Threats to patient safety in primary care reported by older people with multimorbidity: baseline findings from a longitudinal qualitative study and implications for intervention

Challenges of care coordination for complex patients among family medicine residents in a community ambulatory clinic: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Care coordination has been identified as one of five focuses of HealthierSG. Family medicine residents are expected to collaborate with other healthcare professionals for complex patients by the end of residency. However, many residents felt that it was challenging to coordinate care effectively among healthcare stakeholders. However, to date, no qualitative studies have explored these challenges. Therefore, this study aimed to understand the challenges encountered by family medicine residents when coordinating care for complex patients.

METHODS

This was a qualitative descriptive study in which semi structured in-depth interviews were conducted and guided by a topic guide. Total population sampling of 15 third-year family medicine residents in the National Healthcare Group Polyclinics was performed. The interviews were performed over Zoom and were transcribed. Thematic analysis was subsequently performed to analyse the transcripts. Coding was performed iteratively by two independent researchers. Disagreements were adjudicated by a third coder. A coding framework was agreed upon. Potential themes were then independently developed based on the coding framework.

RESULTS

Six themes emerged from the data, namely, interprofessional communications, accessibility, personal knowledge, time constraints, patient factors and caregiver dissent.

CONCLUSION

Challenges faced by family medicine residents are multifaceted. While a few are systemic and pertain to the broader healthcare framework, others, such as issues of unfamiliarity with institutional workflows, community resources, and confidentiality, pertain to the microcosm of residency itself. These are reversible areas for improvement. These challenges can be addressed during planning of residency curricula to better equip family medicine residents with coordinating care for complex patients in the future.

Living with Multimorbidity through Time: A Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Longitudinal Evidence

The growing prevalence of multimorbidity places a strain on primary healthcare globally. The current study's aim was to identify, appraise, and synthesize published qualitative longitudinal research on individuals' experiences concerning living with multimorbidity through time. The authors searched two electronic databases, MEDLINE and CINAHL, and performed an additional literature search in Google Scholar. A thematic synthesis approach was used to analyze the qualitative data across the studies. A total of 10 reports that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were included in the synthesis. Five descriptive themes emerged from the analysis of the living experiences of individuals with multimorbidity: (1) perceiving multimorbidity, (2) managing chronic conditions, (3) emotional struggles in everyday life with multimorbidity, (4) interactions with the healthcare system and healthcare professionals, and (5) family support. This meta-synthesis provides insights into the diverse perceptions of multimorbidity and how individuals cope with their chronic conditions in their daily lives. The findings highlight the importance of establishing effective patient-centered care that acknowledges and supports the multifaceted needs of this population. It is also recommended to involve a psychological component in the care of individuals with multimorbidity, as part of a collaborative and interprofessional approach.

Safer Patients Empowered to Engage and Communicate about Health (SPEECH) in primary care: a feasibility study and process evaluation of an intervention for older people with multiple long-term conditions (multimorbidity)

BACKGROUND

Older people with multiple long-term conditions (multimorbidity) (MLTC-M) experience difficulties accessing and interacting with health and care services. Breakdowns in communication between patients and staff can threaten patient safety. To improve communication and reduce risks to patient safety in primary care, we developed an intervention: Safer Patients Empowered to Engage and Communicate about Health (SPEECH). SPEECH comprises a booklet for patients and an associated guide for staff. The booklet is designed to provide patients with information about staff and services, skills to prepare and explain, and confidence to speak up and ask.

METHODS

A single-arm mixed methods feasibility study with embedded process evaluation. General practices in the North West of England were recruited. Participating practices invited patients aged 65+ with MLTC-M who had an appointment scheduled during the study period. Patients were asked to complete questionnaires at baseline and follow-up (four to eight weeks after being sent the patient booklet), including the Consultation and Relational Empathy measure, Empowerment Scale, Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire, and Primary Care Patient Measure of Safety. Staff completed questionnaires at the end of the study period. A sub-sample of patients and staff were interviewed about the study processes and intervention. Patients and the public were involved in all aspects of the study, from generation of the initial idea to interpretation of findings.

