Nadine Janis Pohontsch

Stressors and starting points for health-promoting interventions in medical school from the students’ perspective: a qualitative study

IntroductionMedical education is considered very challenging and connected with high levels of psychosocial stress for students. The aim of this study was to identify stressors and possible starting points for health-promoting interventions from the perspective of the students themselves.MethodsWe conducted two focus groups with medical students from pre-clinical and clinical semesters. We analyzed the data using content analysis following Mayring’s approach.ResultsThe stressors in the pre-clinical stage of medical education were more diverse and perceived as more intense than those in the clinical stage. They comprised contextual factors and individual behaviour. Participants mentioned the weekly examinations as a specific stressor. The existing absence regulations gave the participants the impression that they should not be absent through illness at any point during the course, and this idea further promoted presenteeism. Peer groups and mentoring programmes were perceived as helpful.ConclusionsStressors and starting points for health-promoting interventions are closely related to the medical curriculum and its organization. As such, the curriculum itself—in addition to programmes aimed at improving stress management—should primarily stand at the centre of activities for enhancing students’ health.

General practitioners’ views on (long-term) prescription and use of problematic and potentially inappropriate medication for oldest-old patients—A qualitative interview study with GPs (CIM-TRIAD study)

BackgroundPotentially inappropriate medication (PIM) is defined as medication with uncertain therapeutic effects and/or potential adverse drug reactions outweighing the clinical benefits. The prescription rate of PIM for oldest-old patients is high despite the existence of lists of PIM (e.g. the PRISCUS list) and efforts to raise awareness. This study aims at identifying general practitioners’ views on PIM and aspects affecting the (long-term) use of PIM.MethodsAs part of the CIM-TRIAD study, we conducted semi-structured, qualitative interviews with 47 general practitioners, discussing 25 patients with and 22 without PIM (according to the PRISCUS list). The interview guideline included generic and patient-specific questions. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. We content analyzed the interviews using deductive and inductive category development.ResultsThe majority of the general practitioners were not aware of the PRISCUS list. Agents deemed potentially inappropriate from the general practitioners’ point of view and the PRISCUS list are not completely superimposable. General practitioners named their criteria to identify appropriate medication for elderly patients (e.g. renal function, cognitive state) and emphasized the importance of monitoring.We identified prescription- (e.g. benzodiazepines on alternative private prescription), medication- (e.g. subjective perception that PIM has no alternative), general practitioner- (e.g. general practitioner relies on specialists), patient- (e.g. “demanding high-user”, positive subjective benefit-risk-ratio) and system-related aspects (e.g. specialists lacking holistic view, interface problems) related to the (long term) use of PIM.ConclusionsWhile the PRISCUS list does not seem to play a decisive role in general practice, general practitioners are well aware of risks associated with PIM. Our study identifies some starting points for a safer handling of PIM, e.g. stronger dissemination of the PRISCUS list, better compensation of medication reviews, “positive lists”, adequate patient information, multifaceted interventions and improved communication between general practitioners and specialists.

The professional perspective on patient involvement in the development of quality indicators: a qualitative analysis using the example of chronic heart failure in the German health care setting

