Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21513534›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2011

Home visits - central to primary care, tradition or an obligation? A qualitative study.

Gudrun Theile, Carsten Kruschinski, Marlene Buck, Christiane A Müller, Eva Hummers-Pradier

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Primary care usage at the end of life: a retrospective cohort study of cancer patients using linked primary and hospital care data.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  9. Differences in Perception of Healthcare Management between Patients and Professionals.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. GP home visits: essential patient care or disposable relic?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020
    Article
  14. Barriers to Making House Calls by Primary Care Physicians and Solutions: A Literature Review.Malaysian family physician : the official journal of the Academy of Family Physicians of Malaysia · 2020
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Mitigating climate change: using the physician's tool of the trade.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Gudrun TheileInstitute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Hanover Medical School, Hannover, Germany. theile.gudrun@mh-hannover.de
Carsten Kruschinski
Marlene Buck
Christiane A Müller
Eva Hummers-Pradier
Medizinische Hochschule Hannover · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHome visits are claimed to be a central element of primary care. However, the frequency with which home visits are made is declining both internationally and in Germany despite the increase in the number of chronically ill elderly patients. Given this, the question arises as to how to ensure sufficient primary health care for this vulnerable patient group. The aim of this study was to explore German general practitioners' (GPs) attitudes with regard to the feasibility, burden and outlook of continued home visits in German primary care.

methodsQualitative semi-structured interviews were carried out with 24 GPs from the city of Hannover, Germany, and its rural surroundings. Data was analysed using qualitative content analysis.

resultsThe GPs indicated that they frequently conduct home visits, but not all of them were convinced of their benefit. Most were not really motivated to undertake home visits but some felt obliged to. The basic conditions covering home visits were described as unsatisfactory, in particular with respect to reimbursement and time constraints. House calls for vulnerable, elderly people remained undisputed, whereas visits of a social nature were mostly deleted. Urgent house calls were increasingly delegated to the emergency services. Visits to nursing homes were portrayed as being emotionally distressing. GPs considered good cooperation with nursing staff the key factor to ensure a successful nursing home visit. The GPs wanted to ease their work load while still ensuring quality home care but were unable to suggest how this might be achieved. Better financial compensation was proposed most often. The involvement of specially trained nurses was considered possible, but viewed with resentment.

conclusionsHome visits are still an integral aspect of primary care in Germany and impose a considerable workload on many practices. Though the existing situation was generally perceived as unsatisfactory, German GPs could not envisage alternatives if asked to consider whether the current arrangements were sustainable in the future. To guarantee an unaltered quality of primary home care, German GPs and health care policy makers should actively initiate a debate on the need for and nature of home visits in the future.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelHouse CallsAdultFemaleGeneral PractitionersGermanyHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedMotivationNursesNursing HomesPractice Patterns, Physicians'Qualitative ResearchTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID21513534
PMCPMC3098781
OpenAlexW2005368648

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.