‘There’s a will, but not a way’: Norwegian GPs’ experiences of collaboration with child welfare services – a grounded theory study

Abstract

Background Adverse childhood experiences can have immediate effects on a child’s wellbeing and health and may also result in disorders and illness in adult life. General practitioners are in a good position to identify and support vulnerable children and parents and to collaborate with other agencies such as child welfare services. There is a need for better integration of relevant services. The aim of this study is to explore GPs’ experiences of the collaboration process with child welfare services. Method This is a qualitative grounded theory study, with data consisting of ten semi-structured interviews with general practitioners across Norway. Results The doctors’ main concern was: ‘There’s a will, but not a way’. Three subordinate stages of the collaboration process were identified: (I) Familiar territory, with a whole-person approach to care by the doctor. (II) Unfamiliar territory, when child welfare becomes involved. Here, a one-way window of information and a closed door to dialogue perpetuate the doctors’ lack of knowledge about child welfare services and uncertainty about what is happening to their patients. (III) Fragmented territory, where doctors experience lost opportunities to help and missing pieces in the patient’s history. Conclusion General practitioners are willing to contribute to a collaborative process with child welfare, but this is hampered by factors such as poor information flow and opportunities for dialogue, and limited knowledge of the partner. This implies lost opportunities for doctors to help families and contribute their knowledge and potential actions to a child welfare case. It can also impede whole-person care and lead to fragmentation of patient pathways. To counteract this, electronic two-way communication could enable a collaborative process and relationships that enhance coordination between the parties. Making space for all parties and their individual roles was considered important to create a positive collaborative environment.

Primary health care professionals’ experiences with caring for patients with advanced Huntington’s disease: a qualitative study

“…Our finding is in line with literature that highlights the role of specialist multi-disciplinary HD expertise in specialist HD care [ 8 , 17 ]. Teamwork is key in health care [ 20 ], but coordination within primary health care may be challenging due to poor information flow and few opportunities for dialogue [ 21 , 22 ]. In primary health care, health professionals will usually not have immediate access to the multidisciplinary expert competency one may find in a specialists HD clinic but must rely on their individual competency and “the wisdom” of their team.…”

Detecting and preventing child maltreatment in primary care and PHNs’ role—a cross-sectional study

“…Many PHNs in our study had experience in suspecting child maltreatment and submitted reports of concern to CPS, but they were rarely invited for collaboration meetings. Several studies conducted in primary care settings describe the frustration experienced by healthcare professionals regarding children referred to CPS and the lack of information sharing about what happens [ 38 , 48 , 54 , 55 ]. Confidentiality is frequently cited as a barrier [ 39 ].…”

“…Confidentiality is frequently cited as a barrier [ 39 ]. However, two recent qualitative studies conducted within primary care among GPs and PHNs did not perceive confidentiality obligations as an obstacle to potential collaboration [ 48 , 55 ]. Instead, they explained that a one-way flow of information and a lack of open dialogue perpetuated lack of knowledge about CPS and uncertainty about their family’s situations (ibid).…”