Communication Between General Practitioners and their Non-English Speaking Patients in Melbourne

1995 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane Pirkis ◽  
Graham Tallis
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Language Barriers ◽  
Descriptive Study ◽  
Common Language ◽  
Health Issues ◽  
Patient Load ◽  
Common Strategy ◽  
Patient Groups ◽  
English Speaking

In this paper, the degree of correspondence between languages spoken by general practitioners (bilingual and monolingual) and their patients; the proportion of general practice consultations at which language is a barrier; ethnic health issues faced by general practitioners; and the extent to which general practitioners make use of interpreters and/or use other strategies to address language barriers, are investigated. The information for the descriptive study was elicited through self-completion questionnaires from general practitioners in the Melbourne Division of General Practice. Of the respondents, 41% were bilingual. However, only 24% of respondents shared a common language with their largest patient language group (other than English). 35% of respondents stated that they came into contact with patients with whom they found it difficult to communicate in English at least once per day. The specific ethnic mix of respondents' practices varied considerably, and respondents who shared a common language with their largest patient group were significantly more likely to have high proportions of their total patient load accounted for by that group. However, 11% of respondents' largest patient groups accounted for over 25% of their total consultations, despite their sharing no common language with this group. The most common strategy for dealing with language barriers was asking a friend or relative to interpret. The use of professional interpreters was relatively uncommon, primarily because of cost and lack of availability.

Evaluation of insomnia management in the elderly by general practitioners

2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s856-s856
Author(s):  
M. Turki ◽  
J. Aloulou ◽  
N. Halouani ◽  
R. Ennaoui ◽  
O. Amami
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Descriptive Study ◽  
Accurate Diagnosis ◽  
Physiological Changes ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Somatic Comorbidities ◽  
Hypnotic Drugs ◽  
Competing Interest

IntroductionInsomnia is the most common sleep disorder in the elderly. Its management must take into account the physiological changes associated with age, a higher frequency of comorbidities and polypharmacy.AimTo evaluate the management of insomnia in the elderly patients by general practitioners and to compare it with international recommendations.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional and descriptive study among general practitioners in Sfax over a period of two months (January and February 2016). We proposed to these doctors to participate in our study by sending to them a questionnaire in their emails, which they fill anonymously.ResultsA total of 32 doctors responded to the questionnaire. Among them, 62.5% reported that they often or very often receive elderly consulting for insomnia. Before prescribing hypnotic drugs, 65.6% of practitioners reported that they often advise lifestyle and dietary rules. The most prescribed hypnotic classes were: benzodiazepines (BZD) 59.37%; antihistamines 59.37% and homeopathic treatments 56.25%. In the last prescription, the treatment period exceeded 30 days in 18.75%. As for the prescription of BZD, molecules with long half-life were used in 37.48% of cases, and the dosage was identical to adult in 34.4% of cases.ConclusionThe prescription of hypnotic treatment in the elderly meets a logical approach to care, after an accurate diagnosis, taking into account psychiatric and somatic comorbidities, the precautions and contraindications. In this context, we have identified several shortcomings in the management of insomnia in the elderly in general practice. A multiplication of training on this subject is needed.Disclosure of interestThe authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.

A general practice provider federation in a mixed health economy in England: a case study investigation

2018 ◽  
Vol 68 (suppl 1) ◽  
pp. bjgp18X696929
Author(s):  
Jill Mitchell
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Shared Vision ◽  
Health Economy ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
The North ◽  
Common Strategy ◽  
Common Purpose ◽  
Collaborative Working ◽  
The Impact

BackgroundThere is an emerging debate that general practice in its current format is out-dated and there is a requirement to move to a federated model of provision where groups of Practices come together. The emergence of federations has developed over the past 5 years but the factors that influence how federations develop and the impact of this new model is an under researched area.AimThe study explored the rationale around why a group of independent GP practices opted to pursue an alternative business venture and the benefits that this strategy offered.MethodA single organisational case study of a federation in the North of England was conducted between 2011–2016. Mixed methods data collection included individual and group semi-structured interviews and quantitative surveys.ResultsFederations promote collaborative working, relying on strategic coherence of multiple individual GP practices through a shared vision and common purpose. Findings revealed many complexities in implementing a common strategy across multiple independent businesses. The ability of the federation to gain legitimacy was two dimensional – externally and internally. The venture had mixed successes, but their approach to quality improvement proved innovative and demonstrated outcomes on a population basis. The study identified significant pressures that practices were experiencing and the need to seek alternative ways of working but there was no shared vision or inclination to relinquish individual practice autonomy.ConclusionOrganisational development support is critical to reform General Practice. Whether central funding through the GP Five Year Forward View will achieve the scale of change required is yet to be evidenced.

