Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorNystrøm, Vivian
dc.contributor.authorLurås, Hilde
dc.contributor.authorMidlöv, Patrik
dc.contributor.authorLeonardsen, Ann-Chatrin Linqvist
dc.date.accessioned2021-05-31T12:23:05Z
dc.date.available2021-05-31T12:23:05Z
dc.date.created2021-04-26T12:18:39Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.citationBMC Health Services Research. 2021, 21, Artikkel 447.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1472-6963
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/2757082
dc.description.abstractBackground Due to demographic changes, hospital emergency departments in many countries are overcrowded. Internationally, several primary healthcare models have been introduced as alternatives to hospitalisation. In Norway, municipal acute wards (MAWs) have been implemented as primary care wards that provide observation and medical treatment for 24 h. The intention is to replace hospitalisation for patients who require acute admission but not specialist healthcare services. The aim of this study was to explore primary care physicians’ (PCPs’) perspectives on admission to a MAW as an alternative to hospitalisation. Methods The study had a qualitative design, including interviews with 21 PCPs in a county in southeastern Norway. Data were analysed with a thematic approach. Results The PCPs described uncertainty when referring patients to the MAW because of the fewer diagnostic opportunities there than in the hospital. Admission of patients to the MAW was assumed to be unsafe for both PCPs, MAW nurses and physicians. The PCPs assumed that medical competence was lower at the MAW than in the hospital, which led to scepticism about whether their tentative diagnoses would be reconsidered if needed and whether a deterioration of the patients’ condition would be detected. When referring patients to a MAW, the PCPs experienced disagreements with MAW personnel about the suitability of the patient. The PCPs emphasised the importance of patients’ and relatives’ participation in decisions about the level of treatment. Nevertheless, such participation was not always possible, especially when patients’ wishes conflicted with what PCPs considered professionally sound. Conclusions The PCPs reported concerns regarding the use of MAWs as an alternative to hospitalisation. These concerns were related to fewer diagnostic opportunities, lower medical expertise throughout the day, uncertainty about the selection of patients and challenges with user participation. Consequently, these concerns had an impact on how the PCPs utilised MAW services.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherBioMed Central (BMC)en_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.subjectgeneral practitioneren_US
dc.subjectprimary care physiciansen_US
dc.subjecthealth services researchen_US
dc.subjectinterviewen_US
dc.subjectprimary healthcareen_US
dc.subjectquality improvementen_US
dc.titleWhat if something happens tonight? A qualitative study of primary care physicians’ perspectives on an alternative to hospital admittanceen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.rights.holder© The Author(s).en_US
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Medisinske Fag: 700::Helsefag: 800::Helsetjeneste- og helseadministrasjonsforskning: 806en_US
dc.source.volume21en_US
dc.source.journalBMC Health Services Researchen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12913-021-06444-x
dc.identifier.cristin1906415
dc.source.articlenumber447en_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode2


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal