Perspectives of general practitioners and practice nurses on nurse-led patient consultations and dose changes of permanent medications-results of a focus group study.
Solveig Weise, Tatjana Steybe, Carolin Thiel, Thomas Frese
{"title":"Perspectives of general practitioners and practice nurses on nurse-led patient consultations and dose changes of permanent medications-results of a focus group study.","authors":"Solveig Weise, Tatjana Steybe, Carolin Thiel, Thomas Frese","doi":"10.1093/fampra/cmae072","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Shifting tasks from General practitioners (GPs) to practice nurses (PNs) could help address the shortage of GPs in Europe. Internationally, PN-led care (PNLC) is feasible and offers similar health outcomes to usual care. However, PN-led consultations (PN-cons) or as PN-led dosage changes for permanent medication (PN-DCPM) are uncommon in German general practice offices (GPO).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To explore GPs' and PNs' views on the feasibility and acceptability of PN-cons and PN-DCPM in GPOs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this exploratory, qualitative online focus group study, we recruited GPs, GP trainees, PNs and specialized PNs (APN) currently working in German GPO using a qualitative sampling plan. We used a semi-structured self-developed interview guide. Separate focus groups (FGs) were performed for each profession, with audio and video recordings, and the transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two FGs comprising 15 GPs and three FGs with 26 PNs revealed four major themes: (i) Attitudes towards PN-cons and PN-DCPM, revealing that participants were generally open towards a PN-cons, but were more reserved towards PN-DCPM. (ii) Acceptable reasons for encounters for PN-cons, e.g. diabetes or hypertension, and acceptable medications for PN-DCPM, e.g. antidiabetics, antihypertensive drugs. (iii) Conditions mentioned for implementing PN-led care were e.g. adequate qualification and supervision concepts. (iv) Perceived chances were e.g. time savings and increased quality of care and perceived risks were e.g. fear of treatment errors.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Participants showed openness towards PN-cons and were more reserved towards PN-DCPM in German GPO. Further quantitative studies should assess how acceptance and rejection of PN-led care are distributed among patients, GPs, and PNs.</p>","PeriodicalId":12209,"journal":{"name":"Family practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmae072","RegionNum":4,"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: Shifting tasks from General practitioners (GPs) to practice nurses (PNs) could help address the shortage of GPs in Europe. Internationally, PN-led care (PNLC) is feasible and offers similar health outcomes to usual care. However, PN-led consultations (PN-cons) or as PN-led dosage changes for permanent medication (PN-DCPM) are uncommon in German general practice offices (GPO).
Objective: To explore GPs' and PNs' views on the feasibility and acceptability of PN-cons and PN-DCPM in GPOs.
Methods: In this exploratory, qualitative online focus group study, we recruited GPs, GP trainees, PNs and specialized PNs (APN) currently working in German GPO using a qualitative sampling plan. We used a semi-structured self-developed interview guide. Separate focus groups (FGs) were performed for each profession, with audio and video recordings, and the transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.
Results: Two FGs comprising 15 GPs and three FGs with 26 PNs revealed four major themes: (i) Attitudes towards PN-cons and PN-DCPM, revealing that participants were generally open towards a PN-cons, but were more reserved towards PN-DCPM. (ii) Acceptable reasons for encounters for PN-cons, e.g. diabetes or hypertension, and acceptable medications for PN-DCPM, e.g. antidiabetics, antihypertensive drugs. (iii) Conditions mentioned for implementing PN-led care were e.g. adequate qualification and supervision concepts. (iv) Perceived chances were e.g. time savings and increased quality of care and perceived risks were e.g. fear of treatment errors.
Conclusion: Participants showed openness towards PN-cons and were more reserved towards PN-DCPM in German GPO. Further quantitative studies should assess how acceptance and rejection of PN-led care are distributed among patients, GPs, and PNs.
期刊介绍：
Family Practice is an international journal aimed at practitioners, teachers, and researchers in the fields of family medicine, general practice, and primary care in both developed and developing countries.
Family Practice offers its readership an international view of the problems and preoccupations in the field, while providing a medium of instruction and exploration.
The journal''s range and content covers such areas as health care delivery, epidemiology, public health, and clinical case studies. The journal aims to be interdisciplinary and contributions from other disciplines of medicine and social science are always welcomed.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