RESULTS

Our target of four general practices were recruited within 50 days of the study information being sent out. A fifth practice was recruited later to boost patient recruitment. We received expressions of interest from 55 patients (approx. 12% of those invited). Our target of 40 patient participants completed baseline questionnaires and were sent the SPEECH booklet. Of these, 38 (95%) completed follow-up. Patients found the intervention and study processes acceptable, and staff found the intervention acceptable and feasible to deliver.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest the intervention is acceptable, and it would be feasible to deliver a trial to assess effectiveness. Prior to further evaluation, study processes and the intervention will be updated to incorporate suggestions from participants.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered on the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN13196605: https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN13196605 ).

Support in acute situations when a community health nurse is called: experiences of older patients, their significant others, and involved healthcare professionals- a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

Care decisions for older patients in acute situations are challenging to make, and there is limited knowledge of support in home healthcare settings, where older patients receive ongoing health care from, for example, community health nurses. Therefore, this study aimed to describe the support for all involved in acute situations when a community health nurse was called, as experienced by older patients, their significant others and healthcare professionals involved.

METHODS

The study was conducted using a phenomenological reflective lifeworld research approach, in which meanings of the study phenomenon were analyzed. The included participants were those who had been involved in acute situations. Twelve participants from four acute situations were interviewed. The participant included three older patients, one significant other, four community health nurses, one registered nurse student, one specialist in general practice, and two ambulance personnel, with one being a registered nurse and the other a specialist ambulance nurse.

RESULTS

Support in decision-making was received from the knowledge of temporality, which provided a comprehensive understanding based on past and present knowledge of the older patient. The knowledge of temporality allowed for the early detection of new symptoms and facilitated care decisions tailored to the older patient. There was a dependency on pre-existing mutual interpersonal support, and confidence developed through relational, caring, and medical competence.

CONCLUSIONS

The advantages of temporality, confidence and mutual interpersonal support in acute situations highlight the importance of enhancing relational continuity in home healthcare settings and establishing a structural collaboration among community health nurses, specialists in general practice, and ambulance personnel. This collaboration aims to provide support for making decisions regarding tailored care.

Risk factors associated with home care safety for older people with dementia: family caregivers' perspectives

BACKGROUND

Many older people with dementia currently prefer home care; however, homes are neither professionally designed nor regulated like health care facilities, and home care is more prone to safety incidents. Many studies have examined home care safety for older people with dementia. However, factors contributing to safety incidents in home care have not been adequately considered. This study explored the risk factors for home care safety for older people with dementia based on the perspective of family caregivers.

METHODS

This study used a qualitative research approach; a total of 24 family caregivers were interviewed face-to-face and semi-structured from February 2022 to May 2022, and the Colaizzi seven-step phenomenological research method was used to analyze the data and refine the themes.

RESULTS

Safety risks in home care for older people with dementia stem from five areas: poor health of older people with dementia, dementia symptoms, unsafe home environment, the insufficient caring ability of family caregivers, and lack of safety awareness of family caregivers.

CONCLUSION

The risk factors for home care safety for older people with dementia are complex. And as the primary caregivers of older people with dementia, the caregiving ability and safety awareness of family caregivers primarily determine the safety of home care for older people with dementia. Therefore, when addressing home care safety for older people with dementia, the focus should be on providing targeted education programs and support services for family caregivers of older people with dementia.

Interventions and management on multimorbidity: An overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Multimorbidity poses an immense burden on the healthcare systems globally, whereas the management strategies and guidelines for multimorbidity are poorly established. We aim to synthesize current evidence on interventions and management of multimorbidity.

METHODS

We searched four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews). Systematic reviews (SRs) on interventions or management of multimorbidity were included and evaluated. The methodological quality of each SR was assessed by the AMSTAR-2 tool, and the quality of evidence on the effectiveness of interventions was assessed by the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) system.

