Physicians' experiences, attitudes, and beliefs towards medical cannabis: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of countries legalise the use of medical cannabis or allow it for a narrow range of medical conditions. Physicians, and often the patients' general practitioner, play a major role in implementing this policy. Many of them, however, perceive a lack of evidence-based knowledge and are not confident with providing patients with medical cannabis. The objectives of this review are to synthesise findings about hospital physicians' and GPs' experiences, attitudes, and beliefs towards the use of medical cannabis with the purpose of identifying barriers and facilitators towards providing it to their patients. METHODS: Peer-reviewed articles addressing hospital physicians' and GPs' experiences, attitudes, and beliefs towards the use of medical cannabis were searched systematically in PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. RESULTS: Twenty-one articles were included from five different countries in which the medical cannabis laws varied. The studied physicians experienced frequent inquiries about medical cannabis from their patients (49-95%), and between 10 and 95% of the physicians were willing to prescribe and/or provide it to the patients, depending on setting, specialty and experience among the physicians. This review found that physicians experienced in prescribing medical cannabis were more convinced of its benefits and less worried about adverse effects than non-experienced physicians. However, physicians specialized in addiction treatment and certain relevant indication areas seemed more sceptical compared to physicians in general. Nevertheless, physicians generally experienced a lack of knowledge of clinical effects including both beneficial and adverse effects. CONCLUSION: This review indicates that GPs and hospital physicians from various specialties frequently experience patient demands for medical cannabis and to some degree show openness to using it, although there was a wide gap between studies in terms of willingness to provide. Hospital physicians and GPs' experienced in prescribing are more convinced of effects and less worried of adverse effects. However, most physicians experience a lack of knowledge of beneficial effects, adverse effects and of how to advise patients, which may comprise barriers towards prescribing. More research, including larger studies with cohort designs and qualitative studies, is needed to further examine facilitators and barriers to physicians' prescribing practices.

Does accreditation of general practice promote patient-reported quality of care? A natural cluster randomised experiment.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether accreditation of general practice in Denmark promotes patient-reported quality of care and patient satisfaction. DESIGN: A national cluster randomised case control study based on an online version of the Danish Patients Evaluate Practice questionnaire. Mixed effects ordered logit regression models taking account of clustering of patients in different municipalities were used in the analyses. SETTING: General practice in Denmark. PARTICIPANTS: A representative sample of the Danish population. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was patient-reported quality of care, and patient satisfaction with general practice and patient satisfaction with the general practitioner served as secondary outcome measures. RESULTS: In total, 3609 respondents answered the survey. We found no statistically significant relationships between patient-reported quality of care and practice accreditation (2016: OR=0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.07 and 2017: OR=0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.02) and between patient satisfaction with the general practitioner and accreditation (2016: OR=0.93, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.13 and 2017: OR=0.86, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.04). However, there was a statistically significant negative relationship between patient satisfaction with the general practice and recent practice accreditation compared with satisfaction with practices not yet accredited (OR=0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.97) but no significant relationship between patient satisfaction with the general practice and previous accreditation (OR=0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.09). CONCLUSION: Accreditation does not promote patient-reported quality of care or patient satisfaction. On the contrary, patient satisfaction with the general practice decreases when general practice is recently accredited.

Associations between degrees of task delegation and adherence to COPD guidelines on spirometry testing in general practice - a national cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The healthcare systems in the western world have in recent years faced major challenges caused by demographic changes and altered patterns of diseases as well as political decisions influencing the organisation of healthcare provisions. General practitioners are encouraged to delegate more clinical tasks to their staff in order to respond to the changing circumstances. Nevertheless, the degree of task delegation varies substantially between general practices, and how these different degrees affect the quality of care for the patients is currently not known. Using chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) as our case scenario, the aim of the study was to investigate associations between degrees of task delegation in general practice and spirometry testing as a measure of quality of care. METHODS: We carried out a cross-sectional study comprising all general practices in Denmark and patients suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. General practitioners (GPs) were invited to participate in a survey investigating degrees of task delegation in their clinics. Data were linked to national registers on spirometry testing among patients with COPD. We investigated associations using multilevel mixed-effects logit models and adjusted for practice and patient characteristics. RESULTS: GPs from 895 practices with staff managing COPD-related tasks responded, and 61,223 COPD patients were linked to these practices. Hereof, 24,685 (40.3%) had a spirometry performed within a year. Patients had a statistically significant higher odds ratio (OR) of having an annual spirometry performed in practices with medium or maximal degrees of task delegation compared to practices with a minimal degree (OR = 1.27 and OR = 1.33, respectively). CONCLUSION: Delegating more complex tasks to practice staff implies that COPD-patients are more likely to be treated according to evidence-based recommendations on spirometry testing.

Cross-cultural adaptation of the medical engagement scale into Danish general practice setting.