scholarly journals ‘Motivational work’: a qualitative study of preventive health dialogues in general practice

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie Broholm-Jørgensen ◽  
Siff Monrad Langkilde ◽  
Tine Tjørnhøj-Thomsen ◽  
Pia Vivian Pedersen
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Support System ◽  
Preventive Intervention ◽  
Digital Health ◽  
Clinical Encounter ◽  
Preventive Health ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
General Practices ◽  
Municipal Health

Abstract Background The aim of this article is to explore preventive health dialogues in general practice in the context of a pilot study of a Danish primary preventive intervention ‘TOF’ (a Danish acronym for ‘Early Detection and Prevention’) carried out in 2016. The intervention consisted of 1) a stratification of patients into one of four groups, 2) a digital support system for both general practitioners and patients, 3) an individual digital health profile for each patient, and 4) targeted preventive services in either general practice or a municipal health center. Methods The empirical material in this study was obtained through 10 observations of preventive health dialogues conducted in general practices and 18 semi-structured interviews with patients and general practitioners. We used the concept of ‘motivational work’ as an analytical lens for understanding preventive health dialogues in general practice from the perspectives of both general practitioners and patients. Results While the health dialogues in TOF sought to reveal patients’ motivations, understandings, and priorities related to health behavior, we find that the dialogues were treatment-oriented and structured around biomedical facts, numeric standards, and risk factor guidance. Overall, we find that numeric standards and quantification of motivation lessens the dialogue and interaction between General Practitioner and patient and that contextual factors relating to the intervention framework, such as a digital support system, the general practitioners’ perceptions of their professional position as well as the patients’ understanding of prevention —in an interplay—diminished the motivational work carried out in the health dialogues. Conclusion The findings show that the influence of different kinds of context adds to the complexity of prevention in the clinical encounter which help to explain why motivational work is difficult in general practice.

scholarly journals How to set up a postmortem facility in a farm animal practice

Livestock ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 196-201
Author(s):  
John F Mee ◽  
Rhona Ley
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Diagnostic Tool ◽  
Small Ruminants ◽  
Farm Animal ◽  
Small Animals ◽  
Animal Medicine ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Postmortem Examinations

Postmortem examinations can be a useful diagnostic tool in farm animal medicine; however, they are often avoided in general practice because of a lack of appropriate facilities and expertise/familiarity with techniques. This article describes the setting up of a basic facility to allow general practitioners to perform postmortem examinations of calves, small ruminants and other small animals, e.g. poultry.

scholarly journals Quality improvement in general practice: what do GPs and practice managers think? Results from a nationally representative survey of UK GPs and practice managers

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. e001309
Author(s):  
Jennifer Gosling ◽  
Nicholas Mays ◽  
Bob Erens ◽  
David Reid ◽  
Josephine Exley
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Service Improvement ◽  
Protected Time ◽  
Routine Work ◽  
Professional Interest ◽  
Quality And Outcomes ◽  
Nationally Representative ◽  
The Uk

BackgroundThis paper presents the results of the first UK-wide survey of National Health Service (NHS) general practitioners (GPs) and practice managers (PMs) designed to explore the service improvement activities being undertaken in practices, and the factors that facilitated or obstructed that work. The research was prompted by growing policy and professional interest in the quality of general practice and its improvement. The analysis compares GP and PM involvement in, and experience of, quality improvement activities.MethodsThis was a mixed-method study comprising 26 semistructured interviews, a focus group and two surveys. The qualitative data supported the design of the surveys, which were sent to all 46 238 GPs on the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) database and the PM at every practice across the UK (n=9153) in July 2017.ResultsResponses from 2377 GPs and 1424 PMs were received and were broadly representative of each group. Ninety-nine per cent reported having planned or undertaken improvement activities in the previous 12 months. The most frequent related to prescribing and access. Key facilitators of improvement included ‘good clinical leadership’. The two main barriers were ‘too many demands from external stakeholders’ and a lack of protected time. Audit and significant event audit were the most common improvement tools used, but respondents were interested in training on other quality improvement tools.ConclusionGPs and PMs are interested in improving service quality. As such, the new quality improvement domain in the Quality and Outcomes Framework used in the payment of practices is likely to be relatively easily accepted by GPs in England. However, if improving quality is to become routine work for practices, it will be important for the NHS in the four UK countries to work with practices to mitigate some of the barriers that they face, in particular the lack of protected time.

