The role of etiquette and experimentation in explaining how doctors change behaviour: a qualitative study

Development, modelling, and pilot testing of a complex intervention to support end-of-life care provided by Danish general practitioners

BACKGROUND

Most patients in end-of-life with life-threatening diseases prefer to be cared for and die at home. Nevertheless, the majority die in hospitals. GPs have a pivotal role in providing end-of-life care at patients' home, and their involvement in the palliative trajectory enhances the patient's possibility to stay at home. The aim of this study was to develop and pilot-test an intervention consisting of continuing medical education (CME) and electronic decision support (EDS) to support end-of-life care in general practice.

METHODS

We developed an intervention in line with the first phases of the guidelines for complex interventions drawn up by the Medical Research Council. Phase 1 involved the development of the intervention including identification of key barriers to provision of end-of-life care for GPs and of facilitators of change. Furthermore the actual modelling of two components: CME meeting and EDS. Phase 2 focused on pilot-testing and intervention assessment by process evaluation.

RESULTS

In phase 1 lack of identification of patients at the end of life and limited palliative knowledge among GPs were identified as barriers. The CME meeting and the EDS were developed. The CME meeting was a four-hour educational meeting performed by GPs and specialists in palliative care. The EDS consisted of two parts: a pop-up window for each patient with palliative needs and a list of all patients with palliative needs in the practice. The pilot testing in phase 2 showed that the CME meeting was performed as intended and 120 (14%) of the GPs in the region attended. The EDS was integrated in existing electronic records but was shut down early for external reasons; 50 (5%) GPs signed up. The pilot-testing demonstrated a need to strengthen the implementation as attending rate was low in the current set-up.

CONCLUSION

We developed a complex intervention to support GPs in providing end-of-life care. The pilot-test showed general acceptance of the CME meetings. The EDS was shut down early and needs further evaluation before examining the whole intervention in a larger study, where evaluation could be based on patient-related outcomes and impact on end-of-life care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT02050256 ) January 30, 2014.

Primary care physicians report high trust in and usefulness of the Stockholm drug and therapeutic committee's list of recommended essential medicines (the 'Wise List')

Purpose

Inappropriate use of medicines causes increased morbidity, mortality, adverse drug reactions, therapeutic failures and drug resistance as well as wastes valuable resources. Evidence-based cost-effective treatment recommendations of essential medicines are a way of avoiding these. We assessed primary care prescribers’ knowledge about and perceptions of an essential medicines formulary, as well as the reasons for adhering to the recommendations.

Methods

We conducted a web based questionnaire survey targeting all physicians working in the primary healthcare of the Stockholm healthcare region (2.3 million inhabitants), regarding the knowledge of, attitudes to and usefulness of the essential medicines formulary of the Stockholm Drug and Therapeutics Committee, the so-called Wise List.

Results

Of the 1862 physicians reached by our e-mail invitations, 526 (28%) participated in the survey. All but one respondent knew of the formulary, and 72% used it at least once a week when prescribing. The main reason for using the formulary was evidence-based prescribing; 97% trusted the guidelines, and almost all (98%) found the content easy to understand. At the same time, many prescribers thought that the annual changes of some recommendations were too frequent, and some felt that a national formulary would increase its trustworthiness.

Conclusions

We found that the essential medicines formulary was widely used and trusted by the prescribers. The high uptake of the treatment recommendations could be due to the Stockholm Drug and Therapeutics Committee’s transparent process for developing recommendations involving respected experts and clinicians using strict criteria for handling potential conflicts of interest, feedback to prescribers, continuous medical education and minor financial incentives.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00228-017-2354-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Health practitioners' perceptions of adopting clinical prediction rules in the management of musculoskeletal pain: a qualitative study in Australia

OBJECTIVES

To investigate health practitioners' understanding and practice behaviours with regards to clinical prediction rules (CPRs) and explore their perceptions of adopting a new whiplash CPR.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using six semistructured focus groups.

SETTING

Primary and secondary care in New South Wales and Queensland, Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

Physiotherapists (n=19), chiropractors (n=6) and osteopaths (n=3) were purposively sampled to include health practitioners who provide routine treatment to people with whiplash-associated disorders.

METHODS

Focus group discussions (n=6) were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using an inductive thematic approach.

