ObjectiveTo synthesise the existing published literature on the perceptions of general practitioners (GPs) or their equivalent on the clinical management of multimorbidity and determine targets for future research that aims to improve clinical care in multimorbidity.DesignSystematic review and metaethnographic synthesis of primary studies that used qualitative methods to explore GPs’ experiences of clinical management of multimorbidity or multiple chronic diseases.Data sourcesEMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Academic Search Complete, SocIndex, Social Science Full Text and digital theses/online libraries (database inception to September 2012) to identify literature using qualitative methods (focus groups or interviews).Review methodsThe 7-step metaethnographic approach described by Noblit and Hare, which involves cross-interpretation between studies while preserving the context of the primary data.ResultsOf 1805 articles identified, 37 were reviewed in detail and 10 were included, using a total of 275 GPs in 7 different countries. Four areas of difficulty specific to the management of multimorbidity emerged from these papers: disorganisation and fragmentation of healthcare; the inadequacy of guidelines and evidence-based medicine; challenges in delivering patient-centred care; and barriers to shared decision-making. A ‘line of argument’ was drawn which described GPs’ sense of isolation in decision-making for multimorbid patients.ConclusionsThis systematic review shows that the problem areas for GPs in the management of multimorbidity may be classified into four domains. There will be no ‘one size fits all’ intervention for multimorbidity but these domains may be useful targets to guide the development of interventions that will assist and improve the provision of care to multimorbid patients.

BackgroundUsing clinical guidelines in the management of patients with multimorbidity can lead to the prescription of multiple and sometimes conflicting medications. AimTo explore how GPs make decisions when prescribing for multimorbid patients, with a view to informing intervention design. Design and settingIn-depth qualitative interviews incorporating chart-stimulated recall with purposively sampled GPs in the Republic of Ireland. MethodGrounded theory analysis with iterative theory development. ResultsTwenty GPs were interviewed about 51 multimorbid cases. In these cases, GPs integrated information from multiple sources including the patient, specialists, and evidencebased medicine. Difficulties arose when recommendations or preferences conflicted, to which GPs responded by 'satisficing': accepting care that they deemed satisfactory and sufficient for a particular patient. Satisficing was manifest as relaxing targets for disease control, negotiating compromise with the patient, or making 'best guesses' about the most appropriate course of action to take. In multimorbid patients perceived as stable, GPs preferred to 'maintain the status quo' rather than rationalise medications, even in cases with significant polypharmacy. Proactive changes in medications were facilitated by continuity of care, sufficient consultation time, and open lines of communication with the patient, other healthcare professionals, and other GPs. ConclusionGPs respond to conflicts in the management of multimorbid patients by making compromises between patient-centred and evidence-based care. These findings will be used to inform interventions that aim to care in multimorbidity.

ObjectiveTo examine the barriers to, and facilitators in, improving diabetes management from the general practice perspective, in advance of the implementation of an integrated model of care in Ireland.DesignQualitative using semistructured interviews.SettingPrimary care in the Republic of Ireland.ParticipantsPurposive sample of 29 general practitioners (GPs) and two practice nurses.MethodsData were analysed using a framework approach.ResultsThe main barriers and facilitators occurred at the level of the health system but had a ripple effect at an organisational, professional and patient level. The lack of targeted remuneration for diabetes management in the Irish health system created apathy in general practice and was perceived to be indicative of the lack of value placed on chronic disease management in the health system. There were ‘pockets of interest’ among GPs motivated by ‘vocational’ incentives such as a sense of professional duty; however, this was not sufficient to drive widespread improvement. The hospital service was seen as an essential support for primary care management, although some participants referred to emerging tension between settings. The lack of coordination at the primary–secondary interface resulted in avoidable duplication and an ‘in the meantime’ period of uncertainty around when patients would be called or recalled by specialist services. Facilitators included the availability of nursing support and serendipitous access to services. The lack of resources in the community was considered to be at odds with policy to shift routine management to general practice, which is fast reaching saturation.ConclusionsAt present, intrinsic motivation is driving the improvement of diabetes care in Ireland. This will not be sufficient to implement the proposed reform including a national model of integrated care. Policymakers need to assess and prepare for the disparate levels of interest and infrastructure in primary care in Ireland to support this change.

