Time is money: general practitioners' reflections on the fee-for-service system.

BACKGROUND: Fee-for-service is a common payment model for remunerating general practitioners (GPs) in OECD countries. In Norway, GPs earn two-thirds of their income through fee-for-service, which is determined by the number of consultations and procedures they register as fees. In general, fee-for-service incentivises many and short consultations and is associated with high service provision. GPs act as gatekeepers for various treatments and interventions, such as addictive drugs, antibiotics, referrals, and sickness certification. This study aims to explore GPs' reflections on and perceptions of the fee-for-service system, with a specific focus on its potential impact on gatekeeping decisions. METHODS: We conducted six focus group interviews with 33 GPs in 2022 in Norway. We analysed the data using thematic analysis. RESULTS: We identified three main themes related to GPs' reflections and perceptions of the fee-for-service system. First, the participants were aware of the profitability of different fees and described potential strategies to increase their income, such as having shorter consultations or performing routine procedures on all patients. Second, the participants acknowledged that the fees might influence GP behaviour. Two perspectives on the fees were present in the discussions: fees as incentives and fees as compensation. The participants reported that financial incentives were not directly decisive in gatekeeping decisions, but that rejecting requests required substantially more time compared to granting them. Consequently, time constraints may contribute to GPs' decisions to grant patient requests even when the requests are deemed unreasonable. Last, the participants reported challenges with remembering and interpreting fees, especially complex fees. CONCLUSIONS: GPs are aware of the profitability within the fee-for-service system, believe that fee-for-service may influence their decision-making, and face challenges with remembering and interpreting certain fees. Furthermore, the fee-for-service system can potentially affect GPs' gatekeeping decisions by incentivising shorter consultations, which may result in increased consultations with inadequate time to reject unnecessary treatments.

The cost of saying no: general practitioners' gatekeeping role in sickness absence certification.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) have an important gatekeeping role in the Norwegian sickness insurance system. This role includes limiting access to paid sick leave when this is not justified according to sick leave criteria. 85% of GPs in Norway operate within a fee-for-service system that incentivises short consultations and high service provision. In this qualitative study, we explore how GPs practise the gatekeeping role in sickness absence certification. METHODS: Qualitative data was collected through six focus group interviews with 33 GPs, working in practices with a minimum of four practising GPs, in different geographical regions across Norway, including both urban and rural areas. Data was analysed using Braune and Clarke's thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Our results indicate that GPs' sick-listing decisions are largely driven by patient demand and preferences for sick leave. GPs reported that they rarely overrule patient requests for sickness absence, including in cases where such requests conflict with the GPs' opinion of whether sick leave is justified or benefits the patient. The degree of effort made to limit unjustified or non-beneficial sick leave seems to depend on the GPs' available time and perceived risk of conflict with the patient. GPs generally expressed dissatisfaction with their role as certifiers of sickness absence. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that GPs' decisions about sickness certification is largely driven by patient preferences. The GPs' gatekeeping function is limited to negotiations about grade and duration of absence spells.

Changes in life expectancy and disease burden in Norway, 1990-2019: an analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.