RESULTS

Health practitioners' understanding and use of CPRs were mixed. Clinicians considered components relating to acceptability ('whether I agree with it') and implementation ('how I'll use it') when deciding on whether to adopt a new CPR. Acceptability was informed by four themes: knowledge and understanding, CPR type, congruence and weighted value. Consideration of matters that promote implementation occurred once a CPR was deemed to be acceptable. Three themes were identified as potentially enhancing whiplash CPR implementation: the presence of an external driver of adoption, flexibility in how the CPR could be administered and guidance regarding communication of CPR output to patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Education on CPR purpose and fit with practice is needed to enhance the perceived acceptability of CPRs. Strategies that facilitate practitioner motivation, enable administrative flexibility and assist clinicians in communicating the results of the whiplash CPR could promote adoption of the whiplash CPR.

Improving patient experience in primary care: a multimethod programme of research on the measurement and improvement of patient experience

Background

There has been an increased focus towards improving quality of care within the NHS in the last 15 years; as part of this, there has been an emphasis on the importance of patient feedback within policy, through National Service Frameworks and the Quality and Outcomes Framework. The development and administration of large-scale national patient surveys to gather representative data on patient experience, such as the national GP Patient Survey in primary care, has been one such initiative. However, it remains unclear how the survey is used by patients and what impact the data may have on practice.

Objectives

Our research aimed to gain insight into how different patients use surveys to record experiences of general practice; how primary care staff respond to feedback; and how to engage primary care staff in responding to feedback.

Methods

We used methods including quantitative survey analyses, focus groups, interviews, an exploratory trial and an experimental vignette study.

Results

(1)Understanding patient experience data. Patients readily criticised their care when reviewing consultations on video, although they were reluctant to be critical when completing questionnaires. When trained raters judged communication during a consultation to be poor, a substantial proportion of patients rated the doctor as ‘good’ or ‘very good’. Absolute scores on questionnaire surveys should be treated with caution; they may present an overoptimistic view of general practitioner (GP) care. However, relative rankings to identify GPs who are better or poorer at communicating may be acceptable, as long as statistically reliable figures are obtained. Most patients have a particular GP whom they prefer to see; however, up to 40% of people who have such a preference are unable regularly to see the doctor of their choice. Users of out-of-hours care reported worse experiences when the service was run by a commercial provider than when it was run by a not-for profit or NHS provider. (2)Understanding patient experience in minority ethnic groups. Asian respondents to the GP Patient Survey tend to be registered with practices with generally low scores, explaining about half of the difference in the poorer reported experiences of South Asian patients than white British patients. We found no evidence that South Asian patients used response scales differently. When viewing the same consultation in an experimental vignette study, South Asian respondents gave higher scores than white British respondents. This suggests that the low scores given by South Asian respondents in patient experience surveys reflect care that is genuinely worse than that experienced by their white British counterparts. We also found that service users of mixed or Asian ethnicity reported lower scores than white respondents when rating out-of-hours services. (3)Using patient experience data. We found that measuring GP–patient communication at practice level masks variation between how good individual doctors are within a practice. In general practices and in out-of-hours centres, staff were sceptical about the value of patient surveys and their ability to support service reconfiguration and quality improvement. In both settings, surveys were deemed necessary but not sufficient. Staff expressed a preference for free-text comments, as these provided more tangible, actionable data. An exploratory trial of real-time feedback (RTF) found that only 2.5% of consulting patients left feedback using touch screens in the waiting room, although more did so when reminded by staff. The representativeness of responding patients remains to be evaluated. Staff were broadly positive about using RTF, and practices valued the ability to include their own questions. Staff benefited from having a facilitated session and protected time to discuss patient feedback.

Conclusions

Our findings demonstrate the importance of patient experience feedback as a means of informing NHS care, and confirm that surveys are a valuable resource for monitoring national trends in quality of care. However, surveys may be insufficient in themselves to fully capture patient feedback, and in practice GPs rarely used the results of surveys for quality improvement. The impact of patient surveys appears to be limited and effort should be invested in making the results of surveys more meaningful to practice staff. There were several limitations of this programme of research. Practice recruitment for our in-hours studies took place in two broad geographical areas, which may not be fully representative of practices nationally. Our focus was on patient experience in primary care; secondary care settings may face different challenges in implementing quality improvement initiatives driven by patient feedback. Recommendations for future research include consideration of alternative feedback methods to better support patients to identify poor care; investigation into the factors driving poorer experiences of communication in South Asian patient groups; further investigation of how best to deliver patient feedback to clinicians to engage them and to foster quality improvement; and further research to support the development and implementation of interventions aiming to improve care when deficiencies in patient experience of care are identified.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

Implementing research results in clinical practice- the experiences of healthcare professionals

Background

In healthcare research, results diffuse only slowly into clinical practice, and there is a need to bridge the gap between research and practice. This study elucidates how healthcare professionals in a hospital setting experience working with the implementation of research results.