scholarly journals ABC of prescribing exercise as medicine: a narrative review of the experiences of general practitioners and patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. e001050
Author(s):  
Andrew O'Regan ◽  
Michael Pollock ◽  
Saskia D'Sa ◽  
Vikram Niranjan
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
General Practice ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Exercise Prescription ◽  
Narrative Review ◽  
System Support ◽  
Physician Characteristics ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Type Of Exercise ◽  
User Friendly

BackgroundExercise prescribing can help patients to overcome physical inactivity, but its use in general practice is limited. The purpose of this narrative review was to investigate contemporaneous experiences of general practitioners and patients with exercise prescribing.MethodPubMed, Scopus, Science Direct and Cochrane reviews were reviewed using the terms ‘exercise prescription’, ‘exercise prescribing’, ‘family practice’, ‘general practice’, ‘adults’ and ‘physical activity prescribing’.ResultsAfter screening by title, abstract and full paper, 23 studies were selected for inclusion. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods studies revealed key experiences of general practitioners and patients. Barriers identified included: physician characteristics, patients’ physical and psychosocial factors, systems and cultural failures, as well as ambiguity around exercise prescribing. We present a synthesis of the key strategies to overcome these using an ABC approach: A: assessment of physical activity: involves asking about physical activity, barriers and risks to undertaking an exercise prescription; B: brief intervention: advice, written prescription detailing frequency, intensity, timing and type of exercise; and C: continued support: providing ongoing monitoring, accountability and progression of the prescription. Multiple supports were identified: user-friendly resources, workshops for doctors, guidelines for specific illnesses and multimorbidity, electronic devices, health system support and collaboration with other healthcare and exercise professionals.DiscussionThis review has identified levers for facilitating exercise prescribing and adherence to it. The findings have been presented in an ABC format as a guide and support for general practitioners to prescribe exercise.

scholarly journals How well did Norwegian general practice prepare to address the COVID-19 pandemic?

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. e000512
Author(s):  
Ingvild Vatten Alsnes ◽  
Morten Munkvik ◽  
W Dana Flanders ◽  
Nicolas Øyane
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Home Page ◽  
Quality Improvements ◽  
Geographical Differences ◽  
Home Office ◽  
Isolation Room ◽  
Improvement Measures ◽  
The Mean

ObjectivesWe aimed to describe the quality improvement measures made by Norwegian general practice (GP) during the COVID-19 pandemic, evaluate the differences in quality improvements based on region and assess the combinations of actions taken.DesignDescriptive study.SettingParticipants were included after taking part in an online quality improvement COVID-19 course for Norwegian GPs in April 2020. The participants reported whether internal and external measures were in place: COVID-19 sign on entrance, updated home page, access to video consultations and/or electronic written consultations, home office solutions, separate working teams, preparedness for home visits, isolation rooms, knowledge on decontamination, access to sufficient supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) and COVID-19 clinics.ParticipantsOne hundred GP offices were included. The mean number of general practitioners per office was 5.63.ResultsMore than 80% of practices had the following preparedness measures: COVID-19 sign on entrance, updated home page, COVID-19 clinic in the municipality, video and written electronic consultations, knowledge on how to use PPE, and home office solutions for general practitioners. Less than 50% had both PPE and knowledge of decontamination. Lack of PPE was reported by 37%, and 34% reported neither sufficient PPE nor a dedicated COVID-19 clinic. 15% reported that they had an isolation room, but not enough PPE. There were no geographical differences.ConclusionsNorwegian GPs in this study implemented many quality improvements to adapt to the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, the largest potentials for improvement seem to be securing sufficient supply of PPE and establishing an isolation room at their practices.

scholarly journals SAT0651-HPR BARRIERS IN DIAGNOSING RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS – A FOCUS GROUP STUDY ON THE GENERAL PRACTITIONERS’ PERSPECTIVES

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1284.1-1285
Author(s):  
A. S. Lundberg ◽  
B. A. Esbensen ◽  
E. M. Hauge ◽  
A. De Thurah
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Clinical Picture ◽  
Clinical Manifestations ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Text Book ◽  
Clear Cut ◽  
Initial Symptoms