Introduction: The need to involve doctors in healthcare leadership has long been recognized by clinical staff and policymakers. A Medical Engagement Scale has been designed in England to evaluate levels of medical engagement in leadership and management. Objective: The aim of this study was to translate and adapt the scale and to test the translated version for comprehension and suitability in Danish general practice setting. Design and method: The process involved forward translation, backward translation, and field tests. The field tests included cognitive debriefing interviews. In all 30 general practitioners and 5 non-general practitioners participated in the process of translation. After using the scale among 1652 general practitioners statistical analysis was carried out to test internal consistency. Setting: The study was carried out in general practice in Denmark. Results: Several changes made during the process in order to achieve a Danish version that is acceptable, understandable and still capable of measuring medical engagement comparable of the original English version. Analysis of scale internal consistency using Cronbach's alpha revealed acceptable reliability for all three meta-scales, which ranged from 0.69 to 0.81. The overall tool achieved a Cronbach's alpha of 0.89. Conclusion: The Danish version of the Medical Engagement Scale is a valid and reliable tool that is acceptable and relevant for general practice in Denmark. Key points This study describes the cross-cultural adaptation of the Medical Engagement Scale from a UK primary healthcare setting to a Danish primary healthcare setting. The process produced a relevant and acceptable questionnaire measuring medical engagement. Internal consistency revealed acceptable reliability The translation of the scale provides the possibility to use this scale for practical and academic purposes.

Work motivation, task delegation and job satisfaction of general practice staff: a cross-sectional study.

Background: Recent research has shown that a high degree of task delegation is associated with the practise staff's overall job satisfaction, and this association is important to explore since job satisfaction is related to medical as well as patient-perceived quality of care. Objectives: This study aimed: (1) to investigate associations between degrees of task delegation in the management of chronic disease in general practice, with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) as a case and the staff's work motivation, (2) to investigate associations between the work motivation of the staff and their job satisfaction. Methods: The study was based on a questionnaire to which 621 members of the practice staff responded. The questionnaire consisted of a part concerning degree of task delegation in the management of COPD in their respective practice and another part being about their job satisfaction and motivation to work. Results: In the first analysis, we found that 'maximal degree' of task delegation was significantly associated with the staff perceiving themselves to have a large degree of variation in tasks, odds ratio (OR) = 4.26, confidence interval (CI) = 1.09, 16.62. In the second analysis, we found that this perceived large degree of variation in tasks was significantly associated with their overall job satisfaction, OR = 2.81, confidence interval = 1.71, 4.61. Conclusion: The results suggest that general practitioners could delegate highly complex tasks in the management of COPD to their staff without influencing the staff's work motivation, and thereby their job satisfaction, negatively, as long as they ensure sufficient variation in the tasks.

Associations between degrees of task delegation and job satisfaction of general practitioners and their staff: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, the healthcare system in the western world has undergone a structural development caused by changes in demography and pattern of disease. In order to maintain the healthcare system cost-effective, new tasks are placed in general practice urging the general practitioners to rethink the working structure without compromising the quality of care. However, there is a substantial variation in the degree to which general practitioners delegate tasks to their staff, and it is not known how these various degrees of task delegation influence the job satisfaction of general practitioners and their staff. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study based on two electronic questionnaires, one for general practitioners and one for their staff. Both questionnaires were divided into two parts, a part exploring the degree of task delegation regarding management of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in general practice and a part concerning the general job satisfaction and motivation to work. RESULTS: We found a significant association between perceived "maximal degree" of task delegation in management of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and the staff's overall job satisfaction. The odds ratio of the staff's satisfaction with the working environment displayed a tendency that there is also an association with "maximal degree" of task delegation. In the analysis of the general practitioners, the odds ratios of the results indicate that there is a tendency that "maximal degree" of task delegation is associated with overall job satisfaction, satisfaction with the challenges in work, and satisfaction with the working environment. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that a high degree of task delegation is significantly associated with overall job satisfaction of the staff, and that there is a tendency that a high degree of task delegation is associated with the general practitioners' and the staff's satisfaction with the working environment as well as with general practitioners' overall job satisfaction and satisfaction with challenges in work. To qualify future delegation processes within general practice, further research could explore the reasons for our findings.

Are formalised implementation activities associated with aspects of quality of care in general practice? A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: There is a substantial variation in how different general practices manage knowledge implementation, including the degree to which activities are collectively and formally organised. Yet, it is unclear how these differences in implementation activities affect quality of care. AIM: To investigate if there are associations between specific formalised knowledge implementation activities and quality of care in general practices, exemplified by the use of spirometry testing. DESIGN & SETTING: A nationwide cross-sectional study combining survey and register data in Denmark. METHOD: An electronic questionnaire was distributed to GPs, and data on spirometry testing among first-time users of medication against obstructive lung diseases were obtained from national registers. Associations were investigated using multilevel mixed-effect logit models. RESULTS: GPs from 1114 practices (58%) responded, and 33 788 patients were linked to a responding practice. In partnership practices, the frequency of interdisciplinary and GP meetings affected the quality of care. Interdisciplinary and GP meetings held on a weekly basis were significantly associated with a higher level of quality of care and this was measured by the odds ratio (OR) of patients having spirometry. The development of practice protocols and standard recordings in the electronic medical record (EMR) for a range of disease areas compared with few or no areas at all also impacted the quality of care level provided. The effect of formalised implementation activities was not as evident in single-handed practices as in partnerships. CONCLUSION: This study provides valuable knowledge for GPs who aim to organise their practice in a way that supports implementation and quality improvement most effectively. Also, results may be useful for managers of implementation strategies and quality improvement initiatives when planning future activities.

