Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Primary Care
Published in: BMC Primary Care 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research article

Applying clinical guidelines in general practice: a qualitative study of potential complications

Authors: Bjarne Austad, Irene Hetlevik, Bente Prytz Mjølstad, Anne-Sofie Helvik

Published in: BMC Primary Care | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Clinical guidelines for single diseases often pose problems in general practice work with multimorbid patients. However, little research focuses on how general practice is affected by the demand to follow multiple guidelines. This study explored Norwegian general practitioners’ (GPs’) experiences with and reflections upon the consequences for general practice of applying multiple guidelines.

Methods

Qualitative focus group study carried out in Mid-Norway. The study involved a purposeful sample of 25 Norwegian GPs from four pre-existing groups. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed using systematic text condensation, i.e. applying a phenomenological approach.

Results

The GPs’ responses clustered around two major topics: 1) Complications for the GPs of applying multiple guidelines; and, 2) Complications for their patients when GPs apply multiple guidelines. For the GPs, applying multiple guidelines created a highly problematic situation as they felt obliged to implement guidelines that were not suited to their patients: too often, the map and the terrain did not match. They also experienced greater insecurity regarding their own practice which, they admitted, resulted in an increased tendency to practice ‘defensive medicine’. For their patients, the GPs experienced that applying multiple guidelines increased the risk of polypharmacy, excessive non-pharmacological recommendations, a tendency toward medicalization and, for some, a reduction in quality of life.

