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.
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.