"Purpose: This study aims to explore the perspectives of psychiatrists with lived experiences and what their considerations are upon integrating the personal into the professional realm. Design/methodology/approach: As part of a qualitative participatory research approach, participant observations during two years in peer supervision sessions (15 sessions with 8 psychiatrists with lived experiences), additional interviews as part of member feedback and a focus group were thematically analysed. Findings: Although the decision to become a psychiatrist was often related to personal experiences with mental distress and some feel the need to integrate the personal into the professional, the actual use of lived experiences appears still in its early stages of development. Findings reveal three main considerations related to the personal (3.1), professionality (3.2) and clinical relevance (3.3) comprising 11 facilitators and 9 barriers to harness lived experiences. Research limitations/implications: This study was conducted locally and there are no similar comparable studies known. It was small in its size due to its qualitative nature and with a homogeneous group and therefore may lack generalisability. Practical implications: Future directions to further overcome shame and stigma and discover the potential of lived experiences are directed to practice, education and research. Originality/value: Psychiatrists with lived experiences valued the integration of experiential knowledge into the professional realm, even though being still under development. The peer supervision setting in this study was experienced as a safe space to share personal experiences with vulnerability and suffering rather than a technical disclosure. It re-sensitised participants to their personal narratives, unleashing its demystifying, destigmatising and humanising potential."
BACKGROUND: Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) may be a relevant comorbidity when managing people with low back or pelvic girdle pain. It is unknown how often physiotherapists inquire about LUTS, and what the potential barriers and facilitators are to inquire about LUTS in this patient population.OBJECTIVE: To explore the frequency of inquiring about LUTS, and to identify the barriers and facilitators among physiotherapists with and without additional pelvic health training to ask for LUTS in people with low back or pelvic girdle pain.DESIGN: A qualitative study using thematic analysis.METHODS: Through purposeful sampling, 29 primary care physiotherapists were interviewed (16 physiotherapists and 13 physiotherapists with additional pelvic health training). Thematic analysis was performed to identify themes regarding facilitators and barriers.FINDINGS: The frequency of inquiring about LUTS was: 'never': 10%, 'sometimes': 38%, and 'always': 52%. Four barriers were identified: (1) lack of knowledge of the physiotherapist, (2) a standardised assessment approach which did not include LUTS, (3) patient expectations assumed by the physiotherapist, and (4) social, cultural and personal barriers. Three facilitators were identified: (1) communication skills and experience of the physiotherapist, (2) education and knowledge, and (3) interprofessional consultation and referral.CONCLUSION: The majority of physiotherapists surveyed in this study regularly asked for LUTS in people with low back or pelvic pain. For when not asked, the identified barriers seem modifiable with adequate training, knowledge and skill acquisition, and sound clinical reasoning.
from Narcis.nl: "Background: Introducing a post-discharge community pharmacist home visit can secure continuity of care and prevent drug-related problems. Currently, this type of pharmaceutical care is not standard practice and implementation is challenging. Mapping the factors influencing the implementation of this new form of care is crucial to ensure successful embedding. Objective: To explore which barriers and facilitators influence community pharmacists' adoption of a post-discharge home visit. Methods: A mixed methods study was conducted with community pharmacists who had recently participated in a study that evaluated the effectiveness of a post-discharge home visit in identifying drug-related problems. Four focus groups were held guided by a topic guide based on the framework of Greenhalgh et al. After the focus groups, major barriers and facilitators were formulated into statements and presented to all participants in a scoring list to rank for relevance and feasibility in daily practice. Results: Twenty-two of the eligible 26 pharmacists participated in the focus groups. Twenty pharmacists (91%) returned the scoring list containing 21 statements. Most of these statements were perceived as both relevant and feasible by the responding pharmacists. A small number scored high on relevance but low on feasibility, making these potential important barriers to overcome for broad implementation. These were the necessity of dedicated time for performing pharmaceutical care, implementing the home visit in pharmacists' daily routine and an adequate reimbursement fee for the home visit. Conclusions: The key to successful implementation of a post-discharge home visit may lay in two facilitators which are partly interrelated: changing daily routine and reimbursement. Reimbursement will be a strong incentive, but additional efforts will be needed to reprioritize daily routines."
MULTIFILE