Purpose There is an international consensus that quality indicators (QIs) of health care ought to represent patient-relevant aspects. Therefore, patient involvement in the development process is essential. However, there is no methodological gold standard for involving patients in QI development. The aim of this study is to explore experts’ views on the representation of patient-relevant aspects in the QI development process using the QIs developed in the context of the German National Disease Management Guideline for Heart Failure as an example. Methods Semi-structured, open telephone interviews were conducted with 15 German experts (patient representatives, physicians, researchers, and methodologists involved in guideline development or quality assessment). Interview themes were the relevance of the exemplary set of QIs for patients, as well as the legitimacy of, competence of, and collaboration with the patient representative who participated in the development process. Interviews were fully transcribed and content analyzed. Deductive categories derived from the research questions were supplemented by inductively formed categories during the review of the interview material. Results The qualitative analysis suggests a discrepancy between the guidelines’ QIs and those relevant to patients from an expert’s point of view, such as physician-patient communication and quality of counseling. Experts reported only minor communication and cooperation problems while working together in the guideline/QI development team. Concerns existed, for example, regarding the recruitment of patient representatives for diseases without self-help organizations, the financing of patient representation, and the training of patient representatives. Only few potential strategies for improving the process of patient involvement were mentioned. Conclusion Integrating the patients’ perspectives through the recruitment of a patient representative to participate in the development team was well established and broadly accepted. However, experts stated that the finally selected QIs represent only a small part of the patient-relevant aspects of medical care. According to the experts’ perceptions, the current processes provide a very limited scope for integrating the patients’ perspectives in a more extensive way. Supplementing the set of “conventional” QIs with additional, separately developed, “patient-side” QIs might help to include patient priorities in quality measurement.

Reasons for disagreement regarding illnesses between older patients with multimorbidity and their GPs - a qualitative study.

BackgroundChronic conditions are the most common themes in doctor-patient communication, especially for older patients with multimorbidity and their GPs. Former quantitative studies identified a variety of socio-demographic and health-related factors which were associated with the (dis-)agreement between medical records and patient self-reported diseases. The aim of this qualitative study was to identify reasons for disagreement regarding illnesses between patients and their GPs.MethodsWe conducted three focus groups with GPs (n = 15) and three focus groups with multimorbid patients aged 65 to 85 (n = 21). The participants were recruited from the MultiCare Cohort Study. Focus groups were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts of the focus groups were analysed using the qualitative content analysis according to Mayring. Categories were determined deductively and inductively.ResultsThe analysis revealed seven themes concerning reasons for disagreement regarding illnesses between patients and their GPs: problems with communication and cooperation between health care professionals, disease management by the GP and the patient, the documentation behaviour of the GP, communication challenges between GP and patient, differences in the understanding of a disease between GP and patient, the prioritization and rating of diseases by GP and patient and obliviousness, repression and avoidance by the patient.ConclusionsFor older patients with multimorbidity, our study demonstrated that there is a need to enhance the cooperation between GPs, specialists and outpatient care, a demand to improve doctor-patient communication and a need for interventions to increase patients’ knowledge of diseases.

General practitioners’ perception of being a doctor in urban vs. rural regions in Germany - A focus group study

Abstract Background Inadequate recruitment numbers for GPs in rural regions give cause for concern. Working in rural regions is less attractive among medical students because of strong associations concerning a higher workload, restriction of privacy and demands exceeding their competences. We aimed to explore perceptions of GPs working in urban versus rural regions to contrast these prejudices. Methods We conducted nine focus groups with GPs [female = 21, male = 44] from urban and rural regions, using a semi-structured guideline. Transcripts were content analyzed using deductive and inductive categories. Results Urban GPs perceived themselves as a provider of medical services and rural GPs as being a medical companion. Compared to urban GPs, GPs from non-urban regions portray themselves more strongly as a family physician that accompanies patients ‘from the cradle to the grave’ and is responsible for the treatment of any medical issue. They emphasized their close relationship with their patients. Rural GPs establish a close relationship with their patients and considered this as beneficial for the treatment relationship. This aspect seems to play a subordinate role for urban GPs. Conclusions GPs enjoy their work and the role they play in their patients’ lives. Being a rural GP was described very positively. Greater emphasis should be made on positive aspects of being a GP in rural regions, e.g. by university lectures given by rural GPs, campaigns emphasizing the positive aspects of working as a GP [in rural regions], promotion of work placements or incentives for working in rural general practices.

