General practitioners' views and experiences of providing services in Adelaide residential aged care homes.

IF 1.7
Jolyn Johal, Heather Block, Alison Dymmott, Helen Exley, Stacey George
{"title":"General practitioners' views and experiences of providing services in Adelaide residential aged care homes.","authors":"Jolyn Johal, Heather Block, Alison Dymmott, Helen Exley, Stacey George","doi":"10.1017/S1463423626101844","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To explore general practitioners' (GPs') views and experiences of providing services in Adelaide residential aged care homes (RACHs) and identify barriers, enablers, and suitable models of care (MoC).</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>National reports describe persistent challenges with GP access in RACHs. Residents often have limited choice of visiting GPs, and fee-for-service payments incentivise episodic rather than proactive care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A qualitative study comprising semi-structured interviews was conducted with Adelaide-based GPs. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. The i-PARIHS framework informed interview questions and interpretation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twelve GPs participated, with a median interview time of 24 minutes (range, 18-49 minutes). Five themes were generated: 1. Poor remuneration and work-life balance, 2. Growing demands, operational inefficiencies and limited support, 3. Regulatory and administrative burdens detracting from care, 4. Small and diminishing cohort of GPs, and 5. Strengths and limitations across MoC. To improve care coverage, some GPs proposed a shared roster, with GPs rotating on-site to see their own residents and provide interim reviews for others.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>GP engagement in Adelaide RACHs remains constrained by inadequate remuneration, growing demands, system inefficiencies, and limited support. Addressing these challenges requires improved remuneration reflecting care complexity, more streamlined information systems, and adjustments to prescribing and administrative requirements. Regular scheduled in-hours visits and strong relationships with staff and residents were key facilitators. A shared GP roster may improve access, continuity, and coordination while reducing on-call burden and inefficiencies in RACH work, thereby supporting more proactive, timely care. This warrants future implementation research.</p>","PeriodicalId":74493,"journal":{"name":"Primary health care research & development","volume":"27 ","pages":"e118"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Primary health care research & development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1463423626101844","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To explore general practitioners' (GPs') views and experiences of providing services in Adelaide residential aged care homes (RACHs) and identify barriers, enablers, and suitable models of care (MoC).

Background: National reports describe persistent challenges with GP access in RACHs. Residents often have limited choice of visiting GPs, and fee-for-service payments incentivise episodic rather than proactive care.

Methods: A qualitative study comprising semi-structured interviews was conducted with Adelaide-based GPs. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. The i-PARIHS framework informed interview questions and interpretation.

Results: Twelve GPs participated, with a median interview time of 24 minutes (range, 18-49 minutes). Five themes were generated: 1. Poor remuneration and work-life balance, 2. Growing demands, operational inefficiencies and limited support, 3. Regulatory and administrative burdens detracting from care, 4. Small and diminishing cohort of GPs, and 5. Strengths and limitations across MoC. To improve care coverage, some GPs proposed a shared roster, with GPs rotating on-site to see their own residents and provide interim reviews for others.

Conclusions: GP engagement in Adelaide RACHs remains constrained by inadequate remuneration, growing demands, system inefficiencies, and limited support. Addressing these challenges requires improved remuneration reflecting care complexity, more streamlined information systems, and adjustments to prescribing and administrative requirements. Regular scheduled in-hours visits and strong relationships with staff and residents were key facilitators. A shared GP roster may improve access, continuity, and coordination while reducing on-call burden and inefficiencies in RACH work, thereby supporting more proactive, timely care. This warrants future implementation research.

全科医生在阿德莱德养老院提供服务的观点和经验。
目的:探讨全科医生(gp)在阿德莱德养老院(RACHs)提供服务的观点和经验,并确定障碍、促进因素和合适的护理模式(MoC)。背景:国家报告描述了在乡村地区获得全科医生服务的持续挑战。居民去看全科医生的选择往往有限,而且按服务收费的支付方式鼓励的是偶发性的护理,而不是主动的护理。方法:对阿德莱德的全科医生进行了一项包括半结构化访谈的定性研究。访谈录音,转录,并使用反身性主题分析进行分析。i-PARIHS框架为面试问题和解释提供了信息。结果:12名全科医生参与,访谈时间中位数为24分钟(范围18-49分钟)。产生了五个主题:1。2、低薪酬和工作与生活的平衡;2 .需求增长、业务效率低下和支持有限;监管和行政负担减损护理,3。全科医生人数少且不断减少,5。跨MoC的优势和局限性。为了提高护理覆盖面,一些全科医生提出了一个共享花名册,由全科医生轮流到现场看自己的病人,并为其他人提供临时检查。结论:全科医生在阿德莱德地区的参与仍然受到薪酬不足、需求增长、系统效率低下和支持有限的限制。要解决这些挑战,需要改善反映护理复杂性的薪酬,更精简的信息系统,以及调整处方和管理要求。定期安排的小时内访问以及与工作人员和居民的牢固关系是关键的促进因素。共享的全科医生名册可以改善可及性、连续性和协调性,同时减少随叫随到的负担和RACH工作的低效率,从而支持更主动、更及时的护理。这保证了未来的实施研究。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书