ObjectivesProvision of person-centred generalist care is a core component of quality primary care systems. The World Health Organisation believes that a lack of generalist primary care is contributing to inefficiency, ineffectiveness and inequity in healthcare. In UK primary care, General Practitioners (GPs) are the largest group of practising generalists. Yet GPs fulfil multiple roles and the pressures of delivering these roles along with wider contextual changes create real challenges to generalist practice. Our study aimed to explore GP perceptions of enablers and constraints for expert generalist care, in order to identify what is needed to ensure health systems are designed to support the generalist role.DesignQualitative study in General Practice.SettingUK primary care.Main outcome measuresA qualitative study – interviews, surveys and focus groups with GPs and GP trainees. Data collection and analysis was informed by Normalisation Process Theory.Design and settingQualitative study in General Practice. We conducted interviews, surveys and focus groups with GPs and GP trainees based mainly, but not exclusively, in the UK. Data collection and analysis were informed by Normalization Process Theory.ParticipantsUK based GPs (interview and surveys); European GP trainees (focus groups).ResultsOur findings highlight key gaps in current training and service design which may limit development and implementation of expert generalist practice (EGP). These include the lack of a consistent and universal understanding of the distinct expertise of EGP, competing priorities inhibiting the delivery of EGP, lack of the consistent development of skills in interpretive practice and a lack of resources for monitoring EGP.ConclusionsWe describe four areas for change: Translating EGP, Priority setting for EGP, Trusting EGP and Identifying the impact of EGP. We outline proposals for work needed in each area to help enhance the expert generalist role.
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to show the longitudinal use of routinely collected clinical data from history and ultrasound evaluation of the endometrium in developing an algorithm to predict the risk of endometrial carcinoma for postmenopausal women presenting with vaginal bleeding. METHODS: This prospective study collected data from 3047 women presenting with postmenopausal bleeding. Data regarding the presence of risk factors for endometrial cancer was collected and univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: Age distribution ranged from 35 to 97 years with a median of 59 years. A total of 149 women (5% of total) were diagnosed with endometrial carcinoma. Women in the endometrial cancer group were significantly more likely to be older, have higher BMI, recurrent episodes of bleeding, diabetes, hypertension, or a previous history of breast cancer. An investigator best model selection approach was used to select the best predictors of cancer, and using logistic regression analysis we created a model, 'Norwich DEFAB', which is a clinical prediction rule for endometrial cancer. The calculated Norwich DEFAB score can vary from a value of 0 to 9. A Norwich DEFAB value equal to or greater than 3 has a positive predictive value (PPV) of 7.78% and negative predictive value (NPV) of 98.2%, whereas a score equal to or greater than 5 has a PPV of 11.9% and NPV of 97.8%. CONCLUSION: The combination of clinical information with our investigation tool for women with postmenopausal vaginal bleeding allows the clinician to calculate a predicted risk of endometrial malignancy and prioritise subsequent clinical investigations.
IntroductionGoal-setting is recommended for patients with multimorbidity, but there is little evidence to support its use in general practice.ObjectiveTo assess the feasibility of goal-setting for patients with multimorbidity, before undertaking a definitive trial.Design and settingCluster-randomised controlled feasibility trial of goal-setting compared with control in six general practices.ParticipantsAdults with two or more long term health conditions and at risk of unplanned hospital admission.InterventionsGeneral practitioners (GPs) underwent training and patients were asked to consider goals before an initial goal-setting consultation and a follow-up consultation 6 months later. The control group received usual care planning.Outcome measuresHealth-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), capability (ICEpop CAPability measure for Older people), Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care and healthcare use. All consultations were video-recorded or audio-recorded, and focus groups were held with participating GPs and patients.ResultsFifty-two participants were recruited with a response rate of 12%. Full follow-up data were available for 41. In the goal-setting group, mean age was 80.4 years, 54% were female and the median number of prescribed medications was 13, compared with 77.2 years, 39% female and 11.5 medications in the control group. The mean initial consultation time was 23.0 min in the goal-setting group and 19.2 in the control group. Overall 28% of patient participants had no cognitive impairment. Participants set between one and three goals on a wide range of subjects, such as chronic disease management, walking, maintaining social and leisure interests, and weight management. Patient participants found goal-setting acceptable and would have liked more frequent follow-up. GPs unanimously liked goal-setting and felt it delivered more patient-centred care, and they highlighted the importance of training.ConclusionsThis goal-setting intervention was feasible to deliver in general practice. A larger, definitive study is needed to test its effectiveness.Trial registration numberISRCTN13248305; Post-results.
BackgroundEstablishing patient goals is widely recommended as a way to deliver care that matters to the individual patient with multimorbidity, who may not be well served by single-disease guidelines. Though multimorbidity is now normal in general practice, little is known about how doctors and patients should set goals together.AimTo determine the key components of the goal-setting process in general practice.Design and settingIn-depth qualitative analysis of goal-setting consultations in three UK general practices, as part of a larger feasibility trial. Focus groups with participating GPs and patients. The study took place between November 2016 and July 2018.MethodActivity analysis was applied to 10 hours of video-recorded doctor–patient interactions to explore key themes relating to how goal setting was attempted and achieved. Core challenges were identified and focus groups were analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsA total of 22 patients and five GPs participated. Four main themes emerged around the goal-setting process: patient preparedness and engagement; eliciting and legitimising goals; collaborative action planning; and GP engagement. GPs were unanimously positive about their experience of goal setting and viewed it as a collaborative process. Patients liked having time to talk about what was most important to them. Challenges included eliciting goals from unprepared patients, and GPs taking control of the goal rather than working through it with the patient.ConclusionGoal setting required time and energy from both parties. GPs had an important role in listening and bearing witness to their patients’ goals. Goal setting worked best when both GP and patient were prepared in advance.
Ketoacidosis is most often due to uncontrolled diabetes mellitus. Similar metabolic changes can occur with poor dietary intake of carbohydrates or prolonged fasting. Metabolic acidosis due to prolonged fasting is rarely described in the literature. We report a case of severe metabolic acidosis as a result of prolonged fasting in pregnancy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.