Exploring implementation processes in general practice in a feedback intervention aiming to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing: a qualitative study among general practitioners

Put on the sidelines of palliative care: a qualitative study of important barriers to GPs' participation in palliative care and guideline implementation in Norway

BACKGROUND

Demographic changes, the evolvement of modern medicine and new treatments for severe diseases, increase the need for palliative care services. Palliative care includes all patients with life-limiting conditions, irrespective of diagnosis. In Norway, palliative care rests on a decentralised model where patient care can be delivered close to the patient's home, and the Norwegian guideline for palliative care describes a model of care resting on extensive collaboration. Previous research suggests that this guideline is not well implemented among general practitioners (GPs). In this study, we aim to investigate barriers to GPs' participation in palliative care and implementation of the guideline.

METHODS

We interviewed 25 GPs in four focus groups guided by a semi-structured interview guide. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed qualitatively with reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We identified four main themes as barriers to GPs' participation in palliative care and to implementation of the guideline: (1) different established local cultures and practices of palliative care, (2) discontinuity of the GP-patient relationship, (3) unclear clinical handover and information gaps and (4) a mismatch between the guideline and everyday general practice.

CONCLUSION

Significant structural and individual barriers to GPs' participation in palliative care exist, which hamper the implementation of the guideline. GPs should be involved as stakeholders when guidelines involving them are created. Introduction of new professionals in primary care needs to be actively managed to avoid inappropriate collaborative practices. Continuity of the GP-patient relationship must be maintained throughout severe illness and at end-of-life.

Strategies to guide the successful implementation of deprescribing in community practice: Lessons learned from the front line

Background

Sustainable implementation of new professional services into clinical practice can be difficult. In 2019, a population-wide initiative called SaferMedsNL was implemented across the province of Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), to promote appropriate medication use. Two evidence-based interventions were adapted to the context of NL to promote deprescribing of proton pump inhibitors and sedatives. The objective of this study was to identify and prioritize which actions supported the implementation of deprescribing in community practice for pharmacists, physicians and nurse practitioners across the province.

Methods

Community pharmacists, physicians and nurse practitioners were invited to participate in virtual focus groups. Nominal Group Technique was used to elicit responses to the question: "What actions support the implementation of deprescribing into the daily workflow of your practice?" Participants prioritized actions within each group while thematic analysis permitted comparison across groups.

Results

Five focus groups were held in fall 2020 involving pharmacists (n = 11), physicians (n = 7) and nurse practitioners (n = 4). Participants worked in rural (n = 10) and urban (n = 12) settings. The different groups agreed on what the top 5 actions were, with the top 5 receiving 68% of the scores: (1) providing patient education, (2) allocating time and resources, (3) building interprofessional collaboration and communication, (4) fostering patient relationships and (5) aligning with public awareness strategies.

Conclusion

Pharmacists, physicians and nurse practitioners identified similar actions that supported implementing evidence-based deprescribing into routine clinical practice. Sharing these strategies may help others embed deprescribing into daily practice and assist the uptake of medication appropriateness initiatives by front-line providers. Can Pharm J (Ott) 2024;157:xx-xx.

What GPs do to meet accreditation standards - implementation activities and perceived improvements attributed to general practice accreditation

BACKGROUND

Healthcare accreditation is a widely implemented tool used to enhance the quality of care and underpin quality control. However, research is sparse on the accreditation process in general practice. The aim of this study was to explore how team-based implementation activities preceding accreditation were associated with self-perceived improvements in emergency preparedness (preparedness for urgent disease and cardiac arrest) and handling of prescription renewals in Danish general practice.

METHODS

GPs (general practitioners) completed a questionnaire exploring practice-team activities conducted to implement two specific accreditation standards and the related improvements as perceived by the GPs. The following implementation activities were selected, inspired by Normalization Process Theory: Common understanding (obtaining a common understanding of the purpose of implementing changes according to the accreditation standard), key person (assigning a key person responsible for working with the standard), and easy integration (finding it easy to integrate changes into existing working procedures). Data were analysed with logistic regression, and adjusted analyses included practice type, number of GP partners, number of staff, training site for junior GPs and administrative region.

RESULTS

The total response rate was 74% (n = 920). Around 80% of the clinics reported having conducted team-based implementation activities. Almost half of the clinics (48%) reported perceived improvements in the emergency preparedness, and 30% reported perceived improvements in the handling of prescription renewals. Obtaining a common understanding was found to have a strong, significant association with perceived improvements in the emergency preparedness (OR = 5.07 (3.06-8.40)) and handling of prescription renewals (OR = 3.66 (2.07-6.46)). Easy integration of changes was also significantly associated with improvements in both emergency preparedness (OR = 1.88 (1.24-2.85)) and handling of prescription renewals (OR = 2.34 (1.44-3.79)), whereas assigning a key person was only significantly associated with improved emergency preparedness (OR = 1.95 (1.19-3.19)).

CONCLUSION

Clinical quality initiatives that involve collaboration within a practice team are more likely to cause improvements if specific team-based implementation activities are conducted. It is particularly important to facilitate a common understanding of the purpose of the initiative. Therefore, external support for quality initiatives aiming at the practice level in general practice should facilitate such team-based activities.