RESULTS

A total of 30 SRs (464 unique underlying studies) were included, including 20 SRs of interventions and 10 SRs summarizing evidence on management of multimorbidity. Four categories of interventions were identified: patient-level interventions, provider-level interventions, organization-level interventions, and combined interventions (combining the aforementioned two or three- level components). The outcomes were categorized into six types: physical conditions/outcomes, mental conditions/outcomes, psychosocial outcomes/general health, healthcare utilization and costs, patients' behaviors, and care process outcomes. Combined interventions (with patient-level and provider-level components) were more effective in promoting physical conditions/outcomes, while patient-level interventions were more effective in promoting mental conditions/outcomes and psychosocial outcomes/general health. As for healthcare utilization and care process outcomes, organization-level and combined interventions (with organization-level components) were more effective. The challenges in the management of multimorbidity at the patient, provider and organizational levels were also summarized.

CONCLUSION

Combined interventions for multimorbidity at different levels would be favored to promote different types of health outcomes. Challenges exist in the management at the patient, provider, and organization levels. Therefore, a holistic and integrated approach of patient-, provider- and organization- level interventions is required to address the challenges and optimize care of patients with multimorbidity.

Patient perspectives on primary care for multimorbidity: An integrative review

INTRODUCTION

Improving healthcare for people with multiple chronic or ongoing conditions is receiving increased attention, particularly due to the growing number of people experiencing multimorbidity (MM) and concerns about the sustainability of the healthcare system. Primary care has been promoted as an important resource for supporting people with MM to live well with their conditions and to prevent unnecessary use of health care services. However, traditional primary care has been criticized for not centring the needs and preferences of people with MM themselves. Our aim was to conduct a review that centred on the perspective of people with MM in multiple ways, including having patient partners co-lead the design, conduct and reporting of findings, and focusing on literature that reported the perspective of people with MM, irrespective of it being experimental or nonexperimental.

METHODS

We searched for published literature in CINAHL with Full Text (EBSCOhost) and MEDLINE All (Ovid). Findings from experimental and nonexperimental studies were integrated into collaboration with patient partners.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine articles were included in the review. Findings are described in five categories: (1) Care that is tailored to my unique situation; (2) meaningful inclusion in the team; (3) a healthcare team that is ready and able to address my complex needs; (4) supportive relationships and (5) access when and where I need it.

CONCLUSION

This review supports a reorientation of primary care systems to better reflect the experiences and perspectives of people with MM. This can be accomplished by involving patient partners in the design and evaluation of primary care services and incentivizing collaboration among health and social supports and services for people with MM.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patient partners were involved in the design and conduct of this review, and in the preparation of the manuscript. Their involvement is further elucidated in the manuscript text.

Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 6: Longitudinal qualitative and mixed-methods approaches for longitudinal and complex health themes in primary care research

This article, the sixth in a series aiming to provide practical guidance for qualitative research in primary care, introduces two approaches for addressing longitudinal and complex health themes in primary care research. The first approach – longitudinal qualitative research – supports the study of change during the life course. The second approach – mixed-methods research – integrates quantitative and qualitative research to gain new insights to address the complex and multifaceted themes in primary care.

We discuss the context, what, why, when and how of these approaches and their main practical and methodological challenges. We provide examples of empirical studies using these approaches and sources for further reading.

Ethnic Inequalities in Healthcare Use and Care Quality among People with Multiple Long-Term Health Conditions Living in the United Kingdom: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis

Indicative evidence suggests that the prevalence of multiple long-term conditions (i.e., conditions that cannot be cured but can be managed with medication and other treatments) may be higher in people from minoritised ethnic groups when compared to people from the White majority population. Some studies also suggest that there are ethnic inequalities in healthcare use and care quality among people with multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs). The aims of this review are to (1) identify and describe the literature that reports on ethnicity and healthcare use and care quality among people with MLTCs in the UK and (2) examine how healthcare use and/or care quality for people with MLTCs compares across ethnic groups. We registered the protocol on PROSPERO (CRD42020220702). We searched the following databases up to December 2020: ASSIA, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Web of Science core collection. Reference lists of key articles were also hand-searched for relevant studies. The outcomes of interest were patterns of healthcare use and care quality among people with MLTCs for at least one minoritised ethnic group, compared to the White majority population in the UK. Two reviewers, L.B. and B.H., screened and extracted data from a random sample of studies (10%). B.H. independently screened and extracted data from the remaining studies. Of the 718 studies identified, 14 were eligible for inclusion. There was evidence indicating ethnic inequalities in disease management and emergency admissions among people with MLTCs in the five studies that counted more than two long-term conditions. Compared to their White counterparts, Black and Asian children and young people had higher rates of emergency admissions. Black and South Asian people were found to have suboptimal disease management compared to other ethnic groups. The findings suggest that for some minoritised ethnic group people with MLTCs there may be inadequate initiatives for managing health conditions and/or a need for enhanced strategies to reduce ethnic inequalities in healthcare. However, the few studies identified focused on a variety of conditions across different domains of healthcare use, and many of these studies used broad ethnic group categories. As such, further research focusing on MLTCs and using expanded ethnic categories in data collection is needed.