BACKGROUND: Geographical differences in health outcomes are reported in many countries. Norway has led an active policy aiming for regional balance since the 1970s. Using data from the Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD) 2019, we examined regional differences in development and current state of health across Norwegian counties. METHODS: Data for life expectancy, healthy life expectancy (HALE), years of life lost (YLLs), years lived with disability (YLDs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) in Norway and its 11 counties from 1990 to 2019 were extracted from GBD 2019. County-specific contributors to changes in life expectancy were compared. Inequality in disease burden was examined by use of the Gini coefficient. FINDINGS: Life expectancy and HALE improved in all Norwegian counties from 1990 to 2019. Improvements in life expectancy and HALE were greatest in the two counties with the lowest values in 1990: Oslo, in which life expectancy and HALE increased from 71·9 years (95% uncertainty interval 71·4-72·4) and 63·0 years (60·5-65·4) in 1990 to 81·3 years (80·0-82·7) and 70·6 years (67·4-73·6) in 2019, respectively; and Troms og Finnmark, in which life expectancy and HALE increased from 71·9 years (71·5-72·4) and 63·5 years (60·9-65·6) in 1990 to 80·3 years (79·4-81·2) and 70·0 years (66·8-72·2) in 2019, respectively. Increased life expectancy was mainly due to reductions in cardiovascular disease, neoplasms, and respiratory infections. No significant differences between the national YLD or DALY rates and the corresponding age-standardised rates were reported in any of the counties in 2019; however, Troms og Finnmark had a higher age-standardised YLL rate than the national rate (8394 per 100 000 [95% UI 7801-8944] vs 7536 per 100 000 [7391-7691]). Low inequality between counties was shown for life expectancy, HALE, all level-1 causes of DALYs, and exposure to level-1 risk factors. INTERPRETATION: Over the past 30 years, Norway has reduced inequality in disease burden between counties. However, inequalities still exist at a within-county level and along other sociodemographic gradients. Because of insufficient Norwegian primary data, there remains substantial uncertainty associated with regional estimates for non-fatal disease burden and exposure to risk factors. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Research Council of Norway, and Norwegian Institute of Public Health.

Training physicians in providing complex information to patients with multiple sclerosis: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a specific communication training for neurologists on how to provide complex information about treatment options to patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). DESIGN: Single-centre, single-blind, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: One university hospital in Norway. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-four patients with early-stage MS. INTERVENTION: A 3-hour training for neurologists on how to provide complex information about MS escalation therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient recall rate, measured with a reliable counting system of provided and recalled information about drugs. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of information units provided by the physicians. Effects on patient involvement through questionnaires. METHODS: Patients with MS were instructed to imagine a disease development and were randomised and blinded to meet a physician to receive information on escalation therapy, before or after the physician had participated in a 3-hour training on how to provide complex information. Consultations and immediate patient recall interviews were video-recorded and transcribed verbatim. RESULTS: Patient recall rate was 0.37 (SD=0.10) pre-intervention and 0.39 (SD=0.10) post-intervention. The effect of the intervention on recall rate predicted with a general linear model covariate was not significant (coefficient parameter 0.07 (SE 0.04, 95% CI (-0.01 to 0.15)), p=0.099).The physicians tended to provide significantly fewer information units after the training, with an average of 91.0 (SD=30.3) pre-intervention and 76.5 (SD=17.4) post-intervention; coefficient parameter -0.09 (SE 0.02, 95% CI (-0.13 to -0.05)), p<0.001. There was a significant negative association between the amount of provided information and the recall rate (coefficient parameter -0.29 (SE 0.05, 95% CI (-0.39 to -0.18)), p<0.001). We found no significant effects on patient involvement using the Control Preference Scale, Collaborate or Four Habits Patient Questionnaire. CONCLUSION: A brief course for physicians on providing complex information reduced the amount of information provided, but did not improve patient recall rate. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN42739508.

How well do doctors understand a scientific article in English when it is not their first language? A randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: English is the lingua franca of science. How well doctors understand English is therefore crucial for their understanding of scientific articles. However, only 5% of the world's population have English as their first language. METHODS: Objectives: To compare doctors' comprehension of a scientific article when read in their first language (Norwegian) versus their second language (English). Our hypothesis was that doctors reading the article in Norwegian would comprehend the content better than those reading it in English. DESIGN: Parallel group randomised controlled trial. We randomised doctors to read the same clinical review article in either Norwegian or English, before completing a questionnaire about the content of the article. SETTING: Conference in primary care medicine in Norway, 2018. PARTICIPANTS: 130 native Norwegian-speaking doctors, 71 women and 59 men. One participant withdrew before responding to the questionnaire and was excluded from the analyses. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned to read a review article in either Norwegian (n=64) or English (n=66). Reading time was limited to 7 min followed by 7 min to answer a questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total score on questions related to the article content (potential range -9 to 20). RESULTS: Doctors who read the article in Norwegian had a mean total score of 10.40 (SD 3.96) compared with 9.08 (SD 3.47) among doctors who read the article in English, giving a mean difference of 1.32 (95% CI 0.03 to 2.62; p=0.046). Age was independently associated with total score, with decreased comprehension with increasing age. CONCLUSION: The difference in comprehension between the group who read in Norwegian and the group who read in English was statistically significant but modest, suggesting that the language gap in academia is possible to overcome.

