Adjudications and tinkering with care for socially vulnerable patients with type 2 diabetes in general practice.

Objective: To analyse the mechanisms at play in the adjudications made by professionals and socially vulnerable patients with type 2 diabetes about their eligibility for care.

Design, setting and subjects: The study included 14 patients and 10 health professionals in seven general practice surgeries in deprived areas in Greater Copenhagen. The study data consist of 17 semi-structured interviews with patients and 22 with health professionals immediately after observation of 23 consultations. Our analytical approach was inspired by Systematic Text Condensation and the concept of 'candidacy' for access to health care.

Results: Adjudications of patients not being candidates for services were common, but we also found that both patients and health professionals worked to align the services to the needs of the patients. This could include using services differently than was intended by the providers or by changing routines to make it easier for patients to use the services. We discuss these processes as 'tinkering'. This usually implies that the best individual solution for the patient is aimed for, and in this study, the best solution sometimes meant not focusing on diabetes.

Conclusion: The study adds to existing knowledge about access to services for socially vulnerable patients by demonstrating that both patients and professionals in general practice engage in tinkering processes to make services work.