Diagnostic barriers for somatic symptom disorders in primary care: study protocol for a mixed methods study in Germany

Introduction Somatoform or somatic symptom disorders ((S)SD) are common and have a negative impact on the patients’ health-related quality of life, healthcare use and costs. In primary care, which is central to the management of (S)SD, diagnosis and treatment tend to be delayed. There is a significant lack of evidence regarding the barriers in the diagnostic process of (S)SD in primary care and how interventions should be tailored to address them. The aim of this study is to analyse the diagnostic process in primary care that results in the diagnosis or non-diagnosis of a (S)SD. Methods and analysis This mixed methods study will investigate the topic with qualitative methods, subsequently proceeding to a quantitative phase where the initial results will be validated and/or generalised. First, focus groups will explore meanings and patterns, inconsistencies and conflicts in general practitioners’ (GPs) thoughts and behaviours when diagnosing (S)SD. Second, the results of these focus groups will be used to develop interview guidelines for subsequent face-to-face interviews. Patients and their treating GPs will be interviewed separately on how they experience the history of illness, the diagnostic process and treatment. Third, based on the results of the first two study parts, a questionnaire will be derived and a nationwide survey among German GPs will be conducted, quantifying the barriers and difficulties identified before. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the Hamburg Medical Association, Germany (approval number PV4763). The results of this study will be disseminated through conference presentation and publications in peer-reviewed journals. Trial registration number The study is registered in the German Clinical Trial Register (DRKS), DRKS-ID DRKS00009736.

Regional variations of perceived problems in ambulatory care from the perspective of general practitioners and their patients - an exploratory focus group study in urban and rural regions of northern Germany

BackgroundPatients from rural and urban regions should have equitable access to health care. In Germany, the physician-patient-ratio and the supply of medical services vary greatly between urban and rural areas. The aim of our study was to explore the regional variations of the perceived health care problems in ambulatory care from the perspective of affected professionals and laypersons i.e. general practitioners and their patients.MethodsWe conducted 27 focus groups with general practitioners (n = 65) and patients (n = 145) from urban areas, environs and rural areas in northern Germany. Discussions were facilitated by two researchers using a semi-structured guideline. The transcripts were content analyzed using deductive and inductive categories.ResultsGeneral practitioners and patients reported problems due to demographic change and patient behaviour, through structural inequalities and the ambulatory reimbursement system as well as with specialist care and inpatient care. A high physician density, associated with high competition between general practitioners, a high fluctuation of patients and a low status of general practitioners were the main problems reported in urban areas. In contrast, participants from rural areas reported an insufficient physician density, a lack of young recruits in primary care and a resulting increased workload as problematic. All regions are concerned with subjectively inadequate general practitioners’ budgets, insufficiently compensated consultations and problems in the cooperation with specialists and inpatient care institutions. Most problems were mentioned by GPs and patients alike, but some (e.g. high competition rates in urban regions and problems with inpatient care) were only mentioned by GPs.ConclusionsWhile many problems arise in urban regions as well as in rural regions, our results support the notion that there is an urgent need for action in rural areas. Possible measures include the support of telemedicine, delegation of medical services and reoccupation of vacant practices. The attractiveness of working in rural areas for general practitioners, specialists and clinicians must be increased by consolidating and expanding rural infrastructure (e.g. child care and cultural life). The above mentioned results also indicate that the ambulatory reimbursement system should be examined regarding the reported inequalities. Measures to further enhance the cooperation between general practitioners, specialists and inpatient care should be taken to solve supra-regionally reported problems. Problems showing regional variations indicate the need for measures to balance these variations between the regions.This is the first German study to analyze subjective views of the stakeholders concerned on regionally variating problems in ambulatory care. Further studies are needed to quantify the extent of the identified problems and differences. A corresponding survey is currently under way.