Patient perceptions of safety in primary care: a qualitative study to inform care

Patients' perspectives on patient safety have rarely been incorporated into quality initiatives in primary care. Our objective was to understand the patient perspective on patient safety in patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs). We conducted 12 patient focus groups/interviews in nine sites with 65 patients at a geographically diverse sample of National Committee on Quality Assurance Level 3 recognized PCMHs across three states. Using a patient safety framework, we coded and analyzed interviews for overarching themes and subthemes across patient safety domains. Overarching themes focused on (1) both clear and timely communication with and between clinicians and (2) trust in the care team, including being heard, respected, and treated as a whole person. Other themes important to specific patient safety domains included sharing of and access to information, patient education and patient-centered medication reconciliation process, clear documentation for the diagnostic process, patient-centered comprehensive visits, and timeliness of care. Communication and trust are key to patient perceptions of safe primary care. Focusing on these themes across safety domains may help to make primary care both more patient-centered and safer, and should be considered in future ambulatory safety initiatives.

Involving older people with multimorbidity in decision-making about their primary healthcare: A Cochrane systematic review of interventions (abridged)

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of interventions aimed at involving older people with multimorbidity in decision-making about their healthcare during primary care consultations.

METHODS

Cochrane methodological procedures were applied. Searches covered all relevant trial registries and databases. Randomised controlled trials were identified where interventions had been compared with usual care/ control/ another intervention. A narrative synthesis is presented; meta-analysis was not appropriate.

RESULTS

8160 abstracts and 54 full-text articles were screened. Three studies were included, involving 1879 patient participants. Interventions utilised behaviour change theory; cognitive-behavioural therapy and motivational interviewing; multidisciplinary, holistic patient review and organisational changes. No studies reported the primary outcome 'patient involvement in decision-making about their healthcare'. Patient involvement was evident in the theory underpinning interventions. Certainty of evidence (assessed using GRADE) was limited by small studies and inconsistency in secondary outcomes measured.

CONCLUSION

The evidence base is currently too limited to interpret with certainty. Transparency in design and consistency in evaluation, using validated measures, is required for future interventions involving older patients with multimorbidity in decisions about their healthcare.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

There is a large gap between clinical guidelines for multimorbidity and an evidence base for implementation of their recommendations during primary care consultations with older people.

Facilitators and barriers of managing patients with multiple chronic conditions in the community: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Approximately one-third of all adults worldwide are diagnosed with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). The literature has identified several challenges facing providers and patients coping with managing MCCs in the community, yet few studies have considered their viewpoints in combination. A qualitative study involving healthcare providers and users was thus conducted to examine facilitators and barriers of managing patients with MCCs in the community in Singapore.

METHODS

This study involves 26 semi-structured interviews with 10 physicians, 2 caregivers and 14 patients seeking treatment in the polyclinics that provide subsidised primary care services. Topic guides were developed with reference to the literature review, Chronic Care Model (CCM) and framework for patient-centred access to healthcare.

RESULTS

Despite the perceived affordability and availability of the support system, some patients still encountered financial difficulties in managing care. These include inadequacy of the nation-wide medical savings scheme to cover outpatient treatment and medications. Half of healthcare users did not know where to seek help. While patients could access comprehensive services in polyclinics, those who did not visit the clinics might not receive timely care. Furthermore, patients reported long consultation waiting time. Physicians were able to propose and drive quality improvement projects to improve care quality. However, there were challenges to delivering safe and quality care with limited consultation duration due to the need to manage high patient load and waiting time, inadequate communication with specialists to coordinate care, and resource constraints in managing complex patients. Although providers could equip patients with self-management and lifestyle-related guidelines, patients' actions are influenced by multiple factors, including work requirements, beliefs and environment.