Background:Early treatment, before three months from symptom onset of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), is essential to increase the likelihood of remission and to prevent permanent joint damage (1). However, it has been shown that only 20% of the patients are seen within the first three months, and the median delay in general practice has been estimated to 4 months (range 2–9) (2).Objectives:To explore the barriers in diagnosing RA from the general practitioners’ (GPs) perspective.Methods:We conducted a qualitative study based on focus group interviews. We recorded the interviews digitally and transcribed verbatim. The transcribed interviews were analyzed based on content analysis (3), by using Nivo 12. Sample size was determined by thematic saturation.Results:In total ten GPs participated in three different focus groups. 40 % were female, mean age was 53 years (range 37-64), and mean year since specialist authorization as GP was 16 years (range 5-23). 60 % of the GPs worked in a practice located within the referral area of a university hospital; the remaining within the referral area of a regional hospital.Four themes emerged in the analysis: 1) When the patient is not a text book example, referring to the difficulty of identifying relevant symptoms among all clinical manifestations from the joints as described by the patients, 2)The importance of maintaining the gatekeeper function, referring to the societal perspective, and the GPs responsibility to refer the right patients to secondary care, 3)Difficulties in referral of patients to the rheumatologist,referring to perceived differences in the collaboration with rheumatologists. The GPs experienced that it was sometimes difficult to be assisted by rheumatologists, especially when the clinical picture was not ‘clear cut’. Finally, (4)Para-clinical testing, can it be trusted?referring to challenges on the evaluation of especially biomarkers.The overarching theme was:Like finding a needle in a haystack, covering the GPs difficulties in detecting RA among the many patients in general practice who appear to be well and at the same time have symptoms very similar to RA.Conclusion:The GPs experienced that RA was a difficult diagnosis to make. The immediate challenge was that RA patient’s initial symptoms often resembled those of more common and less serious conditions, and that investigative findings such as biomarkers can be negative at the early state of the disease. At the same time, the collaboration with rheumatologists was sometimes seen as a hurdle, when the clinical picture was not ‘clear cut’.In order to facilitate earlier diagnosis of RA in general practice, the GPs and rheumatologists need to focus on these barriers by strengthening mutual information and collaboration.Physicians should remain vigilant to patients who have conditions that do not resolve as expected with treatment, who have symptoms that persist, or who do not look well despite negative investigative findings.References:[1]Aletaha D, et al. JAMA, Oct 2018.[2]Kiely P, et al. Rheumatology, Jan 2009.[3]Braun V. Qualitative research in psychology. 2006, 3(2), 77-101Disclosure of Interests:Anne Sofie Lundberg: None declared, Bente Appel Esbensen: None declared, Ellen-Margrethe Hauge Speakers bureau: Fees for speaking/consulting: MSD, AbbVie, UCB and Sobi; research funding to Aarhus University Hospital: Roche and Novartis (not related to the submitted work)., Annette de Thurah Grant/research support from: Novartis (not relevant for the present study)., Speakers bureau: Lily (not relevant for the present study).

scholarly journals Mental Illness in Primary Care Settings

1985 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Greg Wilkinson
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Social Security ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Research Unit ◽  
Practice Research ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Primary Care Settings

A Conference on the above topic took place at the Institute of Psychiatry, London, on 17 and 18 July 1984. The Conference was sponsored by the Department of Health and Social Security and was organized by the General Practice Research Unit. Over 100 invited clinicians, research workers and policy-makers took part. The majority of the participants were either psychiatrists or general practitioners, but representatives of all relevant disciplines attended.

scholarly journals Management rates of sexually transmissible infections by Australian general practitioners, 2000–2012

Sexual Health ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony J. Santella ◽  
Allan Pollack ◽  
Christopher Harrison ◽  
Shailendra N. Sawleshwarkar ◽  
Helena C. Britt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Practitioners ◽  
Genital Warts ◽  
Risk Identification ◽  
National Study ◽  
Major City ◽  
Sexually Transmissible Infections ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Simplex Virus ◽  
Changes Over Time ◽  
Risk Communities

Background In Australia, general practitioners (GPs) manage the majority of sexually transmissible infections (STIs). Most STIs are diagnosed and treated by GPs as a result of symptom recognition or risk identification. We aimed to determine how frequently six common STIs were managed by GPs, the characteristics of the GPs and patients, and any changes over time. Methods: Data from the Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health (BEACH) program for April 2000–March 2012 were analysed. BEACH is a national study of GP activity. The overall management rates of genital herpes (herpes simplex virus, HSV), genital warts, HIV, chlamydia (Chlamydia trachomatis), gonorrhoea (Neisseria gonorrhoeae) and syphilis were calculated. Results: In total, 11 784 GPs recorded details of 1 178 400 patient encounters. These included: 115 cases of genital HSV per 100 000 encounters, 92 of genital warts, 67 of HIV, 39 of chlamydia, 6 of gonorrhoea and 7 of syphilis. Higher management rates occurred among patients who were male, 15–24 years old, more socially advantaged, Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, resident in a major city or of English-speaking background. GPs who were female and those aged under 60 years had higher STI management rates than their counterparts. Conclusions: HSV and warts were the most common STIs managed. Lower management rates for the other STIs may reflect lower incidence or lower testing rates, because these other STIs are frequently asymptomatic. It is important to determine whether existing approaches effectively target the most at-risk communities and what barriers to presentation exist.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document