Regional variation of patient behaviour and reasons for consultation in the general practice of Northern Germany: protocol for an observational study

Introduction Inappropriate supply and an increasing demand on the healthcare system have been of concern for health policy in Germany for at least 15 years. In the primary care setting, this especially relates to an undersupply of general practitioners (GPs) in the countryside. In addition, there seem to be other regional differences, for example, a difference in accessing primary and secondary care between rural and urban areas. Despite these findings, regional differences in health services have not been studied extensively in Germany. Therefore, this study aims to explore regional variations of patient populations and reasons for accessing primary medical care. Methods and analysis We will conduct a cross-sectional observational study based on standardised interviews with 240 GPs and ∼1200 patients. Data collection started on 10 June 2015 and will probably be completed by 31 October 2016. We will include all districts and cities within 100 km from Hamburg and assign them according to the type of regions: rural, urban and environs. All eligible GPs will be invited to participate. Each practice will recruit up to 15 patients, aged 18 years or older. Questionnaires are based on a preliminary qualitative study and were pretested. Data will be analysed with descriptive statistics and regression modelling strategies adjusted for confounders and the GP-induced cluster structure. Ethics and dissemination Our study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Association of Hamburg and is conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Study participants give written informed consent before data collection and data is pseudonymised. Survey data and person identifiers are stored separately in locked cabinets and have restricted availability. The results of our study will be presented at conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. Trial registration number NCT02558322; Pre-results.

Perspective of elderly patients on chronic use of potentially inappropriate medication – Results of the qualitative CIM-TRIAD study

Although potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) is associated with risk of harm due to adverse effects, it is frequently prescribed for elderly patients. The aim of this qualitative multi-center study was to gain insight into contextual factors that might lead to chronic PIM use. We conducted semi-structured interviews with elderly patients with or without chronic PIM use (patient interviews: n = 52). Patients were between 86 and 96 years old. The participants were recruited from the AgeCoDe study. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts of the interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Deductive and inductive categories were determined. We found contextual factors related to the patient and related to patient-general practitioner (GP) communication that might lead to chronic PIM use (i.e., positive features of PIM, maintaining characteristics of medication intake, barriers to deprescribe PIM, external actors supporting PIM intake, system-related factors). Besides certain health-related behaviours (e.g., own obligation to report to GP) and medication-related attitudes and knowledge (e.g., awareness of side effects and interaction of medicines), patient-GP-interactions that were characterised by mutual agreements on drugs (e.g., concerning dosage or discontinuation of a drug) might be advantageous to reduce the probability of chronic PIM use. The results might assist in the development of guidelines and educational programs aiming to reduce PIM use in the elderly.

Influences on students' empathy in medical education an exploratory interview study with medical students in their third and last year

BackgroundEmpathy is beneficial for patients and physicians. It facilitates treatment and improves physical and psychosocial outcomes. The therapeutic relevance of empathy emphasizes the need to help medical students develop their empathic abilities. Our study aimed to identify factors which promote or hinder the development and expression of empathy in medical students during the course of their studies.MethodsWe interviewed 24 medical students (six male and six female students in their 6th semester as well as six male and six female students in their final clinical year) using semi-structured interviews. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using Braun & Clarke’s thematic analysis.ResultsWe identified four main themes influencing the development and expression of empathy. 1) Course of studies: hands-on-experience, role models, science and theory, and emphasis on the importance of empathy; 2) students: insecurities and lack of routine, increasing professionalism, previous work experiences, professional distance, mood, maturity, and personal level of empathy; 3) patients: “easy” and “difficult” patients including their state of health; and 4) surrounding conditions: time pressure/stress, work environment, and job dissatisfaction.ConclusionsThe development and use of empathy could be promoted by increasing: hands-on-experiences, possibilities to experience the patient’s point of view and offering patient contact early in the curriculum. Students need support in reflecting on their actions, behavior and experiences with patients. Instructors need time and opportunities to reflect on their own communication with and treatment of patients, on their teaching behavior, and on their function as role models for treating patients empathically and preventing stress. Practical experiences should be made less stressful for students. The current changes implemented in some medical school curriculums (e.g., in Germany) seem to go in the right direction by integrating patient contact early on in the curriculum and focusing more on teaching adequate communication and interaction behaviors.