No abstract

BackgroundFamily physicians perceive that gut feelings, i.e. a ‘sense of reassurance’ or a ‘sense of alarm’, play a substantial role in diagnostic reasoning. A measuring instrument is desirable for further research. Our objective is to validate a questionnaire measuring the presence of gut feelings in diagnostic reasoning.MethodsWe constructed 16 case vignettes from real practice situations and used the accompanying ‘sense of reassurance’ or the ‘sense of alarm’ as reference labels. Based on the results of an initial study (26 family physicians), we divided the case vignettes into a group involving a clear role for the sense of reassurance or the sense of alarm and a group involving an ambiguous role. 49 experienced family physicians evaluated each 10 vignettes using the questionnaire. Construct validity was assessed by testing hypotheses and an internal consistency procedure was performed.ResultsAs hypothesized we found that the correlations between the reference labels and corresponding items were high for the clear-case vignettes (0.59 – 0.72) and low for the ambiguous-case vignettes (0.08 – 0.23). The agreement between the classification in clear sense of reassurance, clear sense of alarm and ambiguous case vignettes as derived from the initial study and the study population’s judgments was substantial (Kappa = 0.62). Factor analysis showed one factor with opposites for sense of reassurance and sense of alarm items. The questionnaire’s internal consistency was high (0.91). We provided a linguistic validated English-language text of the questionnaire.ConclusionsThe questionnaire appears to be valid. It enables quantitative research into the role of gut feelings and their diagnostic value in family physicians’ diagnostic reasoning.

BackgroundThe number of people with multiple chronic conditions demanding primary care services is increasing. To deal with the complex health care demands of these people, professionals from different disciplines collaborate. This study aims to explore influential factors regarding interprofessional collaboration related to care plan development in primary care.MethodsA qualitative study, including four semi-structured focus group interviews (n = 4). In total, a heterogeneous group of experts (n = 16) and health care professionals (n = 15) participated. Participants discussed viewpoints, barriers, and facilitators regarding interprofessional collaboration related to care plan development. The data were analysed by means of inductive content analysis.ResultsThe findings show a variety of factors influencing the interprofessional collaboration in developing a care plan. Factors can be divided into 5 key categories: (1) patient-related factors: active role, self-management, goals and wishes, membership of the team; (2) professional-related factors: individual competences, domain thinking, motivation; (3) interpersonal factors: language differences, knowing each other, trust and respect, and motivation; (4) organisational factors: structure, composition, time, shared vision, leadership and administrative support; and (5) external factors: education, culture, hierarchy, domain thinking, law and regulations, finance, technology and ICT.ConclusionsImproving interprofessional collaboration regarding care plan development calls for an integral approach including patient- and professional related factors, interpersonal, organisational, and external factors. Further, the leader of the team seems to play a key role in watching the patient perspective, organising and coordinating interprofessional collaborations, and guiding the team through developments. The results of this study can be used as input for developing tools and interventions targeted at executing and improving interprofessional collaboration related to care plan development.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-016-0456-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

IntroductionThe ongoing rise in the numbers of chronically ill people necessitates efforts for effective self-management. Goal setting and action planning are frequently used, as they are thought to support patients in changing their behavior. However, it remains unclear how goal setting and action planning in the context of self-management are defined in the scientific literature. This study aimed to achieve a better understanding of the various definitions used.MethodsA scoping review was conducted, searching PubMed, Cinahl, PsychINFO and Cochrane. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were formulated to ensure the focus on goal setting/action planning and self-management. The literature was updated to December 2015; data selection and charting was done by two reviewers. A qualitative content analysis approach was used.ResultsOut of 9115 retrieved articles, 58 met the inclusion criteria. We created an overview of goal setting phases that were applied (preparation, formulation of goals, formulation of action plan, coping planning and follow-up). Although the phases we found are in accordance with commonly known frameworks for goal setting, it was striking that the majority of studies (n = 39, 67%) did not include all phases. We also prepared an overview of components and strategies for each goal setting phase. Interestingly, few strategies were found for the communication between patients and professionals about goals/action plans. Most studies (n = 35, 60%) focused goal setting on one single disease and on a predefined lifestyle behavior; nearly half of the articles (n = 27, 47%) reported a theoretical framework.DiscussionThe results might provide practical support for developers of interventions. Moreover, our results might encourage professionals to become more aware of the phases of the goal setting process and of strategies emphasizing on patient reflection. However, more research might be useful to examine strategies to facilitate communication about goals/action plans. It might also be worthwhile to develop and evaluate goal setting/action planning strategies for people with different and multiple chronic conditions.

BackgroundThe number of people with multiple chronic conditions increases as a result of ageing. To deal with the complex health‐care needs of these patients, it is important that health‐care professionals collaborate in interprofessional teams. To deliver patient‐centred care, it is often recommended to include the patient as a member of the team.ObjectiveTo gain more insight into how health‐care professionals and patients, who are used to participate in interprofessional team meetings, experience and organize patient participation in the team meetings.MethodsA qualitative study including observations of meetings (n=8), followed by semi‐structured interviews with participating health‐care professionals (n=8), patients and/or relatives (n=11). Professionals and patients were asked about their experiences of patient participation immediately after the team meetings. Results from both observations and interviews were analysed using content analysis.ResultsThe findings show a variety of influencing factors related to patient participation that can be divided into five categories: (i) structure and task distribution, (ii) group composition, (iii) relationship between professionals and patients or relatives, (iv) patients’ characteristics and (v) the purpose of the meeting.ConclusionPatient participation during team meetings was appreciated by professionals and patients. A tailored approach to patient involvement during team meetings is preferable. When considering the presence of patients in team meetings, it is recommended to pay attention to patients’ willingness and ability to participate, and the necessary information shared before the meeting. Participating patients seem to appreciate support and preparation for the meeting.