Method

A descriptive design was chosen. During 2014, 12 interviews were carried out with healthcare professionals representing different roles in the implementation process, based on semi-structured interview guidelines. The analysis was guided by a directed content analysis approach.

Results

The initial implementation was non-formalized. In the decision-making and management process, the pattern among nurses and doctors, respectively, was found to be different. While nurses’ decisions tended to be problem-oriented and managed on a person-driven basis, doctors’ decisions were consensus-oriented and managed by autonomy. All, however, experienced a knowledge-based execution of the research results, as the implementation process ended.

Conclusion

The results illuminate the challenges involved in closing the evidence-practice gap, and may add to the growing body of knowledge on which basis actions can be taken to ensure the best care and treatment available actually reaches the patient.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1292-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Mandatory implementation of NICE Guidelines for the care of bipolar disorder and other conditions in England and Wales

BACKGROUND

Bipolar disorder is a common long-term mental health condition characterised by episodes of mania or hypomania and depression resulting in disability, early death, and high health and society costs. Public money funds the National Institute of Healthcare and Clinical Excellence (NICE) to produce clinical guidelines by systematically identifying the most up to date research evidence and costing its main recommendations for healthcare organisations and professionals to follow in England and Wales. Most governments, including those of England and Wales, need to improve healthcare but at reduced cost. There is evidence, particularly in bipolar disorder, that systematically following clinical guidelines achieves these outcomes.

DISCUSSION

NICE clinical guidelines, including those regarding bipolar disorder, remain variably implemented. They give clinicians and patients a non-prescriptive basis for deciding their care. Despite the passing of the Health and Social Care Act in 2012 in England requiring all healthcare organisations to consider NICE clinical guidelines in commissioning, delivering, and inspecting healthcare services, healthcare organisations in the National Health Service may ignore them with little accountability and few consequences. There is no mechanism to ensure that healthcare professionals know or consider them. Barriers to their implementation include the lack of political and professional leadership, the complexity of the organisation of care and policy, mistrust of some processes and recommendations of clinical guidelines, and a lack of a clear implementation model, strategy, responsibility, or accountability. Mitigation to these barriers is presented herein.

SUMMARY

The variability, safety, and quality of healthcare might be improved and its cost reduced if the implementation of NICE clinical guidelines, such as those for bipolar disorder, were made the minimum starting point for clinical decision-making and mandatory responsibilities of all healthcare organisations and professionals.

An antimicrobial stewardship program initiative: a qualitative study on prescribing practices among hospital doctors

Background

Norway has a low, but increasing prevalence of resistance and few antimicrobial stewardship initiatives. When developing stewardship interventions, an understanding of the determinants of antimicrobial prescribing is needed. We report on the first qualitative study investigating factors influencing doctors’ antimicrobial prescribing practices in Norwegian hospitals.

Methods

Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 Norwegian hospital doctors prescribing antimicrobials to adult patients. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis was applied to analyse the data.

Results

Colleagues, in particular infectious disease specialists, microbiology test results and the newly published national guideline on antimicrobials were identified as key factors influencing antimicrobial prescribing practices. Delayed availability was a barrier for the utilization of microbiology test results and increasing clinical experience overrides the influence of the national guideline.

Patient assessment, informal training by experienced colleagues, and infectious disease specialists replacing managers in promoting prudent prescribing policies, also influenced prescribing practices.

Conclusion

This study identified the following contextual factors that need to be addressed when developing antimicrobial stewardship programs in Norway: a common work practice for seeking collegial advice, logistics of microbiology test results, and formal leadership and systematic training on prudence. Other countries initiating stewardship programmes may benefit from performing a similar mapping of facilitators and barriers, to identify important stakeholders and organisational obstacles, before developing sustainable and tailored antimicrobial stewardship interventions.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13756-015-0065-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Implementing change in physiotherapy: professions, contexts and interventions

Purpose

– The purpose of this paper is to report findings from qualitative interviews with physiotherapists to demonstrate why even minor changes to clinical work resulting from the introduction of new interventions, are often difficult to implement. The paper seeks to illustrate how some of the obstacles to implementing change were managed by physiotherapists.

Design/methodology/approach

– A total of 32 qualitative interviews with participating physiotherapists were conducted, 12 interviews prior to the introduction of the new system, and 20 afterwards. The interviews were coded and analysed thematically.

