Profile of Irish female GPs and factors affecting long-term commitment: a descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: Over the last two decades, many countries have reported an increased percentage of females in the general practice workforce. Considering the importance of general practice workforce planning, it is necessary to investigate the current working patterns of female GPs. AIM: To describe the female GP workforce in Ireland and to investigate factors that may impact their long-term commitment to general practice. DESIGN & SETTING: Descriptive, cross-sectional study conducted with female GPs in Ireland. METHOD: A 'Membership survey' was emailed to 1985 female GPs in November 2021. In total 345 female GPs responded, providing a response rate of 17.4%. RESULTS: The study revealed that a majority of the female GP workforce in Ireland worked in the position of the GP principal (62.3%), but also provided OOH services (65%), and undertook caring responsibilities (85%). In total 52% of the respondents disclosed having at least one paid additional role, mainly in the field of academia and teaching. Most female GPs worked less than eight clinical sessions a week (80.5%). GPs who held GMS contracts (73.0%) were significantly more likely to work more clinical sessions a week and had been longer employed in general practices (>5 years), in comparison with GPs who do not have GMS contracts. CONCLUSION: Irish female GPs demonstrated a significant adjustment of their working patterns, including reducing the number of clinical sessions and balancing between additional roles, to ensure their long-term commitment to general practice. Current practices and vision on GP roles must be recognised and supported to allow for adequate workforce planning.

GP preferences for, access to, and use of evidence in clinical practice: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: GPs aim to provide patient-centred care combining clinical evidence, clinical judgement, and patient priorities. Despite a recognition of the need to translate evidence to support patient care, barriers exist to the use of evidence in practice. AIM: To ascertain the needs and preferences of GPs regarding evidence-based guidance to support patient care. The study also aimed to prioritise content and optimise structure and dissemination of future evidence-based guidance. DESIGN & SETTING: This was a convergent parallel mixed-methods study in collaboration with the national GP professional body in the Republic of Ireland (Irish College of General Practitioners [ICGP]). Quantitative and qualitative findings were integrated at the interpretive level. METHOD: A national GP survey was administered via the ICGP (December 2020) and seven GP focus groups were undertaken (April-May 2021). RESULTS: Of 3496 GPs, a total of 509 responders (14.6%) completed the survey and 40 GP participants took part in focus groups. Prescribing updates, interpretation of test results, chronic disease management, and older person care were the preferred topics for future evidence-based guidance. GPs reported that they required rapid access to up-to-date and relevant evidence summaries online for use in clinical practice. Access to more comprehensive reviews for the purposes of continuing education and teaching was also a priority. Multimodal forms of dissemination were preferred to increase uptake of evidence in practice. CONCLUSION: GPs indicated that rapid access to up-to-date, summarised evidence-based resources, available from their professional organisation, is preferred. Evidence should reflect the disease burden of the population and involve multifaceted dissemination approaches.

A scoping review of evidence-based guidance and guidelines published by general practice professional organizations.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) need robust, up-to-date evidence to deliver high-quality patient care. There is limited literature regarding the role of international GP professional organizations in developing and publishing clinical guidelines to support GPs clinical decision making. OBJECTIVE: To identify evidence-based guidance and clinical guidelines produced by GP professional organizations and summarize their content, structure, and methods of development and dissemination. METHODS: Scoping review of GP professional organizations following Joanna Briggs Institute guidance. Four databases were searched and a grey literature search was conducted. Studies were included if they were: (i) evidence-based guidance documents or clinical guidelines produced de novo by a national GP professional organization, (ii) developed to support GPs clinical care, and (iii) published in the last 10 years. GP professional organizations were contacted to provide supplementary information. A narrative synthesis was performed. RESULTS: Six GP professional organizations and 60 guidelines were included. The most common de novo guideline topics were mental health, cardiovascular disease, neurology, pregnancy and women's health and preventive care. All guidelines were developed using a standard evidence-synthesis method. All included documents were disseminated through downloadable pdfs and peer review publications. GP professional organizations indicated that they generally collaborate with or endorse guidelines developed by national or international guideline producing bodies. CONCLUSION: The findings of this scoping review provide an overview of de novo guideline development by GP professional organizations and can support collaboration between GP organizations worldwide thus reducing duplication of effort, facilitating reproducibility, and identifying areas of standardization. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/JXQ26.

A scoping review protocol of evidence-based guidance and guidelines published by general practitioner professional organisations.

Introduction: General practitioners (GPs) strive to use a patient centred approach to achieve shared decision making by integrating clinical evidence, clinical judgement, and patient priorities. This protocol outlines a scoping review to identify what evidence-based guidance is produced by general practitioner professional organisations internationally to support general practice clinical decision making. Methods: This scoping review will be conducted using the framework proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), will be used to guide the reporting. Two researchers will search electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Scopus), grey literature sources and contact international GP professional organisations directly to identify appropriate studies for inclusion. Key information will be categorised and classified to generate a summary of the methods used internationally to develop and implement evidence-based guides for general practitioners and a narrative synthesis will be conducted. Conclusions: This scoping review will identify the role of GP professional organisations in generating, endorsing and/or disseminating evidence-based guidance for supporting general practitioner's clinical decision making to benefit patient care.

Validation of phlebotomy performance metrics developed as part of a proficiency-based progression initiative to mitigate wrong blood in tube.

AIMS: The purpose of this study was to (1) characterise the procedure of phlebotomy, deconstruct it into its constituent parts and develop a performance metric for the purpose of training healthcare professionals in a large teaching hospital and to (2) evaluate the construct validity of the phlebotomy metric and establish a proficiency benchmark. METHOD: By engaging with a multidisciplinary team with a wide range of experience of preanalytical errors in phlebotomy and observing video recordings of the procedure performed in the actual working environment, we defined a performance metric. This was brought to a modified Delphi meeting, where consensus was reached by an expert panel. To demonstrate construct validity, we used the metric to objectively assess the performance of novices and expert practitioners. RESULTS: A phlebotomy metric consisting of 11 phases and 77 steps was developed. The mean inter-rater reliability was 0.91 (min 0.83, max 0.95). The expert group completed more steps of the procedure (72 vs 69), made fewer errors (19 vs 13, p=0.014) and fewer critical errors (1 Vs 4, p=0.002) than the novice group. CONCLUSIONS: The metrics demonstrated construct validity and the proficiency benchmark was established with a minimum observation of 69 steps, with no critical errors and no more than 13 errors in total.