Conclusions

The GPs experienced negative consequences when obliged to apply a variety of single disease guidelines to multimorbid patients, including increased risk of polypharmacy and overtreatment. We believe patient-centered care and the GPs’ courage to non-comply when necessary may aid in reducing these risks. Health care authorities and guideline developers need to be aware of the potential negative effects of applying a single disease focus in general practice, where multimorbidity is highly prevalent.
Literature
1.
2.
3.
Lugtenberg M, Burgers JS, Han D, Westert GP. General practitioners’ preferences for interventions to improve guideline adherence. J Eval Clin Pract. 2014;20(6):820–6.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Blozik E, van den Bussche H, Gurtner F, Schafer I, Scherer M. Epidemiological strategies for adapting clinical practice guidelines to the needs of multimorbid patients. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:352.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Hughes LD, McMurdo ME, Guthrie B. Guidelines for people not for diseases: the challenges of applying UK clinical guidelines to people with multimorbidity. Age Ageing. 2013;42(1):62–9.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Barnett K, Mercer SW, Norbury M, Watt G, Wyke S, Guthrie B. Epidemiology of multimorbidity and implications for health care, research, and medical education: a cross-sectional study. Lancet. 2012;380(9836):37–43.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Tomasdottir MO, Getz L, Sigurdsson JA, Petursson H, Kirkengen AL, Krokstad S, McEwen B, Hetlevik I. Co- and multimorbidity patterns in an unselected Norwegian population: cross-sectional analysis based on the HUNT study and theoretical reflections concerning basic medical models. Europ J for Per Centered Health. 2014;2(3):335–45.
8.
Smith S, Soubhi H, Fortin M, Hudon C, O’Dowd T. Managing patients with multimorbidity: systematic review of interventions in primary care and community settings. BMJ. 2012;345:e5205.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Sondergaard E, Willadsen TG, Guassora AD, Vestergaard M, Tomasdottir MO, Borgquist L, Holmberg-Marttila D, Olivarius Nde F, Reventlow S. Problems and challenges in relation to the treatment of patients with multimorbidity: General practitioners’ views and attitudes. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2015;33(2):121–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Ralston SL, Schroeder AR. Doing more vs doing good: Aligning our ethical principles from the personal to the societal. JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(12):1085–6.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Petursson H, Getz L, Sigurdsson JA, Hetlevik I. Current European guidelines for management of arterial hypertension: are they adequate for use in primary care? Modelling study based on the Norwegian HUNT 2 population. BMC Fam Pract. 2009;10:70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Dumbreck S, Flynn A, Nairn M, Wilson M, Treweek S, Mercer SW, Alderson P, Thompson A, Payne K, Guthrie B. Drug-disease and drug-drug interactions: systematic examination of recommendations in 12 UK national clinical guidelines. BMJ. 2015;350:h949.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Boyd CM, Darer J, Boult C, Fried LP, Boult L, Wu AW. Clinical practice guidelines and quality of care for older patients with multiple comorbid diseases: implications for pay for performance. JAMA. 2005;294(6):716–24.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Austad B, Hetlevik I, Mjølstad BP, Helvik A-S. General practitioners’ experiences with multiple clinical guidelines: A qualitative study from Norway. Qual Prim Care. 2015;23(2):70–7.
15.
16.
17.
Bensing J. Bridging the gap. The separate worlds of evidence-based medicine and patient-centered medicine. Patient Educ Couns. 2000;39(1):17–25.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Vetlesen AJ. Perception, empathy, and judgment: An inquiry into the preconditions of moral performance. PA: Pennsylvania: State University Press: University Park; 1994.
19.
20.
Kvale S. The qualitative research interview: A phenomenological and hermeneutical mode of understanding. Phenomenol Psycol. 1983;14(2):171–96.CrossRef
21.
Mishler EG. Research interviewing: context and narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1986.
22.
Fern EF. Advanced Focus Group Research. Thousands Oaks, California: Sage; 2001.CrossRef
23.
Garattini L, Gritti S, De Compadri P, Casadei G. Continuing Medical Education in six European countries: a comparative analysis. Health Policy. 2010;94(3):246–54.CrossRefPubMed
24.
25.
Malterud K. Systematic text condensation: a strategy for qualitative analysis. Scand J Public Health. 2012;40(8):795–805.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Giorgi A. The descriptive phenomenological method in psychology: a modified Husserlian approach. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press; 2009.
27.
28.
29.
Moynihan R, Doust J, Henry D. Preventing overdiagnosis: how to stop harming the healthy. BMJ. 2012;344:e3502.CrossRefPubMed
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
Carter SM, Rogers W, Heath I, Degeling C, Doust J, Barratt A. The challenge of overdiagnosis begins with its definition. BMJ. 2015;350:h869.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Hoffmann TC, Del Mar C. Patients’ expectations of the benefits and harms of treatments, screening, and tests: a systematic review. JAMA Internal Med. 2015;175(2):274–86.CrossRef
36.
Moynihan R, Henry D, Moons KG. Using evidence to combat overdiagnosis and overtreatment: evaluating treatments, tests, and disease definitions in the time of too much. PLoS Med. 2014;11(7):e1001655.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
38.
Moynihan RN, Cooke GP, Doust JA, Bero L, Hill S, Glasziou PP. Expanding disease definitions in guidelines and expert panel ties to industry: a cross-sectional study of common conditions in the United States. PLoS Med. 2013;10(8):e1001500.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
40.
41.
Payne RA, Abel GA, Avery AJ, Mercer SW, Roland MO. Is polypharmacy always hazardous? A retrospective cohort analysis using linked electronic health records from primary and secondary care. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2014;77(6):1073–82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
42.
43.
Uhlig K, Leff B, Kent D, Dy S, Brunnhuber K, Burgers JS, Greenfield S, Guyatt G, High K, Leipzig R, et al. A framework for crafting clinical practice guidelines that are relevant to the care and management of people with multimorbidity. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(4):670–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
44.
Coventry P, Lovell K, Dickens C, Bower P, Chew-Graham C, McElvenny D. Integrated primary care for patients with mental and physical multimorbidity: cluster randomised controlled trial of collaborative care for patients with depression comorbid with diabetes or cardiovascular disease. BMJ. 2015;350:h638.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
45.
Cottrell E, Yardley S. Lived experiences of multimorbidity: An interpretative meta-synthesis of patients’, general practitioners’ and trainees’ perceptions. Chronic Illn. 2015;11(4):279–303.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Rosstad T, Garasen H, Steinsbekk A, Sletvold O, Grimsmo A. Development of a patient-centred care pathway across healthcare providers: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:121.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
47.
48.
Steel N, Abdelhamid A, Stokes T, Edwards H, Fleetcroft R, Howe A, Qureshi N. A review of clinical practice guidelines found that they were often based on evidence of uncertain relevance to primary care patients. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(11):1251–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
49.
50.
Hetlevik I, Getz L, Kirkengen AL. General practitioners who do not follow practice guidelines--may they have reasons not to? Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2008;128(19):2218–20.PubMed
51.
Kirkengen AL, Ekeland TJ, Getz L, Hetlevik I, Schei E, Ulvestad E, Vetlesen AJ. Medicine’s perception of reality - a split picture: critical reflections on apparent anomalies within the biomedical theory of science. J Eval Clin Practice. 2015. doi: 10.​1111/​jep.​12369.
52.
Sinnott C, Hugh SM, Boyce MB, Bradley CP. What to give the patient who has everything? A qualitative study of prescribing for multimorbidity in primary care. Br J Gen Pract. 2015;65(632):e184–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
53.
54.
Starfield B. Primary Care: Balancing Health Needs, Services, and Technology. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998.
Metadata
Title
Applying clinical guidelines in general practice: a qualitative study of potential complications
Authors
Bjarne Austad
Irene Hetlevik
Bente Prytz Mjølstad
Anne-Sofie Helvik
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Primary Care / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 2731-4553
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-016-0490-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

BMC Primary Care 1/2016 Go to the issue

Research article

Interacting factors associated with Low antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections in primary health care – a mixed methods study in Sweden

Research article

Long term condition morbidity in English general practice: a cross-sectional study using three composite morbidity measures

Research article

‘Gearing Up’ to improve interprofessional collaboration in primary care: a systematic review and conceptual framework

Erratum

Erratum to: Towards improving diagnosis of memory loss in general practice: TIMeLi diagnostic test accuracy study protocol

Research article

A qualitative evaluation to explore the suitability, feasibility and acceptability of using a ‘celebration card’ intervention in primary care to improve the uptake of childhood vaccinations

Research article

‘Potentially inappropriate or specifically appropriate?’ Qualitative evaluation of general practitioners views on prescribing, polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people