Findings

– The findings reveal a number of perceived limitations of current management of low back pain and identify key themes around convergence with the new approach, such as willingness by physiotherapists to adopt the new approach, the perception of benefits to adopting the new approach, as well as some difficulty in adjusting to it. The authors refer to the positive and negative elements as “soft” and “hard” disruption. The adoption of the new approach is explored with reference to the “situated” dimensions of physiotherapy practice and normalisation process theory.

Research limitations/implications

– The study raises the need to conduct future observational research to support the interview findings.

Originality/value

– The study describes the “situated” components of physiotherapy work, which have received limited research attention. The value of the study lies less in its ability to explain specifically why physiotherapists adopted or rejected the new system, but in describing the conditions and consequences of change that might be translated to other professions, contexts and interventions.

Behaviour change and social blinkers? The role of sociology in trials of self-management behaviour in chronic conditions

Individual-focused self-management interventions are one response to both an ageing society and the purported increase in chronic conditions. They tend to draw on psychological theories in self-management interventions, but over-reliance on these theories can reinforce a narrow focus on specified attitudinal and behavioural processes, omitting aspects of living with a chronic condition. While advances have been made in health behaviour change theory and practice, scant attention has been paid to the social, with the question of social context remaining under-theorised and under-explored empirically. This is particularly noticeable in trials of behaviour change interventions for self-management. The common sociological critique is that these ignore context and thus no explanation can be given as to why, for whom and under what circumstances a treatment works. Conversely, sociologists are criticised for offering no positive suggestions as to how context can be taken into account and for over-emphasising context with the risk of inhibiting innovation. This article provides an overview of these issues and provides examples of how context can be incorporated into the rigid method of trials of self-management for chronic conditions. We discuss modifications to both trial interventions and design that make constructive use of the concept of context.

An ethnographic exploration of influences on prescribing in general practice: why is there variation in prescribing practices?

Background

Prescribing is a core activity for general practitioners, yet significant variation in the quality of prescribing has been reported. This suggests there may be room for improvement in the application of the current best research evidence. There has been substantial investment in technologies and interventions to address this issue, but effect sizes so far have been small to moderate. This suggests that prescribing is a decision-making process that is not sufficiently understood. By understanding more about prescribing processes and the implementation of research evidence, variation may more easily be understood and more effective interventions proposed.

Methods

An ethnographic study in three Scottish general practices with diverse organizational characteristics. Practices were ranked by their performance against Audit Scotland prescribing quality indicators, incorporating established best research evidence. Two practices of high prescribing quality and one practice of low prescribing quality were recruited. Participant observation, formal and informal interviews, and a review of practice documentation were employed.

Results

Practices ranked as high prescribing quality consistently made and applied macro and micro prescribing decisions, whereas the low-ranking practice only made micro prescribing decisions. Macro prescribing decisions were collective, policy decisions made considering research evidence in light of the average patient, one disease, condition, or drug. Micro prescribing decisions were made in consultation with the patient considering their views, preferences, circumstances and other conditions (if necessary).

Although micro prescribing can operate independently, the implementation of evidence-based, quality prescribing was attributable to an interdependent relationship. Macro prescribing policy enabled prescribing decisions to be based on scientific evidence and applied consistently where possible. Ultimately, this influenced prescribing decisions that occur at the micro level in consultation with patients.

Conclusion

General practitioners in the higher prescribing quality practices made two different ‘types’ of prescribing decision; macro and micro. Macro prescribing informs micro prescribing and without a macro basis to draw upon the low-ranked practice had no effective mechanism to engage with, reflect on and implement relevant evidence. Practices that recognize these two levels of decision making about prescribing are more likely to be able to implement higher quality evidence.

Understanding the determinants of antimicrobial prescribing within hospitals: the role of "prescribing etiquette"

Prescribing etiquette is an important determinant of antimicrobial prescribing behaviors. Prescribing etiquette recognizes clinical decision-making autonomy and the role of hierarchy in influencing practice. Existing clinical groups and clinical leadership should be utilized to influence antimicrobial prescribing behaviors.

Background. There is limited knowledge of the key determinants of antimicrobial prescribing behavior (APB) in hospitals. An understanding of these determinants is required for the successful design, adoption, and implementation of quality improvement interventions in antimicrobial stewardship programs.

Methods. Qualitative semistructured interviews were conducted with doctors (n = 10), pharmacists (n = 10), and nurses and midwives (n = 19) in 4 hospitals in London. Interviews were conducted until thematic saturation was reached. Thematic analysis was applied to the data to identify the key determinants of antimicrobial prescribing behaviors.

