Photo Credit: Master Sergeant
A qualitative study on a multicomponent general practice intervention revealed positive changes in care provision. However, concerns about financial sustainability were raised by practice staff, indicating potential challenges in maintaining the intervention without additional funding.
The following is a summary of “General Practice Staff and patient experiences of a Multicomponent Intervention for people at high risk of Poor Health Outcomes: a qualitative study,” published in the January 2024 issue of Primary Care by Javanparast, et al.
For a study, researchers sought to explore the perspectives of general practice staff and high-risk patients who participated in a clustered randomized controlled trial featuring a multicomponent general practice intervention. The intervention involved patient enrollment with a preferred General Practitioner (GP) to enhance continuity of care, access to extended GP appointments, and prompt general practice follow-up post-hospital care. They aimed to gain insights into participants’ (practice staff and patients) views on the intervention’s impact on general practice services, reduction of hospital admissions, and the perceived sustainability of the intervention post-trial.
The study employed a qualitative design with semi-structured interviews, drawing practice staff samples from both control and intervention groups. Patients were selected from those expressing interest in interviews during the trial and who had recently experienced hospital care.
Interviews were conducted with 41 practice staff and 45 patients. Both groups supported regular GP appointments and sufficient time for comprehensive care. Views on the intervention’s impact on services varied. Positive changes were noted in the proactive, thorough, and systematic provision of care with increased emphasis on team-based care involving the Practice Nurse. Patients identified after-hours care and financial considerations as key factors for seeking hospital care. Practice staff highlighted financial sustainability challenges in the absence of additional funding.
The multicomponent intervention garnered support from practice staff and patients, with some patients perceiving improvements in care. However, financial sustainability concerns were raised by practice staff, indicating potential challenges in maintaining the intervention without additional funding.
Source: bmcprimcare.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12875-023-02256-6