Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38627632›Full record

ArticleBMC primary care2024

Asking the generalist - evaluation of a General Practice rounding and consult service.

Katharina Schmalstieg-Bahr, Sophia MacDonald, Nadine Pohontsch, Sebastian Debus, Martin Scherer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC primary care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Katharina Schmalstieg-BahrDepartment of General Practice and Primary Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, Building W37, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. k.schmalstieg-bahr@uke.de.
Sophia MacDonaldDepartment of General Practice and Primary Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, Building W37, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Nadine PohontschDepartment of General Practice and Primary Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, Building W37, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Sebastian DebusDepartment of Vascular Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246 Hamburg, Germany.
Martin SchererDepartment of General Practice and Primary Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, Building W37, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVascular surgery patients admitted to the hospital are often multimorbid. In case of questions regarding chronic medical problems different specialties are consulted, which leads to a high number of treating physicians and possibly contradicting recommendations. The General Practitioner´s (GP) view could minimize this problem. However, it is unknown for which medical problems a GP would be consulted and if regular GP-involvement during rounds would be considered helpful by the specialists. The aim of this study was to establish and describe a General Practice rounding service (GP-RS), to evaluate if the GP-RS is doable in a tertiary care hospital and beneficial to the specialists and to explore GP-consult indications.

methodsThe GP-RS was established as a pilot project. Between June-December 2020, a board-certified GP from the Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE) joined the vascular surgery team (UKE) once-weekly on rounds. The project was evaluated using a multi-methods approach: semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with vascular surgery physicians that had either participated in the GP-RS (G1), had not participated (G2), other specialists usually conducting consults on the vascular surgery floor (G3) and with the involved GP (G4). Interviews were analyzed using Kuckartz' qualitative content analysis. In addition, two sets of quantitative data were descriptively analyzed focusing on the reasons for a GP-consult: one set from the GP-RS and one from an established, conventional "as needed" GP-consult service.

results15 interviews were conducted. Physicians perceived the GP-RS as beneficial, especially for surgical patients (G1-3). Optimizing medication, avoiding unnecessary consults and a learning effect for physicians in training (G1-4) were named as other benefits. Critical voices saw an increased workload through the GP-RS (G1, G3) and some consult requests as too specific for a GP (G1-3). Based on data from 367 vascular surgery patients and 80 conventional GP-consults, the most common reasons for a GP-consult were cardiovascular diseases including hypertension and diabetes.

conclusionsA GP-RS is doable in a tertiary care hospital. Studies of GP co-management model with closer follow ups would be needed to objectively improve patient care and reduce the overall number of consults.

trial registrationNot applicable.

Indexed as

Family PracticeGeneral PracticeAcademic Medical CentersHumansPilot ProjectsReferral and ConsultationCo-managementConsultsGeneral practiceHospital careInterdisciplinary communicationInterdisciplinary roundsMultimorbidity

Identifiers

PMID38627632
PMCPMC11020190

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.