Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Original research article
GP perceptions of the adequacy of community-based care for patients with advanced heart failure in a UK region (NI): a qualitative study
  1. Jingwen Jessica Chen1,
  2. Kathryn Gamble1,
  3. Lisa Graham-Wisener2,
  4. Kieran McGlade1,
  5. Jennifer Doherty2,
  6. Patrick Donnelly3 and
  7. Carol A Stone2
  1. 1 Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, UK
  2. 2 Marie Curie Hospice Belfast, Belfast, UK
  3. 3 Department of Cardiology, South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust, Ulster Hospital, Dundonald, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Carol A Stone; carol.stone{at}mariecurie.org.uk

Abstract

Objective To assess the adequacy of community-based services available in Northern Ireland (NI) and to meet the multidimensional needs of patients living with New York Heart Association Stage III and IV heart failure (HF), as experienced and perceived by general practitioners (GP).

Methods Semistructured interviews were conducted with GPs recruited via the University Department of General Practice and Northern Ireland Medical and Dental Agency. Interviews were transcribed, independently coded and analysed using a six-step thematic analysis approach.

Results Twenty semistructured interviews were conducted. GPs reported managing patients in a ‘reactive rather than proactive’ way, responding only to acute medical needs, with hospital admission the default option due to lack of community-based expertise and services. Care provided by HF specialists was highly regarded but ‘access and coordination’ were lacking, related to inequity of access to Heart Failure Nursing Teams, lack of access to specialist advice and inadequate handover of information to GPs. Conversations regarding current and future care needs and preferences were important, but GPs described ‘neglecting conversations with the patient’, due to time constraints, prognostic uncertainty and fear of causing distress. They expressed the view that ‘specialist palliative care (SPC) is only a credible option in end stages’ related to limited understanding of the scope of SPC, a perception that timing of referral must depend on prognosis and concern that SPC services are cancer-focused.

Conclusions Despite the extensive body of research which evidences the unmet multidimensional needs of patients with advanced HF, and more recent evidence for the effectiveness of integrated SPC in improving quality of life for patients with HF, health and social care services within NI have not adapted to assess and meet these needs.

  • heart failure
  • general practice
  • community cardiology
  • specialist palliative care
  • communication and service provision

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors CAS, LG-W, JD, KMG and PD: study concepts and design. LG-W and CAS: protocol design. KMG and CAS: GP recruitment. JJC and KG: qualitative interviews and coding data and thematic analysis. JJC, KG, CS, LG-W and KMG: manuscript preparation, editing and review. JJC and KG contributed equally to this paper. All authors approved the final version of this manuscript.

  • Funding This work was undertaken as part of a summer studentship funded by Marie Curie and Centre for Medical Education, Queen’s University Belfast.

  • Competing interests The hospice posts of LG-W, JD and CAS are supported by Marie Curie.

  • Patient consent Not required.

  • Ethics approval Ethics Committee of the School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen’s University Belfast.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement There are no additional data available for this paper.