CONCLUSIONS

There were barriers on care access, delivery and self-management. It is crucial to adopt a whole-of-society approach involving individuals, community, institutions and policymakers to improve and support MCC management. This study has also highlighted the importance of considering the different viewpoints of healthcare providers and users in policy formulation and community care planning.

Engaging older adults in self-management talk in healthcare encounters: a systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of complex chronic conditions in older adults encourage healthcare providers to engage patients in shared decision-making about self-management goals and actions. Yet, healthcare decision-making and communication for this population can pose significant challenges. As a result, healthcare professionals may struggle to help patients define and prioritise their values, goals, and preferences in ways that are clinically and personally meaningful, incorporating physical functioning and quality of life, when faced with numerous diagnostic and treatment alternatives. The aim of this systematic review is to locate and synthesise a body of fine-grained observational research on communication between professionals, older adults, and carers regarding self-management in audio/audio-visually recorded naturalistic interactions.

METHODS/DESIGN

The paper describes a systematic review of the published conversation analytic and discourse analytic research, using an aggregative thematic approach and following the PRISMA-P guidelines. This review will include studies reporting on adult patients (female or male) aged ≥ 60 years whose consultations are conducted in English in any healthcare setting and stakeholders involved in their care, e.g. general practitioners, nurses, allied health professionals, and family carers. We will search nine electronic databases and the grey literature and two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts to identify potential studies. Discrepancies will be resolved via consultation with the review team. The methodological quality of the final set of included studies will be appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research and a detailed description of the characteristics of the included studies using a customised template.

DISCUSSION

This is the first systematic review to date to locate and synthesise the conversation analytic research on how healthcare professionals raise and pursue talk about self-management with older adults in routine clinical interactions. Amalgamating these findings will enable the identification of effective and potentially trainable communication practices for engaging older adults in healthcare decision-making about the self-management goals and actions that enable the greatest possible health and quality of life in older adulthood.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019139376.

Interventions for involving older patients with multi-morbidity in decision-making during primary care consultations