Relations between task delegation and job satisfaction in general practice: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: It has for years been discussed whether practice staff should be involved in patient care in general practice to a higher extent. The research concerning task delegation within general practice is generally increasing, but the literature focusing on its influence on general practitioners' and their staff's job satisfaction appears to be sparse even though job satisfaction is acknowledged as an important factor associated with both patient satisfaction and medical quality of care. Therefore, the overall aim of this study was 1) to review the current research on the relation between task delegation and general practitioners' and their staff's job satisfaction and, additionally, 2) to review the evidence of possible explanations for this relation. METHODS: A systematic literature review. We searched the four databases PubMed, Cinahl, Embase, and Scopus systematically. The immediate relevance of the retrieved articles was evaluated by title and abstract by the first author, and papers that seemed to meet the aim of the review were then fully read by first author and last author independently judging the eligibility of content. RESULTS: We included four studies in the review. They explored views and attitudes of the staff, encompassing nurses as well as practice managers. Only one of the included studies also explored general practitioners' views and attitudes, hence making it impossible to establish any syntheses on this relation. According to the studies, the staff's overall attitude towards task delegation was positive and led to increased job satisfaction, probably because task delegation comprised a high degree of work autonomy. CONCLUSIONS: The few studies included in our review suggest that task delegation within general practice may be seen by the staff as an overall positive issue contributing to their job satisfaction, primarily due to perceived autonomy in the work. However, because of the small sample size comprising only qualitative studies, and due to the heterogeneity of these studies, we cannot draw unambiguous conclusions although we point towards tendencies.

Variation in general practitioners' information-seeking behaviour - a cross-sectional study on the influence of gender, age and practice form.

OBJECTIVE: To assess general practitioners' (GPs') information-seeking behaviour and perceived importance of sources of scientific medical information and to investigate associations with GP characteristics. DESIGN: A national cross-sectional survey was distributed electronically in December 2013. SETTING: Danish general practice. SUBJECTS: A population of 3440 GPs (corresponding to approximately 96% of all Danish GPs). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: GPs' use and perceived importance of information sources. Multilevel mixed-effects logit models were used to investigate associations with GP characteristics after adjusting for relevant covariates. RESULTS: A total of 1580 GPs (46.4%) responded to the questionnaire. GPs' information-seeking behaviour is associated with gender, age and practice form. Single-handed GPs use their colleagues as an information source significantly less than GPs working in partnership practices and they do not use other sources more frequently. Compared with their younger colleagues, GPs aged above 44 years are less likely to seek information from colleagues, guidelines and websites, but more likely to seek information from medical journals. Male and female GPs seek information equally frequently. However, whereas male GPs are more likely than female GPs to find that pharmaceutical sales representative and non-refundable CME meetings are important, they are less likely to find that colleagues, refundable CME meetings, guidelines and websites are important. CONCLUSION: Results from this study indicate that GP characteristics should be taken into consideration when disseminating scientific medical information, to ensure that patients receive medically updated, high-quality care. KEY POINTS Research indicates that information-seeking behaviour is associated with GP characteristics. Further insights could provide opportunities for targeting information dissemination strategies. Single-handed GPs seek information from colleagues less frequently than GPs in partnerships and do not use other sources more frequently. GPs aged above 44 years do not seek information as frequently as their younger colleagues and prefer other information sources. Male and female GPs seek information equally frequently, but do not consider information sources equally important in keeping medically updated.

How GPs implement clinical guidelines in everyday clinical practice--a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines are considered to be essential for improving quality and safety of health care. However, interventions to promote implementation of guidelines have demonstrated only partial effectiveness and the reasons for this apparent failure are not yet fully understood. OBJECTIVE: To investigate how GPs implement clinical guidelines in everyday clinical practice and how implementation approaches differ between practices. METHODS: Individual semi-structured open-ended interviews with seven GPs who were purposefully sampled with regard to gender, age and practice form. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and then analysed using systematic text condensation. RESULTS: Analysis of the interviews revealed three different approaches to the implementation of guidelines in clinical practice. In some practices the GPs prioritized time and resources on collective implementation activities and organized their everyday practice to support these activities. In other practices GPs discussed guidelines collectively but left the application up to the individual GP whilst others again saw no need for discussion or collective activities depending entirely on the individual GP's decision on whether and how to manage implementation. CONCLUSION: Approaches to implementation of clinical guidelines vary substantially between practices. Supporting activities should take this into account.