ABSTRACT
Due to demographic change, the number of patients in palliative care (PC) is increasing. General Practitioners (GPs) are important PC providers who often have known their patients for a long time. PC can be demanding for GPs. However, there are few studies on the job stress factors of GPs performing PC and the potential influence of their PC training. To get more insights, a postal survey was performed with GPs in North Rhine, Germany. The questionnaire was based on a literature search, qualitative pre-studies, and the Hospital Consultants' Job Stress & Satisfaction Questionnaire (HCJSSQ). Participants state that a high level of responsibility, conflicting demands, and bureaucracy are the most important stressors they experienced in PC. The influence of PC qualification level on their perceived job stress factors is low. Only advanced but not specialist qualification shows a correlation with renumeration-related stress. Gender and work experience are more dominant influences. In our study, female GPs and physicians with more work experience tend to be more stressed. In conclusion, organisational barriers, such as administration, should be reduced and renumeration should be increased to facilitate the daily work of GPs.
Subject(s)
General Practitioners , Occupational Stress , Humans , Female , Palliative Care , Germany , Surveys and Questionnaires , Job SatisfactionABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) are important providers of palliative home care (PHC). To deliver adequate palliative care, cooperation with specialised PHC teams is necessary. Specialised PHC is a type of care for severely ill patients by specialised providers. Little is known about the involvement of German GPs in specialised PHC. OBJECTIVES: To analyse GPs' experience with realised and desired involvement in specialised PHC. Realised involvement means GPs took part in specialised PHC patients' care. Desired involvement is GPs' hoped-for cooperation with specialised PHC teams: GPs could state whether they want to stay involved, be informed, or provide medical services themselves after referral to specialised PHC. METHODS: Mixed methods design (focus group with 6 GPs; survey of 445 GPs in North Rhine, Germany, about their experiences in PHC/specialised PHC): Qualitative data was interpreted using content analysis. The authors developed a questionnaire and performed descriptive analysis based on qualitative results. RESULTS: GPs are mostly satisfied with specialised PHC teams' care, although they report cooperation is not always optimal. GPs describe a high satisfaction with quality of care by specialised PHC teams. However, physicians with higher PC knowledge are less satisfied with specialised PHC. Also, GPs are often less involved in specialised PHC than they wish, especially when they have a higher PC qualification. CONCLUSION: In general, GPs are satisfied with the quality of care provided by specialised PHC teams but GPs do not always perceive cooperation as optimal. Involvement of GPs in specialised PHC needs to be improved.
Subject(s)
General Practitioners , Home Care Services , Humans , Palliative Care/methods , Germany , Focus Groups , Attitude of Health PersonnelABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) are important providers and coordinators of palliative home care (PHC). Through this double role, their perspectives and their treatment decisions influence PHC fundamentally. This study aims to gain deeper insights into GPs' perspectives regarding PHC in North Rhine, Germany. METHODS: An explorative, semistructured focus group was conducted with 7 doctors. The researchers performed content analysis. Main topics were GPs' role definition in PHC and GPs' medical activities in PHC. RESULTS: Participating GPs describe their role in PHC, based on high motivation and positive attitudes toward PHC as a hybrid role: coordinator, provider (mostly in general PHC), and referrer (gateway to palliative care [PC] specialists). According to GPs' medical activity, participants describe moderate expertise, demanding tasks, and elaborate PHC provision for GPs. Participants stressed the importance of PC in GPs' work. But also PC is a small field in general practice. GPs' PHC benefits from the deep trust resulting from the often close and long-term GP-patient relationship. Complexity and bureaucracy of PHC structures as well as the lack of resources and multidisciplinary cooperation are named as barriers for providing PHC. The highest level of care is reached in specialized PHC, which only very few, severely impaired patients need. CONCLUSIONS: Participating GPs see themselves as important PHC providers as well as referrers and coordinators. Complexity and discontinuity in PC arrangements create challenges for their provision. Therefore, they long for reduced bureaucratic burdens.