Results. The APB of healthcare professionals is governed by a set of cultural rules. Antimicrobial prescribing is performed in an environment where the behavior of clinical leaders or seniors influences practice of junior doctors. Senior doctors consider themselves exempt from following policy and practice within a culture of perceived autonomous decision making that relies more on personal knowledge and experience than formal policy. Prescribers identify with the clinical groups in which they work and adjust their APB according to the prevailing practice within these groups. A culture of “noninterference” in the antimicrobial prescribing practice of peers prevents intervention into prescribing of colleagues. These sets of cultural rules demonstrate the existence of a “prescribing etiquette,” which dominates the APB of healthcare professionals. Prescribing etiquette creates an environment in which professional hierarchy and clinical groups act as key determinants of APB.

Conclusions. To influence the antimicrobial prescribing of individual healthcare professionals, interventions need to address prescribing etiquette and use clinical leadership within existing clinical groups to influence practice.

Perceptions of general practitioners towards the use of a new system for treating back pain: a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

Changing clinicians' behaviour is recognised as a major challenge. It is clear that behaviour change not only depends on demonstrating the proven effectiveness of clinical interventions; contextual and occupational factors, such as 'change readiness', may be central to their implementation. This paper highlights the context of behaviour change in relation to a healthcare innovation introduced within primary care, highlighting the importance of organisational and interpersonal factors that may help explain the dynamics of implementation.

METHODS

Qualitative interviews were conducted with general practitioners (GPs) before (n = 32) and after (n = 9) the introduction of a subgrouping for targeted treatment system. GPs were offered an electronic six-item subgrouping tool, to identify patients according to their risk of poor outcome ('high', 'low') in order to help inform their decision making about treatment approaches. Recruitment was based on a 'maximum diversification sample', to obtain a wide representation of views across all five practices. A coding scheme was developed based on the emergent findings, and the data were analysed using 'constant comparison', drawing upon insights and developing connections between themes. We adopted the normalisation process theory (NPT) to explain the uptake of the new system and to examine the relevance of coherence for the implementation of innovations in organisations.

RESULTS

GPs perceived back pain as a low clinical priority, and highlighted the importance of 'practical' and 'relational' coherence in decisions to adopt and engage with the new subgrouping for targeted treatment system. Health professionals often engage in 'sense making' about new innovations to 'road test' their applicability or relevance to daily clinical routines. Low back pain was generally perceived as an 'uninteresting' and clinically unchallenging health problem by GPs, which may partly explain their lack of engagement with the new subgrouping for targeted treatment system. The adoption of this new way of working by GPs was determined by the meaning that they ascribed to it in the context of their daily clinical routines.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that the key obstacle to implementation of the new subgrouping for targeted treatment system for low back pain in primary care was an initial failure to achieve 'coherence' of the desired practice change with GPs. Despite this, GPs used the tool to different degrees, though this signified a general commitment to participating in the study rather than a deeper attitude change towards the new system.

Uncomfortable prescribing decisions in hospitals: the impact of teamwork

OBJECTIVES

Prescribing is not always driven by therapeutic motives alone; social and intrinsic factors also play a part in the decision. However, most research into prescribing influences has been conducted in general practice, with very little conducted within hospitals. One potential influence is the hospital multidisciplinary team, yet little attention has been paid to how interactions between teams and team members may influence prescribing. This study investigated the effect that team interaction and structure had upon UK hospital doctors' prescribing decisions, particularly their discomfort felt prescribing.

DESIGN AND SETTING

The study used the critical incident technique and in-depth interviews. Prior to an in-depth interview, 48 doctors of varying grades from four hospitals were asked to remember any uncomfortable prescribing decisions that they had recently made. These 'incidents' were discussed in depth. All interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim. A grounded theory approach to data analysis was taken.

RESULTS

There were 193 critical incidents described in the interviews. Over one-third were related to the difficulties of prescribing within a team environment. Discomfort frequently arose because of factors relating to the hierarchical structure; in particular, junior doctors described their discomfort when they were uncertain of seniors' prescribing decisions. Prescribers also adhered to rules of prescribing etiquette, including the maintenance of other doctors'/teams' prescribing decisions and adherence to prescribing norms. Discomfort also arose from a perceived pressure to prescribe from the nursing team. Doctors admitted to prescribing to maintain overall team relationships, sometimes ignoring hospital regulations and best practice to do so.

CONCLUSION

Overall, this study demonstrated that hospital doctors' prescribing decisions were strongly influenced by relationships with other team members, particularly nurses and senior doctors. Ways of reducing this discomfort should be explored and further research is advocated in this area.