The hidden work of general practitioners: An ethnography.

High quality primary care is a foundational element of effective health services. Internationally, primary care physicians (general practitioners (GPs), family doctors) are experiencing significant workload pressures. How non-patient-facing work contributes to these pressures and what constitutes this work is poorly understood and often unrecognised and undervalued by patients, policy makers, and even clinicians engaged in it. This paper examines non-patient-facing work ethnographically, informed by practice theory, the Listening Guide, and empirical ethics. Ethnographic observations (104 h), in-depth interviews (n = 16; 8 with GPs and 8 with other primary care staff) and reflexive workshops were conducted in two general practices in England. Our analysis shows that 'hidden work' was integral to direct patient care, involving diverse clinical practices such as: interpreting test results; crafting referrals; and accepting interruptions from clinical colleagues. We suggest the term 'hidden care work' more accurately reflects the care-ful nature of this work, which was laden with ambiguity and clinical uncertainty. Completing hidden care work outside of expected working hours was normalised, creating feelings of inefficiency, and exacerbating workload pressure. Pushing tasks forward into an imagined future (when conditions might allow its completion) commonly led to overspill into GPs' own time. GPs experienced tension between their desire to provide safe, continuous, 'caring' care and the desire to work a manageable day, in a context of increasing demand and burgeoning complexity.

'That's as hard a decision as you will ever have to make': the experiences of people who discussed Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation on behalf of a relative during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 brought additional challenges to Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decision-making, which was already a contentious issue. In the UK, reports of poor DNACPR decision-making and communication emerged in 2020, including from the regulator, the Care Quality Commission. This paper explores the experiences of people who discussed DNACPR with a healthcare professional on behalf of a relative during the coronavirus pandemic, with the aim of identifying areas of good practice and what needs to be improved. METHODS: a total of 39 people participated in semi-structured interviews via video conferencing software or telephone. Data were evaluated using Framework Analysis. FINDINGS: results are presented around three main themes: understanding, communication and impact. Participants' understanding about DNACPR was important, as those with better understanding tended to reflect more positively on their discussions with clinicians. The role of relatives in the decision-making process was a frequent source of misunderstanding. Healthcare professionals' communication skills were important. Where discussions went well, relatives were given clear explanations and the opportunity to ask questions. However many relatives felt that conversations were rushed. DNACPR discussions can have a lasting impact-relatives reported them to be significant moments in care journeys. Many relatives perceived that they were asked to decide whether their relative should receive CPR and described enduring emotional consequences, including guilt. CONCLUSION: the pandemic has illuminated deficiencies in current practice around DNACPR discussion, which can have difficult to anticipate and lasting negative consequences for relatives. This research raises questions about the current approach to DNACPR decision-making.