Abstract
Background
Clinical governance is an essential aspect of primary care. In Monza Brianza (ASLMB), Italy, the Local Health Authority implemented clinical pathways on an experimental basis since 2005 to enhance the care of patients suffering from chronic diseases by general practitioners (GPs). The objective was to introduce clinical governance in primary care, increase the participation of GPs in their patients' care and improve satisfaction levels of both patients and professionals. Initially, 12% of the 763 GPs employed by ASLMB participated in the experiment in 2005-2006, which increased to 15-20% in 2007-2008.
Methodology
To assess the perception of the GPs who participated in the experiment, 24 GPs were purposively sampled and randomly divided into two groups. In 2008, these GPs were asked to attend focus groups (FGs). The purpose of these FGs was to evaluate their experiences of the experiment. The FGs were audio-recorded, and the dialogues were transcribed and analyzed thematically, using the Interpretative Phenomenological Approach.
Results
Four major themes emerged: i) clinical pathways can result in GPs working in a more efficient and effective fashion; ii) they can assure higher levels of both patient and professional satisfaction, since they sustain a caring approach and strengthen the GPs’ role; iii) nevertheless, clinical pathways increase the bureaucratic workload and problems can arise in relationships among GPs and the LHA; iv) the implementation of clinical pathways can be improved, especially by reducing bureaucracy and by assuring their continuity.
Conclusions
Managerial aspects should be considered with care in order to experimentally introduce clinical pathways in general practice, and continuity of the experimentation should be guaranteed to improve GPs’ adherence and commitment.
References
1. Starfield B, Shi L, Macinko J. Contribution of primary care to health systems and health. The Milbank Q 2005;83:457–502.
2. WHO. Primary health care now more than ever. 2008, WHO Publ., Geneva.
3. Ministero della Salute. Piano Sanitario Nazionale 2011-2013. Available from: http://www.salute.gov.it/pubblicazioni/ppRisultatiPSN.jsp
4. Kendall E, Sunderland N, Muenchberger H, Armstrong K. When guidelines need guidance: consideration and strategies for improving the adoption of chronic disease evidence by general practitcioners. J Eval Clin Pract 2009;15:1082–90.
5. Halbert R, Isonaka S. International primary care respiratory group (IPCRG) guidelines: integrating diagnostic guidelines for managing chronic respiratory diseases in primary care. Prim Care Respir J 2006;15:13–9.
6. Majumadar S, McAlister F, Furberg C. From knowledge to practice in chronic cardiovascular disease: a long and winding road. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;43:1738–42.
7. Saunders M, Schattner P, Mathews M. Diabetes ‘cycles of care’ in general practice. Do government incentives help? Aust Fam Physician 2008;37:781–4.
8. Post EP, Kilboure AM, Bremer RW, et al. Organizational factors and depression managment in community-based primary care settings. Implement Sci 2009:4:84.
9. Sanders T, Foster NE, Ong BN. Perceptions of general practitioners towards the use of a new system for treating back pain: a qualitative interview study. BMC Med 2011;9:49.
10. Armstrong D. Clinical autonomy, individual and collective: the problem of changing doctors’ behaviour. Soc Sci Med 2002;55:1771–7.
11. Jones R, Hunt C, Stevens R, et al. Management of common gastrointestinal disorders: quality criteria based on patients’ views and practice guidelines. Br J Gen Pract 2009;59:415–21.
12. Donzelli A, Sghedoni D, Carelli F, et al. The clinical pathay for hypertensive patient of local health unit, hospitals and general practitioners, the Milan experience. Rev Recent Clin Trials 2011;6:16–23.
13. Checkland K. National Service Frameworks and UK general practitioners: street level bureaucrats at work? Sociol Health Ill 2004;26:951–75.
14. Auxilia F, Peduzzi P, Lopiccoli S, Vazzoler C. Percorsi di diagnosi e cura. Cure primarie e politiche sanitarie. Prospettive Sociali e Sanitarie 2011;9-10:6–10.
15. García MG, Mújica MP, Martínez Ocaña GC, et al. Results of a coordination and shared clinical information programme between primary care and nephrology. Nefrologia 2011;31:84–90.
16. Mitchell EA, Didsbury PB, Kruithof N, et al. A randomized controlled trial of an asthma clinical pathway for children in general practice. Acta Paediatr 2005;94:226–33.
17. Peduzzi P, Lopiccoli S. Governo clinico dei percorsi di diagnosi e cura. ASL 3, Regione Lombardia. 2008. Available from: http://www.aslmonzabrianza.it
18. Denzin NK, Lincoln Y. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2005, SAGE Publ., Thousand Oaks, USA.
19. Smith JA, Flowers P, Larkin M. Interpretative phenomenological analysis. Theory, Method and Research. 2009, SAGE Publ., London, UK.
20. Mezirow J. Transformative dimensions of adult learning. 1991, Jossey Bass Publ., San Francisco, USA.
21. Schön DA. Educating the reflective practitioner. 1991, Jossey Bass Publ., San Francisco, USA.
22. Corrao S. Il focus group. 2005, Franco Angeli Ed., Milano, Italy.
23. Zammuner V. I focus group. 2003, Franco Angeli Ed., Milano, Italy.
24. Cabana MD, Ebel BE, , Cooper-Patrick L, et al. Barriers paediatricians face when using asthma practice guidelines. Arch Paediat Adol Med 2000;155:419–20.
25. Fairhurst K, Huby G. From trial data to practical knowledge: qualitative study of how general practitioners have accessed and used evidence about statin drugs in their management of hypercholesterolemia. BMJ 1998;317:1130.
26. Hutchinson A, McIntosh A, Cox S, Gilbert C. Towards efficient guidelines: how to monitor guideline use in primary care. Health Technol Asses 2003;7:18.
27. Wiener-Ogilvie S, Huby G, Pinnock H, et al. Practice organizational characteristics can impact on compliance with the BTS/SIGN asthma guideline: Qualitative comparative case study in primary care. BMC Fam Pract 2008;9:32.