Nurses' perceptions of patient participation in the myocardial infarction pathway.

Aim: To explore nurses' perceptions of patient participation in different phases of the myocardial infarction pathway. Design: Qualitative design with a hermeneutical approach. Methods: Five focus groups were conducted at two hospitals, one with and one without percutaneous coronary intervention facilities, between February-November 2018. Participants were recruited through purposive sampling. Twenty-two nurses experienced in cardiac care participated. The analysis had a hermeneutical approach. Results: The findings revealed nurses' perceptions of patient participation in different phases of the myocardial infarction pathway. Four themes were identified: (a) variation between paternalism and autonomy in the acute phase; (b) individualization of dialogue and patient participation during treatment; (c) lack of coherence in the pathway hinders patient participation at discharge; and (d) cardiac rehabilitation promotes patients' autonomous decisions in lifestyle changes.

Changes in job satisfaction among doctors in Norway from 2010 to 2017: a study based on repeated surveys.

OBJECTIVE: To assess job satisfaction for different categories of Norwegian doctors from 2010 to 2016-2017. DESIGN: Cross-sectional surveys in 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016-2017 of partly overlapping samples. SETTING: Norway from 2010 to 2016-2017. PARTICIPANTS: Doctors working in different job positions (hospital doctors, general practitioners (GPs), private practice specialists, doctors in academia). Response rates were 67% (1014/1520) in 2010, 71% (1279/1792) in 2012, 75% (1158/1545) in 2014 and 73% (1604/2195) in 2016-2017. The same 548 doctors responded at all four points in time. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Job Satisfaction Scale (JSS), a 10-item widely used instrument, with scores ranging from 1 (low satisfaction) to 7 (high satisfaction) for each item, and an unweighted mean total sum score. ANALYSIS: General Linear Modelling, controlling for gender and age, and paired t-tests. RESULTS: For all doctors, the mean scores of JSS decreased significantly from 5.52 (95% CI 5.42 to 5.61) in 2010 to 5.30 (5.22 to 5.38) in 2016-2017. The decrease was significant for GPs (5.54, 5.43 to 5.65 vs 5.17, 5.07 to 5.28) and hospital doctors (5.14, 5.07 to 5.21 vs 5.00, 4.94 to 5.06). Private practice specialists were most satisfied, followed by GPs and hospital doctors. The difference between the GPs and the private practice specialists increased over time. CONCLUSIONS: From 2010 to 2016-2017 job satisfaction for Norwegian doctors decreased, but it was still at a relatively high level. Several healthcare reforms and regulations over the last decade and changes in the professional culture may explain some of the reduced satisfaction.

Patients' narratives of their patient participation in the myocardial infarction pathway.

AIM: To explore how patients in areas without local percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) facilities experience patient participation in different phases of the myocardial infarction pathway. BACKGROUND: Acute treatment of myocardial infarction often involves PCI. In Norway, this treatment is centralized at certain hospitals; thus, patients often require long-distance transportation and experience frequent hospital transfers. Short hospital stays, transfers between hospitals and the patient's emotional state pose challenges to promoting patient participation. DESIGN: A qualitative design with a narrative approach. METHODS: Participants were recruited through purposive sampling. Eight men and two women were interviewed in 2016. FINDINGS: Four themes related to the patients' experiences at the beginning, middle and end of the pathway were identified: (a) Lack of verbal communication in the acute phase; (b) trust in healthcare professionals and treatment; (c) lack of participation and coordination at discharge; and (d) shared decision-making in rehabilitation. The findings showed how the patients moved from a low level of patient participation in the acute phase to a high level of patient participation in the rehabilitation phase. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to explore patient participation in different phases of the myocardial infarction pathway. We argue that individual plans for information and patient participation are important to improve patient involvement in an earlier stage of the pathway. Further research from a healthcare professional perspective can be valuable to understand this topic. IMPACT: This study gives new insight that can be valuable for healthcare professionals in implementing patient participation throughout the pathway.

