Aim: To consolidate the literature regarding the barriers faced by primary care physicians in making house calls.
Design of the study: Literature review.
Method: Studies were sourced from PubMed and Embase.
Results: 7 studies were selected to be in the literature review. Barriers to making house calls by primary care physicians include inadequate remuneration, lack of time and training, unconducive home environment, concerns with professional liability and safety, and perceived low value-added in the patient's quality of care.
Conclusion: While primary care physicians do recognize the value of house calls in patient care, the perceived limited standard of care that can be achieved in the home setting, busy clinic practice (large patient loads), coupled with inadequate remuneration make house calls unrealistic for many doctors. These barriers must be addressed to ensure accessibility to primary health care services for the immobile, frail, and sick is not being compromised. One of the solutions may be to expose medical students and residents to house calls early through mentorship.
Methods: An online survey was conducted among healthcare providers across public health clinics in Malaysia. All family medicine specialists, medical officers, nurses and assistant medical officers involved in the screening program for adult men were invited to answer a 51-item questionnaire via email or WhatsApp. The questionnaire comprised five sections: participants' socio-demographic information, current screening practices, barriers and facilitators to using the screening tool, and views on the content and format of the screening tool.
Results: A total of 231 healthcare providers from 129 health clinics participated in this survey. Among them, 37.44% perceived the implementation of the screening program as a "top-down decision." Although 37.44% found the screening tool for adult men "useful," some felt that it was "time consuming" to fill out (38.2%) and "lengthy" (28.3%). In addition, 'adult men refuse to answer' (24.1%) was cited as the most common patient-related barrier.
Conclusions: This study provided useful insights into the challenges encountered by the public healthcare providers when implementing a national screening program for men. The screening tool for adult men should be revised to make it more user-friendly. Further studies should explore the reasons why men were reluctant to participate in health screenings, thus enhancing the implementation of screening programs in primary care.
DESIGN: Individual in-depth, semistructured interviews were audio-taped, then verbatim transcribed and translated when necessary. The data were first independently coded and then collectively discussed for emergent themes using the Straussian grounded theory method.
PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Fifty-seven current smokers were recruited from a previous smoking related study carried out in a primary care setting in Malaysia. Current smokers with at least one failed quit attempts were included.
RESULTS: A five-theme model emerged from this grounded theory method. (1) Personal and lifestyle factors: participants were unable to resist the temptation to smoke; (2) Nicotine addiction: withdrawal symptoms could not be overcome; (3) Social cultural norms: participants identified accepting cigarettes from friends as a token of friendship to be problematic; (4) Misconception: perception among smokers that ability to quit was solely based on one's ability to achieve mind control, and perception that stopping smoking will harm the body and (5) Failed assisted smoking cessation: smoking cessation services were not felt to be user-friendly and were poorly understood. The themes were organised into five concentric circles based on time frame: those actionable in the short term (themes 1 and 2) and the long term (themes 3, 4, 5).
CONCLUSIONS: Five themes of specific beliefs and practices prevented smokers from quitting. Clinicians need to work on these barriers, which can be guided by the recommended time frames to help patients to succeed in smoking cessation.
Case Report: Madam Tan, a 71-year-old Malaysian Chinese lady, otherwise healthy, presented to her local GP with a complaint of a nodule over the left cheek that had been there for more than a decade. Her concern was that the lesion was growing and had become conspicuous. She had spent most of her life as a farmer working in her orchard.Upon examination, she had an obvious dome-shaped nodule over the left cheek measuring approximately 1.8 cm in diameter. The lesion was firm, pigmented, well-demarcated, and slightly ulcerated at the top. Clinically, she was diagnosed with a pigmented nodular basal cell carcinoma of the left cheek. Examination of the systems was unremarkable.She requested that the consulting GP remove the growth. The cost for specialist treatment and waiting time at the local hospital were her concerns.
Clinical Questions: Can the basal cell skin cancer be excised safely and effectively in the local primary care setting? What are the crucial preoperative concerns?
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The CKD-CHECK (CKD-CHECK EGFR Chart in Kidney disease) is a toolkit that was developed to auto-generate patients' eGFR trend using a line graph, displaying the trend visually over a year. It identifies patients with rapid CKD progression, triggers the doctors to order appropriate tests (proteinuria quantification or renal imaging) and helps in decision making (continued monitoring at primary care level or referral to nephrologist). The toolkit was piloted among medical officers practising in a hospital-based primary care clinic treating patients with eGFR<60ml/min/1.73m2 using an interventional before-after study design from February to May 2022. In the preintervention period, the CKD patients were managed based on standard practice. The doctors then used the CKDCHECK toolkit on the same group of CKD patients during the intervention period. The feasibility and acceptability of the toolkit was assessed at the end of the study period using the Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM) and Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM) questionnaires. All patients' clinical data and referral rate were collected retrospectively through medical files and electronic data systems. Comparison between the pre- and post-intervention group were analysed using paired t-test and McNemar test, with statistical significance p value of <0.05.
RESULTS: A total of 25 medical officers used the toolkit on 60 CKD patients. The medical officers found the CKD-CHECK toolkit to be highly acceptable and feasible in primary care setting. The baseline characteristics of the patients were a mean age of 72 years old, predominantly females and Chinese ethnicity. Majority of the CKD patients had diabetes mellitus, hypertension and dyslipidemia. The numbers of CKD rapid progressors was similar (26.7% in the preintervention group vs 33.3% in the post-intervention group). There were no significant differences in terms of proteinuria assessment and ultrasound kidney for CKD rapid progressors before and after the intervention. However, a significant number of CKD rapid progressors were referred to nephrologists after the use of CKD-CHECK toolkit (p=0.016).
CONCLUSIONS: CKD-CHECK toolkit is acceptable and feasible to be used in primary care. Preliminary findings show that the CKD-CHECK toolkit improved the primary care doctor's referral of rapid CKD progressors to nephrologists.
METHODS: This phenomenological qualitative study focussed on patients' experiences in relation to EnPHC interventions. Participants were purposely selected from a group of patients who attended the eight intervention primary healthcare clinics in Johor and Selangor regularly for treatment. Data collection was conducted between April to July 2018. Semi-structured interviews were conducted at average an hour per interview for four to five patients per clinic. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, coded and analysed using a thematic analysis approach.
RESULTS: A total of 35 patients participated. Analysis revealed five main themes about patient experiences receiving the EnPHC intervention. These are: (1) health assessment in disease progress monitoring, (2) patient-doctor relationship and continuity of care, (3) professionalism in service delivery, (4) ensuring compliance in achieving health targets and (5) communication skills. Each theme represents an important aspect of the service, how it should be delivered within the patient expectations and how it can improve patient's health through their lens.
CONCLUSION: Even though patients were not able to exactly identify the EnPHC intervention components implemented, they are able to describe the process changes that occurred; enabling them to improve their healthcare status. Engagement is necessary to better inform patients of the EnPHC intervention, its purpose, mechanisms, changes and importance for healthcare. It would reduce resistance and increase awareness amongst patients at the clinic.