Multimorbidity is independently associated with a history of ACEs. These findings demonstrate the psychosocial complexity associated with multimorbidity and should be used to inform health care provision in this patient cohort.

No abstract

given these costs and improvements in life expectancy, an increasingly obese older population presents new challenges for healthcare delivery.

BackgroundThe aim of the present study was to assess the performance of three primary care-led initiatives providing structured care to patients with Type 2 diabetes in Ireland, a country with minimal incentives to promote the quality of care.MethodsData, from three primary care initiatives, were available for 3010 adult patients with Type 2 diabetes. Results were benchmarked against the national guidelines for the management of Type 2 diabetes in the community and results from the National Diabetes Audit (NDA) for England (2008/2009) and the Scottish Diabetes Survey (2009).ResultsThe recording of clinical processes of care was similar to results in the UK however the recording of lifestyle factors was markedly lower. Recording of HbA1c, blood pressure and lipids exceeded 85%. Recording of retinopathy screening (71%) was also comparable to England (77%) and Scotland (90%). Only 63% of patients had smoking status recorded compared to 99% in Scotland while 70% had BMI recorded compared to 89% in England. A similar proportion of patients in this initiative and the UK achieved clinical targets. Thirty-five percent of patients achieved a target HbA1c of < 6.5% (< 48 mmol/mol) compared to 25% in England. Applying the NICE target for blood pressure (≤ 140/80 mmHg), 54% of patients reached this target comparable to 60% in England. Slightly less patients were categorised as obese (> 30 kg/m2) in Ireland (50%, n = 1060) compared to Scotland (54%).ConclusionsThis study has demonstrated what can be achieved by proactive and interested health professionals in the absence of national infrastructure to support high quality diabetes care. The quality of primary care-led diabetes management in the three initiatives studied appears broadly consistent with results from the UK with the exception of recording lifestyle factors. The challenge facing health systems is to establish quality assurance a responsibility for all health care professionals rather than the subject of special interest for a few.

BackgroundIn 2006, the Health Service Executive (HSE) in Ireland established an Expert Advisory Group (EAG) for Diabetes, to act as its main source of operational policy and strategic advice for this chronic condition. The process was heralded as the starting point for the development of formal chronic disease management programmes. Although recommendations were published in 2008, implementation did not proceed as expected. Our aim was to examine the development of recommendations by the EAG as an instrumental case study of the policy formulation process, in the context of a health system undergoing organisational and financial upheaval.MethodsThis study uses Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Theory to examine the evolution of the EAG recommendations. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 15 stakeholders from the advisory group. Interview data were supplemented with documentary analysis of published and unpublished documents. Thematic analysis was guided by the propositions of the Kingdon model.ResultsIn the problem stream, the prioritisation of diabetes within the policy arena was a gradual process resulting from an accumulation of evidence, international comparison, and experience. The policy stream was bolstered by group consensus rather than complete agreement on the best way to manage the condition. The EAG assumed the politics stream was also on course to converge with the other streams, as the group was established by the HSE, which had the remit for policy implementation. However, the politics stream did not converge due to waning support from health service management and changes to the organisational structure and financial capacity of the health system. These changes trumped the EAG process and the policy window remained closed, stalling implementation.ConclusionsOur results reflect the dynamic nature of the policy process and the importance of timing. The results highlight the limits of rational policy making in the face of organisational and fiscal upheaval. Diabetes care is coming on to the agenda again in Ireland under the National Clinical Care Programme. This may represent the opening of a new policy window for diabetes services, the challenge will be maintaining momentum and interest in the absence of dedicated resources.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1478-4505-12-53) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.