Suchergebnisse

BackgroundThe literature has described several challenges related to the quality of diabetes management clinics in public primary health care centres in Oman. These clinics continue to face challenges due to the continuous growth of individuals diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. We sought to explore the challenges faced in these clinics and discuss opportunities for improvement in Oman.MethodsThis qualitative study was designed to include non-participant observations of diabetic patients and care providers during service provision at diabetes management clinics, as well as semi-structured interviews with care providers, at five purposively selected public primary health care centres. Care providers included physicians, nurses, dieticians, health educators, pharmacists, an assistant pharmacist, a psychologist, and a medical orderly. The data were analysed using qualitative content analysis.ResultsThe study disclosed three different models of service delivery at diabetes management clinics, which, to varying degrees, face challenges related to health centre infrastructure, technical and pharmaceutical support, and care providers' interests, knowledge, and skills. Challenges related to the community were also found in terms of cultural beliefs, traditions, health awareness, and public transportation.ConclusionThe challenges encountered in diabetes management clinics fall within two contexts: health care centres and community. Although many challenges exist, opportunities for improvement are available. However, improvements in the quality of diabetic clinics in primary health care centres might take time and require extensive involvement, shared responsibilities, and implications from the government, health care centres, and community.

Background: Implementation of interventions concerning prevention and health promotion in health care has faced particular challenges resulting in a low frequency and quality of these services. In November 2011, the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare released national clinical practice guidelines to counteract patients' unhealthy lifestyle habits. Drawing on the results of a previous study as a point of departure, the aim of this two-year follow up was to assess the progress of work with lifestyle interventions in primary healthcare as well as the uptake and usage of the new guidelines on lifestyle interventions in clinical practice. Methods: Longitudinal study among health professionals with survey at baseline and 2 years later. Development over time and differences between professional groups were calculated with Pearson chi-square test. Results: Eighteen percent of the physicians reported to use the clinical practice guidelines, compared to 58% of the nurses. Nurses were also more likely to consider them as a support in their work than physicians did. Over time, health professionals usage of methods to change patients' tobacco habits and hazardous use of alcohol had increased, and the nurses worked to a higher extent than before with all four lifestyles. Knowledge on methods for lifestyle change was generally high; however, there was room for improvement concerning methods on alcohol, unhealthy eating and counselling. Forty-one percent reported to possess thorough knowledge of counselling skills. Conclusions: Even if the uptake and usage of the CPGs on lifestyle interventions so far is low, the participants reported more frequent counselling on patients' lifestyle changes concerning use of tobacco and hazardous use of alcohol. However, these findings should be evaluated acknowledging the possibility of selection bias in favour of health promotion and lifestyle guidance, and the loss of one study site in the follow up. Furthermore, this study indicates important differences in physicians and nurses' attitudes to and use of the guidelines, where the nurses reported working to a higher extent with all four lifestyles compared to the first study. These findings suggest further investigations on the implementation process in clinical practice, and the physicians' uptake and use of the CPGs. ; Originally included in thesis in manuscript form with title: "Implementation of clinical guidelines on lifestyle in primary health care - a two-year follow up".

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of chronic disease and treatment costs have been steadily increasing in the United States over the past few decades. Primary prevention and healthy lifestyle counseling have been identified as important strategies for reducing health-care costs and chronic disease prevalence. This article seeks to examine decision-makers' experiences and self-perceived roles in guideline and lifestyle counseling implementation in a primary care setting in the United States. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted with administrators at a health-care network in Upstate New York and with state-level administrators, such as insurers. Decision-makers were asked to discuss prevention guidelines and healthy lifestyle counseling, as well as how they support implementation of these initiatives. Interviews were analyzed using a thematic analysis framework and relevant sections of text were sorted using a priori codes. RESULTS: Interviews identified numerous barriers to guideline implementation. These included the complexity and profusion of guidelines, the highly politicized nature of health-care provision, and resistance from providers who sometimes prefer to make decisions autonomously. Barriers to supporting prevention counseling included relatively time-limited patient encounters, the lack of reimbursement mechanisms for counseling, lack of patient resources, and regulatory complexities. CONCLUSIONS: Our research indicates that administrators and administrative structures face barriers to supporting prevention activities such as guideline implementation and healthy lifestyle counseling in primary care settings. They also identified several solutions for addressing existing primary prevention barriers, such as relying on nurses to provide healthy lifestyle support to patients. This article provides an important assessment of institutional readiness to support primary prevention efforts.

Introduction: The incidence of chronic disease and treatment costs have been steadily increasing in the United States over the past few decades. Primary prevention and healthy lifestyle counseling have been identified as important strategies for reducing health-care costs and chronic disease prevalence. This article seeks to examine decision-makers' experiences and self-perceived roles in guideline and lifestyle counseling implementation in a primary care setting in the United States. Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with administrators at a health-care network in Upstate New York and with state-level administrators, such as insurers. Decision-makers were asked to discuss prevention guidelines and healthy lifestyle counseling, as well as how they support implementation of these initiatives. Interviews were analyzed using a thematic analysis framework and relevant sections of text were sorted using a priori codes. Results: Interviews identified numerous barriers to guideline implementation. These included the complexity and profusion of guidelines, the highly politicized nature of health-care provision, and resistance from providers who sometimes prefer to make decisions autonomously. Barriers to supporting prevention counseling included relatively time-limited patient encounters, the lack of reimbursement mechanisms for counseling, lack of patient resources, and regulatory complexities. Conclusions: Our research indicates that administrators and administrative structures face barriers to supporting prevention activities such as guideline implementation and healthy lifestyle counseling in primary care settings. They also identified several solutions for addressing existing primary prevention barriers, such as relying on nurses to provide healthy lifestyle support to patients. This article provides an important assessment of institutional readiness to support primary prevention efforts.