Case conferencing for palliative care patients – a survey of South Australian general practitioners

Abstract

Benefits of case conferencing for people with palliative care needs between a general practitioner, the person and other key participants include improving communication, advance care planning, coordination of care, clarifying goals of care and support for patient, families and carers. Despite a growing evidence base for the benefits, the uptake of case conferencing has been limited in South Australia. The aim of this study is to explore the beliefs and practice of South Australian general practitioners towards case conferencing for people with palliative care needs. Using an online survey, participants were asked about demographics, attitudes towards case conferencing and details about their most recent case conference for a person with palliative care needs. Responses were received from 134 general practitioners (response rate 11%). In total, 80% valued case conferencing for people with palliative care needs; however, <25% had been involved in case conferencing in the previous 2years. The major barrier was time to organise and coordinate case conferences. Enablers included general practitioner willingness or interest, strong relationship with patient, specialist palliative care involvement and assistance with organisation. Despite GPs' beliefs of the benefits of case conferencing, the barriers remain significant. Enabling case conferencing will require support for organisation of case conferences and review of Medicare Benefits Schedule criteria for reimbursement.

Australian GPs’ perceptions of barriers and enablers to best practice palliative care: a qualitative study

“…GPs in the present study explained a number of barriers which have been reported previously, such as lack of time [16, 36, 37], lack of clarity of roles and responsibilities of GPs and other healthcare providers and services [38], poor communication between healthcare providers [16, 37, 39, 40] and poor remuneration [16, 41, 42]. In line with previous studies [43, 44], the findings also suggest that not all GPs are aware of the resources and guidelines available to support optimal, evidence-based palliative care provision.…”

Systematic review of barriers and enablers to the delivery of palliative care by primary care practitioners

“…Table 1 summarises the 21 articles identified, including data on the sample, setting, recruitment, measures, and barrier and enabler domains described. Six articles reported barriers and enablers, 29,33,35,39,40,44 13 reported barriers only, 17,[30][31][32]34,36,38,42,43,[45][46][47] and two reported enablers only. 37,41 Setting and participants…”

“…Netherlands and Northern Ireland). 17 Fourteen studies included primary care doctor participants only, 17,29,[30][31][32]34,35,37,39,40,42,45,47 three included primary care doctors and other primary care practitioners, 36,43,46 and four included specialist and primary care practitioners. 33,38,41,44 General or disease specific focus Most (n = 15) of the studies focused on general palliative care, while six focused on palliative care for people with a specific disease or condition: cancer (n = 2), 30,38 dementia (n = 1), 17 heart failure (n = 1), 36 and cirrhosis of liver (n = 1).…”

Influenza vaccination 2014–2015: Results of a survey conducted among general practitioners in Italy

“…However, it has been observed that a representative sample is not necessarily guaranteed by a high response rate 22 and our response rate is still higher or comparable to other studies that made use of online platforms as a distribution mode among primary care physicians. 23 , 24 Responding GPs were those who volunteered to participate in the survey, so selection bias cannot entirely be ruled out: it is possible that the responses given do not reliably represent the views of the majority of primary care physicians in Italy. Nonetheless, most of our questions investigated factual data rather than opinions and therefore if this bias is present it is likely to be limited.…”