Content and timing of the 6-8 week maternal postnatal check: a mixed methods study.

IF 2.5 Q2 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE BJGP Open Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0229
Clare Macdonald, Fiona Cross-Sudworth, Laura Quinn, Christine MacArthur, Debra Bick, Ellie Jones, Beck Taylor
{"title":"Content and timing of the 6-8 week maternal postnatal check: a mixed methods study.","authors":"Clare Macdonald, Fiona Cross-Sudworth, Laura Quinn, Christine MacArthur, Debra Bick, Ellie Jones, Beck Taylor","doi":"10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0229","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Since 2020, the General Medical Services contract requires GP practices in England to offer women a GP appointment 6-8 weeks after birth: the '6-8 week postnatal check' or 'consultation'. Historically, provision of checks was variable, and women still frequently report poor experiences.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To explore GPs' and women's perspectives of the 6-8 week postnatal check, including key components and timing.</p><p><strong>Design & setting: </strong>Mixed methods study: focus groups of GPs and women, and an online survey of GPs in England.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Focus groups explored GPs' and women's experiences of postnatal consultations. An online survey explored GPs' clinical approach, organisation, and improvement potential. Quantitative analysis examined associations between demographics and clinical approach. Thematic framework analysis was used for qualitative data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>18 women and 14 GPs participated in focus groups. 671 GPs completed the survey. Mental wellbeing and contraception were reported as important topics, although some women were not asked about mental health. GP survey responses indicated most recommendations from national guidance were 'always' or 'very often' covered by most, but not all GPs. Clinical coverage was higher for GPs who used clinical templates, had awareness of guidance, were female or a parent. Many GPs (<i>n</i>=326, 49%) needed more time than was allocated for the consultation: (<i>n</i>=524, 78% allocated<15 minutes; <i>n</i>=351, 52% completed in<15 minutes).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study suggests GPs are allocated insufficient time for postnatal consultations, with substantial variation in practice. Specifying consultation duration and consideration of template usage in policy may improve care and outcomes for women.</p>","PeriodicalId":36541,"journal":{"name":"BJGP Open","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","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.2024.0229","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: Since 2020, the General Medical Services contract requires GP practices in England to offer women a GP appointment 6-8 weeks after birth: the '6-8 week postnatal check' or 'consultation'. Historically, provision of checks was variable, and women still frequently report poor experiences.

Aim: To explore GPs' and women's perspectives of the 6-8 week postnatal check, including key components and timing.

Design & setting: Mixed methods study: focus groups of GPs and women, and an online survey of GPs in England.

Method: Focus groups explored GPs' and women's experiences of postnatal consultations. An online survey explored GPs' clinical approach, organisation, and improvement potential. Quantitative analysis examined associations between demographics and clinical approach. Thematic framework analysis was used for qualitative data.

Results: 18 women and 14 GPs participated in focus groups. 671 GPs completed the survey. Mental wellbeing and contraception were reported as important topics, although some women were not asked about mental health. GP survey responses indicated most recommendations from national guidance were 'always' or 'very often' covered by most, but not all GPs. Clinical coverage was higher for GPs who used clinical templates, had awareness of guidance, were female or a parent. Many GPs (n=326, 49%) needed more time than was allocated for the consultation: (n=524, 78% allocated<15 minutes; n=351, 52% completed in<15 minutes).

Conclusion: This study suggests GPs are allocated insufficient time for postnatal consultations, with substantial variation in practice. Specifying consultation duration and consideration of template usage in policy may improve care and outcomes for women.

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
产妇产后 6-8 周检查的内容和时间:一项混合方法研究。
背景:自 2020 年起,《普通医疗服务合同》要求英格兰的全科医生在妇女分娩后 6-8 周为其提供全科医生预约服务:"6-8 周产后检查 "或 "咨询"。目的:探讨全科医生和产妇对产后 6-8 周检查的看法,包括主要内容和时间安排:混合方法研究:对全科医生和妇女进行焦点小组讨论,并对英格兰的全科医生进行在线调查:焦点小组探讨了全科医生和妇女在产后咨询方面的经验。在线调查探讨了全科医生的临床方法、组织和改进潜力。定量分析研究了人口统计学与临床方法之间的关联。定性数据采用主题框架分析法:18名女性和14名全科医生参加了焦点小组。671 名全科医生完成了调查。据报告,心理健康和避孕是重要的主题,尽管有些妇女没有被问及心理健康问题。对全科医生调查的答复表明,大多数全科医生都 "总是 "或 "经常 "采纳国家指南中的大多数建议,但并非所有全科医生都这样做。使用临床模板、了解指导意见、女性或身为父母的全科医生的临床覆盖率较高。许多全科医生(n=326,49%)需要的时间超过了分配给他们的会诊时间:(n=524,78%分配时间n=351,52%完成会诊):本研究表明,全科医生分配给产后咨询的时间不足,而且在实践中存在很大差异。在政策中规定会诊时间并考虑模板的使用可能会改善对妇女的护理和结果。
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