Abstract Background. Fever in children is common and mostly caused by self-limiting infections. However, parents of febrile children often consult in general practice, in particular during out-of-hours care. To improve management, it is important to understand experiences of GPs managing these consultations. Objective. To describe GPs’ experiences regarding management of childhood fever during out-ofhours care. Methods. A descriptive qualitative study using purposeful sampling, five focus group discussions were held among 37 GPs. Analysis was based on constant comparative technique using open and axial coding. Results. Main categories were: (i) Workload and general experience; (ii) GPs’ perceptions of determinants of consulting behaviour; (iii) Parents’ expectations from the GP’s point of view; (iv) Antibiotic prescribing decisions; (v) Uncertainty of GPs versus uncertainty of parents and (vi) Information exchange during the consultation. GPs felt management of childhood fever imposes a considerable workload. They perceived a mismatch between parental concerns and their own impression of illness severity, which combined with time–pressure can lead to frustration. Diagnostic uncertainty is driven by low incidences of serious infections and dealing with parental demand for antibiotics is still challenging. Conclusion. Children with a fever account for a high workload during out-of-hours GP care which provides a diagnostic challenge due to the low incidence of serious illnesses and lacking longterm relationship. This can lead to frustration and drives antibiotics prescription rates. Improving information exchange during consultations and in the general public to young parents, could help provide a safety net thereby enhancing self-management, reducing consultations and workload, and subsequent antibiotic prescriptions.
Aim: To evaluate healthcare professionals' performance and treatment fidelity in the Cardiac Care Bridge (CCB) nurse-coordinated transitional care intervention in older cardiac patients to understand and interpret the study results. Design: A mixed-methods process evaluation based on the Medical Research Council Process Evaluation framework. Methods: Quantitative data on intervention key elements were collected from 153 logbooks of all intervention patients. Qualitative data were collected using semi-structured interviews with 19 CCB professionals (cardiac nurses, community nurses and primary care physical therapists), from June 2017 until October 2018. Qualitative data-analysis is based on thematic analysis and integrated with quantitative key element outcomes. The analysis was blinded to trial outcomes. Fidelity was defined as the level of intervention adherence. Results: The overall intervention fidelity was 67%, ranging from severely low fidelity in the consultation of in-hospital geriatric teams (17%) to maximum fidelity in the comprehensive geriatric assessment (100%). Main themes of influence in the intervention performance that emerged from the interviews are interdisciplinary collaboration, organizational preconditions, confidence in the programme, time management and patient characteristics. In addition to practical issues, the patient's frailty status and limited motivation were barriers to the intervention. Conclusion: Although involved healthcare professionals expressed their confidence in the intervention, the fidelity rate was suboptimal. This could have influenced the non-significant effect of the CCB intervention on the primary composite outcome of readmission and mortality 6 months after randomization. Feasibility of intervention key elements should be reconsidered in relation to experienced barriers and the population. Impact: In addition to insight in effectiveness, insight in intervention fidelity and performance is necessary to understand the mechanism of impact. This study demonstrates that the suboptimal fidelity was subject to a complex interplay of organizational, professionals' and patients' issues. The results support intervention redesign and inform future development of transitional care interventions in older cardiac patients.
In the course of our supervisory work over the years, we have noticed that qualitative research tends to evoke a lot of questions and worries, so-called Frequently Asked Questions. This journal series of four articles intends to provide novice researchers with practical guidance for conducting high-quality qualitative research in primary care. By ‘novice’ we mean Master’s students and junior researchers, as well as experienced quantitative researchers who are engaging in qualitative research for the first time. This series addresses their questions and provides researchers, readers, reviewers and editors with references to criteria and tools for judging the quality of papers reporting on qualitative research. This first article describes the key features of qualitative research, provides publications for further learning and reading, and gives an outline of the series.