BACKGROUND

Older patients with multiple health problems (multi-morbidity) value being involved in decision-making about their health care. However, they are less frequently involved than younger patients. To maximise quality of life, day-to-day function, and patient safety, older patients require support to identify unmet healthcare needs and to prioritise treatment options.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions for older patients with multi-morbidity aiming to involve them in decision-making about their health care during primary care consultations.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; all years to August 2018), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1966 to August 2018); Embase (OvidSP) (1988 to August 2018); PsycINFO (OvidSP) (1806 to August 2018); the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (Ovid) (1982 to September 2008), then in Ebsco (2009 to August 2018); Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Databases (Database of Abstracts and Reviews of Effects (DARE)) (all years to August 2018); the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database (all years to August 2018); the Ongoing Reviews Database (all years to August 2018); and Dissertation Abstracts International (1861 to August 2018).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, and quasi-RCTs of interventions to involve patients in decision-making about their health care versus usual care/control/another intervention, for patients aged 65 years and older with multi-morbidity in primary care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Meta-analysis was not possible; therefore we prepared a narrative synthesis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three studies involving 1879 participants: two RCTs and one cluster-RCT. Interventions consisted of: · patient workshop and individual coaching using behaviour change techniques; · individual patient coaching utilising cognitive-behavioural therapy and motivational interviewing; and · holistic patient review, multi-disciplinary practitioner training, and organisational change. No studies reported the primary outcome 'patient involvement in decision-making' or the primary adverse outcome 'less patient involvement as a result of the intervention'. Comparing interventions (patient workshop and individual coaching, holistic patient review plus practitioner training, and organisational change) to usual care: we are uncertain whether interventions had any effect on patient reports of high self-rated health (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 5.49; very low-certainty evidence) or on patient enablement (mean difference (MD) 0.60, 95% CI -9.23 to 10.43; very low-certainty evidence) compared with usual care. Interventions probably had no effect on health-related quality of life (adjusted difference in means 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; moderate-certainty evidence) or on medication adherence (MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.17; moderate-certainty evidence) but probably improved the number of patients discussing their priorities (adjusted odds ratio 1.85, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.38; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably increased the number of nurse consultations (incident rate ratio from adjusted multi-level Poisson model 1.37, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.61; moderate-certainty evidence) compared with usual care. Practitioner outcomes were not measured. Interventions were not reported to adversely affect rates of participant death or anxiety, emergency department attendance, or hospital admission compared with usual care. Comparing interventions (patient workshop and coaching, individual patient coaching) to attention-control conditions: we are uncertain whether interventions affect patient-reported high self-rated health (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.00, favouring attention control, with very low-certainty evidence; RR 2.17, 95% CI 0.85 to 5.52, favouring the intervention, with very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether interventions affect patient enablement and engagement by increasing either patient activation (MD 1.20, 95% CI -8.21 to 10.61; very low-certainty evidence) or self-efficacy (MD 0.29, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.79; very low-certainty evidence); or whether interventions affect the number of general practice visits (MD 0.51, 95% CI -0.34 to 1.36; very low-certainty evidence), compared to attention-control conditions. The intervention may however lead to more patient-reported changes in management of their health conditions (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.44; low-certainty evidence). Practitioner outcomes were not measured. Interventions were not reported to adversely affect emergency department attendance nor hospital admission when compared with attention control. Comparing one form of intervention with another: not measured. There was 'unclear' risk across studies for performance bias, detection bias, and reporting bias; however, no aspects were 'high' risk. Evidence was downgraded via GRADE, most often because of 'small sample size' and 'evidence from a single study'.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Limited available evidence does not allow a robust conclusion regarding the objectives of this review. Whilst patient involvement in decision-making is seen as a key mechanism for improving care, it is rarely examined as an intervention and was not measured by included studies. Consistency in design, analysis, and evaluation of interventions would enable a greater likelihood of robust conclusions in future reviews.

Dementia and patient safety in the community: a qualitative study of family carers' protective practices and implications for services

BACKGROUND

Dementia is a cause of disability and dependency associated with high demands for health services and expected to have a significant impact on resources. Care policies worldwide increasingly rely on family caregivers to contribute to service delivery for older people, and the general direction of health care policy internationally is to provide care in the community, meaning most people will receive services there. Patient safety in primary care is therefore important for future care, but not yet investigated sufficiently when services are carried out in patients' homes. In particular, we know little about how family carers experience patient safety of older people with dementia in the community.

METHODS

This was an explorative study, with qualitative in-depth interviews of 23 family carers of older people with suspected or diagnosed dementia. Family carers participated after receiving information primarily through health professionals working in dementia care. A semi-structured topic guide was used in a flexible way to capture participants' experiences. A four-step inductive analysis of the transcripts was informed by hermeneutic-phenomenological analysis.

RESULTS

The ways our participants sought to address risk and safety issues can be understood to constitute protective practices that aimed to prevent or reduce the risk of harm and/or alleviate damage from harm that occurs. The protective practices relate to four areas: physical harm, economic harm, emotional harm, and relational harm. The protective practices are interlinked, and family carers sometimes prioritize one over another, and as they form part of family practice, they are not always visible to service providers. As a result, the practices may complicate interactions with health professionals and even inadvertently conceal symptoms or care needs.

CONCLUSIONS

When family caregivers prevent harm and meet needs, some needs may be concealed or invisible to health professionals. To recognize all needs and provide effective, safe and person-centered care, health professionals need to recognize these preventive practices and seek to build a solid partnership with family carers.

Investigating the feasibility of a patient feedback tool to improve safety in Australian primary care: a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Patients are a valuable source of information about ways to prevent harm in healthcare, and can provide feedback about the factors that contribute to safety incidents. The Primary Care Patient Measure of Safety (PC PMOS) is a novel and validated tool that captures patient feedback on safety and can be used by primary care practice teams to identify and prevent safety incidents. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility of PC PMOS as a tool for data-driven safety improvement and monitoring in Australian primary care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Feasibility will be assessed using a mixed-methods approach to understand the enablers, barriers, acceptability, practicability, intervention fidelity and scalability of C PMOS as a tool for safety improvement across six primary care practices in the south-west region of Victoria. Patients over the age of 18 years attending their primary care practice will be invited to complete the PC PMOS when presenting for an appointment. Staff members at each practice will form a safety improvement team. Staff will then use the patient feedback to develop and implement specific safety interventions over a 6-month period. Data collection methods during the intervention period includes audio recordings of staff meetings, overt observations at training and education workshops, reflexive researcher insights, document collection and review. Data collection postintervention includes patient completion of the PC PMOS and semistructured interviews with staff. Triangulation and thematic analysis techniques will be employed to analyse the qualitative and content data. Analysis methods will use current evidence and models of healthcare culture, safety improvement and patient involvement in safety to inform the findings.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was granted by Deakin University Human Ethics Advisory Group, Faculty of Health (HEAG-H 175_2017). Study results will be disseminated through local and international conferences and peer-reviewed publications.

Trends in multimorbidity and polypharmacy in the Flemish-Belgian population between 2000 and 2015

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this paper was to describe the time trends in the prevalence of multimorbidity and polypharmacy in Flanders (Belgium) between 2000 and 2015, while controlling for age and sex.

METHODS

Data were available from Intego, a Flemish-Belgian general practice-based morbidity registration network. The practice population between 2000 and 2015 was used as the denominator, representing a mean of 159,946 people per year. Age and gender-standardised prevalence rates were used for the trends of multimorbidity and polypharmacy in the total population and for subgroups. Joinpoint regression analyses were used to analyse the time trends and breaks in trends, for the entire population as well as for specific age and sex groups.

RESULTS

Overall, in 2015, 22.7% of the population had multimorbidity, while the overall prevalence of polypharmacy was 20%. Throughout the study period the standardised prevalence rate of multimorbidity rose for both sexes and in all age groups. The largest relative increase in multimorbidity was observed in the younger age groups (up to the age of 50 years). The prevalence of polypharmacy showed a significant increase between 2000 and 2015 for all age groups except the youngest (0-25 years).

CONCLUSION

For all adult age groups multimorbidity and polypharmacy are frequent, dynamic over time and increasing. This asks for both epidemiological and interventional studies to improve the management of the resulting complex care.

Safety work and risk management as burdens of treatment in primary care: insights from a focused ethnographic study of patients with multimorbidity

Background

In primary health care, patient safety failures can arise in service access, doctor-patient relationships, communication between care providers, relational and management continuity, or technical procedures. Through the lens of multimorbidty, and using qualitative ethnographic methods, our study aimed to illuminate safety issues in primary care.

Methods

Data were triangulated from electronic health records (EHRs); observation of primary care consultations; annual interviews with patients, (informal) care providers and GPs. A thematic analysis of observation, interview and field note material sought to describe the patient safety issues encountered and any associated factors or processes. A more detailed longitudinal description of 6 cases was used to contextualise safety issues identified in observation, interviews and EHRs.

Results

Twenty-six patients were recruited. Events which could lead to harm were found in all areas of a framework based on published literature. “Under” and “over” consultation as a precursor of safety failures emerged through thematic analysis of observation and interview material. Other findings concerned workload (for doctors and patients) and the limitations of short consultation times. There were differences in health data collected directly from the patients versus that found in EHRs. Examples included reference to a stroke history and diagnoses for CKD and hypertension. Case study analysis revealed specific issues which appeared contextual to safety concerns, mostly around the management of polypharmacy and patient medication adherence. Clinical imperatives appear around risk management, but the study findings point to a potential conflict with patient expectations around investigation, diagnosis and treatment.

Discussion

Patient safety work involves further burdens on top of existing workload for both clinicians and patients. In this conceptualisation, safety work seemingly forms part of a negative feedback loop with patient safety itself. A line of argument drawn from the triangulation of findings from different sources, points to a tension between the desirability of a minimally disruptive medicine versus safety risks possibly associated with ‘under’ or ‘over’ consultation. Multimorbidity acts as a magnifier of tensions in the delivery of health services and quality care in general practice. More attention should be put on system design than patient or professional behaviour.