability and accessibility of the own GP (e.g., by delegating tasks). Barriers and facilitators were perceived on individual (e.g., GPs' involvement in tasks), organisation (e.g., staff shortages) and societal level (e.g., payment system). Conclusion As general practice moves towards a more team-based approach to ensure personal continuity, efforts to improve personal continuity should focus on supporting team-based provision of continuous care.

改善全科医生的个人连续性:焦点小组研究。
背景 个人连续性是全科医疗连续性的一个重要方面,与许多好处相关,包括提高全科医疗质量和降低死亡率。随着时间的推移,社会和医疗保健的变化对提供个人连续性提出了挑战。尤其是老年患者因接受不连续的护理而承受更多的负面影响。目的 探讨全科医生、老年患者、执业护士和助理对改善全科医生个人连续性的看法,并找出影响改善过程的障碍和促进因素。设计与环境 2019年5月至8月,我们利用焦点小组开展了一项定性研究。方法 我们组织了四个焦点小组:两个有全科医生参加(人数=17),一个有患者参加(人数=7),一个有执业助理(人数=4)和护士参加(人数=2)。采用反思性主题分析法对焦点小组进行了分析。结果 个人连续性被认为是由整个全科团队提供的,而不仅仅是由全科医生提供的。为提高个人连续性,建议对团队沟通和稳定性进行投资(如有效使用电子病历),并保持全科医生的可用性和可及性(如委派任务)。个人(如全科医生参与任务)、组织(如人员短缺)和社会(如支付系统)层面都存在障碍和促进因素。结论 随着全科医生逐渐采用更加以团队为基础的方法来确保个人连续性,改善个人连续性的工作应侧重于支持以团队为基础提供连续性护理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
British Journal of General Practice
British Journal of General Practice 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
10.20%
发文量
681
期刊介绍: The British Journal of General Practice is an international journal publishing research, editorials, debate and analysis, and clinical guidance for family practitioners and primary care researchers worldwide. BJGP began in 1953 as the ‘College of General Practitioners’ Research Newsletter’, with the ‘Journal of the College of General Practitioners’ first appearing in 1960. Following the change in status of the College, the ‘Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners’ was launched in 1967. Three editors later, in 1990, the title was changed to the ‘British Journal of General Practice’. The journal is commonly referred to as the ''BJGP'', and is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信