Rapid methods including network meta-analysis to produce evidence in clinical decision support: a decision analysis.

BACKGROUND: Conducting systematic reviews is time-consuming but crucial to construct evidence-based patient decision aids, clinical practice guidelines and decision analyses. New methods might enable developers to produce a knowledge base more rapidly. However, trading off scientific rigour for speed when creating a knowledge base is controversial, and the consequences are insufficiently known. We developed and applied faster methods including systematic reviews and network meta-analyses, assessed their feasibility and compared them to a gold standard approach. We also assessed the feasibility of using decision analysis to perform this comparison. METHODS: Long-term treatment in bipolar disorder was our testing field. We developed two new methods: an empirically based, rapid network meta-analysis (NMA) and an expert NMA, and conducted a patient survey. We applied these methods to collect effect estimates for evidence-based treatments on outcomes important to patients. The relative importance of outcomes was obtained from patients using a stated preference method. We used multi-criteria decision analysis to compare a gold standard NMA with the rapid NMA in terms of the ability of the gold standard NMA to change the ranking and expected values of treatments for individual patients. RESULTS: Using rapid methods, it was feasible to identify evidence addressing outcomes important to patients. We found that replacing effect estimates from our rapid NMA with estimates from the gold standard NMA resulted in relatively small changes in the ranking and expected value of treatments. The rapid method sufficed to estimate the effects of nine out of ten options. To produce a ranking of treatments accurate for more than 95% of patients, it was necessary to supplement systematic with rapid methods and to use relative importance weights in the analysis. Integrating estimates of the outcome "treatment burden" had a larger impact on rankings than replacing rapid with gold standard methods. Using patients' importance weights only modestly affected results. CONCLUSIONS: The transfer of knowledge to practice could benefit from faster systematic reviewing methods. The results in this preliminary assessment suggest that an improved rapid NMA approach might replace gold standard NMAs. Decision analysis could be used to compare evidence summarisation methods.

The development and feasibility of a personal health-optimization system for people with bipolar disorder.

BACKGROUND: People with bipolar disorder often experience ill health and have considerably reduced life expectancies. Suboptimal treatment is common and includes a lack of effective medicines, overtreatment, and non-adherence to medical interventions and lifestyle measures. E- and m-health applications support patients in optimizing their treatment but often exhibit conceptual and technical shortcomings. The objective of this work was to develop and test the usability of a system targeting suboptimal treatment and compare the service to other genres and strategies. METHODS: Based on the frameworks of shared decision-making, multi-criteria decision analysis, and single-subject research design, we interviewed potential users, reviewed research and current approaches, and created a first version using a rapid prototyping framework. We then iteratively improved and expanded the service based on formative usability testing with patients, healthcare providers, and laypeople from Norway, the UK, and Ukraine. The evidence-based health-optimization system was developed using systematic methods. The System Usability Scale and a questionnaire were administered in formative and summative tests. A comparison of the system to current standards for clinical practice guidelines and patient decision aids was performed. RESULTS: Seventy-eight potential users identified 82 issues. Driven by user feedback, the limited first version was developed into a more comprehensive system. The current version encompasses 21 integrated core features, supporting 6 health-optimization strategies. One crucial feature enables patients and clinicians to explore the likely value of treatments based on mathematical integration of self-reported and research data and the patient's preferences. The mean ± SD (median) system usability score of the patient-oriented subsystem was 71 ± 18 (73). The mean ± SD (median) system usability score in the summative usability testing was 78 ± 18 (75), well above the norm score of 68. Feedback from the questionnaire was generally positive. Eighteen out of 23 components in the system are not required in international standards for patient decision aids and clinical practice guidelines. CONCLUSION: We have developed the first evidence-based health-optimization system enabling patients, clinicians, and caregivers to collaborate in optimizing the patient's health on a shared platform. User tests indicate that the feasibility of the system is acceptable.