GPs' experience of difficult decisions in patients with dementia and an acute illness.

IF 2.5 Q2 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE BJGP Open Pub Date : 2024-09-18 DOI:10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0074
Samuel Lassa, Chris Burton, Jon M Dickson
{"title":"GPs' experience of difficult decisions in patients with dementia and an acute illness.","authors":"Samuel Lassa, Chris Burton, Jon M Dickson","doi":"10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>GPs are often required to make decisions about the management of acute illness in people living with dementia. These decisions are often complex and involve multiple informants.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>We aimed to explore how GPs made decisions about acute illness in people with dementia using a micropolitics approach.</p><p><strong>Design & setting: </strong>Qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 13 GPs with a range of years of experience working in South Yorkshire, UK.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Interviews were conducted by phone. Interviews focused on GPs' accounts to reflect their own perceptions and choices as portrayed to the interviewer. The analysis used the lens of micro-politics in the analysis and interpretation of the themes, with a focus on decisions between GP, patient, family and carers, other health and social care providers about the management of acute illness in a person with dementia.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results showed that GPs act as street-level bureaucrats while carrying out their role, using discretion during decision-making in an environment characterised by uncertainties and work pressures. In addition, GPs use the \"soft power\" skills of diplomacy such as negotiation, persuasion and engagement in navigating through difficult decision-making situations, while building relationships and partnerships with various actors in the health system.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>GPs possess and express power and influence decision-making in people living with dementia when navigating biomedical, social, economic and psychological factors. This power comes in the form of soft power (street level diplomacy) and the more formal power of street level bureaucracy.</p>","PeriodicalId":36541,"journal":{"name":"BJGP Open","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJGP Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0074","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: GPs are often required to make decisions about the management of acute illness in people living with dementia. These decisions are often complex and involve multiple informants.

Aim: We aimed to explore how GPs made decisions about acute illness in people with dementia using a micropolitics approach.

Design & setting: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 13 GPs with a range of years of experience working in South Yorkshire, UK.

Method: Interviews were conducted by phone. Interviews focused on GPs' accounts to reflect their own perceptions and choices as portrayed to the interviewer. The analysis used the lens of micro-politics in the analysis and interpretation of the themes, with a focus on decisions between GP, patient, family and carers, other health and social care providers about the management of acute illness in a person with dementia.

Results: The results showed that GPs act as street-level bureaucrats while carrying out their role, using discretion during decision-making in an environment characterised by uncertainties and work pressures. In addition, GPs use the "soft power" skills of diplomacy such as negotiation, persuasion and engagement in navigating through difficult decision-making situations, while building relationships and partnerships with various actors in the health system.

Conclusion: GPs possess and express power and influence decision-making in people living with dementia when navigating biomedical, social, economic and psychological factors. This power comes in the form of soft power (street level diplomacy) and the more formal power of street level bureaucracy.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
全科医生在为痴呆症和急性病患者做出艰难决定时的经验。
背景:全科医生经常需要对痴呆症患者的急性病管理做出决策。目的:我们旨在采用微观政治学方法探讨全科医生如何就痴呆症患者的急性病做出决策:对英国南约克郡工作多年的 13 名全科医生进行了半结构化定性访谈:访谈通过电话进行。访谈侧重于全科医生的叙述,以反映他们向访谈者描述的自己的看法和选择。分析采用微观政治学的视角对主题进行分析和解释,重点关注全科医生、患者、家属和照护者、其他医疗和社会护理提供者之间就痴呆症患者急性病管理做出的决定:结果表明,全科医生在履行职责时就像街道上的官僚,在充满不确定性和工作压力的环境中酌情做出决策。此外,全科医生还利用外交的 "软实力 "技能,如谈判、说服和参与,在艰难的决策环境中游刃有余,同时与医疗系统中的不同参与者建立关系和伙伴关系:结论:全科医生拥有并表达权力,并在处理生物医学、社会、经济和心理因素时影响痴呆症患者的决策。这种权力的形式包括软权力(街头外交)和更为正式的街头官僚权力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BJGP Open
BJGP Open Medicine-Family Practice
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
181
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊最新文献
General practice characteristics associated with pay-for-performance in the UK: a systematic review. How do GPs communicate the urgent suspected cancer referral pathway to patients? A qualitative study of GP-patient consultations. Could a behaviour change intervention be used to address under-recognition of work-related asthma in primary care? A systematic review. Editorial: Global health inequity and primary care. Clinical decision making and risk appraisal using electronic risk assessment tools (eRATs) for cancer diagnosis: A qualitative study of GP experiences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1