Tackling health inequalities in primary care: an exploration of GPs’ experience at the frontline

In Scotland, life expectancy and health outcomes are strongly tied to socioeconomic status. Specifically, socioeconomically deprived areas suffer disproportionately from high levels of premature multimorbidity and mortality. To tackle these inequalities in health, challenges in the most deprived areas must be addressed. One avenue that merits attention is the potential role of general medical practitioners (GPs) in helping to address health inequalities, particularly due to their long-term presence in deprived communities, their role in improving patient and population health, and their potential advocacy role on behalf of their patients. GPs can be seen as what Lipsky calls ‘street-level bureaucrats’ due to their considerable autonomy in the decisions they make surrounding individual patient needs, yet practising under the bureaucratic structure of the NHS. While previous research has examined the applicability of Lipsky’s framework to the role of GPs, there has been very little research exploring how GPs negotiate between the multiple identities in their work, how GPs ‘socially construct’ their patients, how GPs view their potential role as ‘advocate’, and what this means in terms of the contribution of GPs to addressing existing inequalities in health. Using semi-structured interviews, this study explored the experience and views of 24 GPs working in some of Scotland’s most deprived practices to understand how they might combat this growing health divide via the mitigation (and potential prevention) of existing health inequalities. Participants were selected based on several criteria including practice deprivation level and their individual involvement in the Deep End project, which is an informal network comprising the 100 most deprived general practices in Scotland. The research focused on understanding GPs’ perceptions of their work including its broader implications, within their practice, the communities within which they practise, and the health system as a whole. The concept of street-level bureaucracy proved to be useful in understanding GPs’ frontline work and how they negotiate dilemmas. However, this research demonstrated the need to look beyond Lipsky’s framework in order to understand how GPs reconcile their multiple identities, including advocate and manager. As a result, the term ‘street-level professional’ is offered to capture more fully the multiple identities which GPs inhabit and to explain how GPs’ elite status positions them to engage in political and policy advocacy. This study also provides evidence that GPs’ social constructions of patients are linked not only to how GPs conceptualise the causes of health inequalities, but also to how they view their role in tackling them. In line with this, the interviews established that many GPs felt they could make a difference through advocacy efforts at individual, community and policy/political levels. Furthermore, the study draws attention to the importance of practitioner-led groups—such as the Deep End project—in supporting GPs’ efforts and providing a platform for their advocacy. Within this study, a range of GPs’ views have been explored based on the sample. While it is unclear how common these views are amongst GPs in general, the study revealed that there is considerable scope for ‘political GPs’ who choose to exercise discretion in their communities and beyond. Consequently, GPs working in deprived areas should be encouraged to use their professional status and political clout not only to strengthen local communities, but also to advocate for policy change that might potentially affect the degree of disadvantage of their patients, and levels of social and health inequalities more generally.

An exploration of treatment burden and patient capacity in people with stroke

Background and aims: Advances in modern medicine have led to improved outcomes after stroke, yet an increased treatment burden has been placed on patients. Treatment burden is the workload of health care for people with chronic illness and the impact that this has on functioning and well-being. Those with comorbidities are likely to be particularly burdened. Excessive treatment burden can negatively affect outcomes. Individuals are likely to differ in their ability to manage health problems and follow treatments, defined as patient capacity. The aim of this thesis was to explore the experience of treatment burden for people who have had a stroke and the factors that influence patient capacity. Methods: There were four phases of research. 1) A systematic review of the qualitative literature that explored the experience of treatment burden for those with stroke. Data were analysed using framework synthesis, underpinned by Normalisation Process Theory (NPT). 2) A cross-sectional study of 1,424,378 participants >18 years, demographically representative of the Scottish population. Binary logistic regression was used to analyse the relationship between stroke and the presence of comorbidities and prescribed medications. 3) Interviews with twenty-nine individuals with stroke, fifteen analysed by framework analysis underpinned by NPT and fourteen by thematic analysis. The experience of treatment burden was explored in depth along with factors that influence patient capacity. 4) Integration of findings in order to create a conceptual model of treatment burden and patient capacity in stroke. Results: Phase 1) A taxonomy of treatment burden in stroke was created. The following broad areas of treatment burden were identified: making sense of stroke management and planning care; interacting with others including health professionals, family and other stroke patients; enacting management strategies; and reflecting on management. Phase 2) 35,690 people (2.5%) had a diagnosis of stroke and of the 39 co-morbidities examined, 35 were significantly more common in those with stroke. The proportion of those with stroke that had >1 additional morbidities present (94.2%) was almost twice that of controls (48%) (odds ratio (OR) adjusted for age, gender and socioeconomic deprivation; 95% confidence interval: 5.18; 4.95-5.43) and 34.5% had 4-6 comorbidities compared to 7.2% of controls (8.59; 8.17-9.04). In the stroke group, 12.6% of people had a record of >11 repeat prescriptions compared to only 1.5% of the control group (OR adjusted for age, gender, deprivation and morbidity count: 15.84; 14.86-16.88). Phase 3) The taxonomy of treatment burden from Phase 1 was verified and expanded. Additionally, treatment burdens were identified as arising from either: the workload of healthcare; or the endurance of care deficiencies. A taxonomy of patient capacity was created. Six factors were identified that influence patient capacity: personal attributes and skills; physical and cognitive abilities; support network; financial status; life workload, and environment. A conceptual model of treatment burden was created. Healthcare workload and the presence of care deficiencies can influence and be influenced by patient capacity. The quality and configuration of health and social care services influences healthcare workload, care deficiencies and patient capacity. Conclusions: This thesis provides important insights into the considerable treatment burden experienced by people who have had a stroke and the factors that affect their capacity to manage health. Multimorbidity and polypharmacy are common in those with stroke and levels of these are high. Findings have important implications for the design of clinical guidelines and healthcare delivery, for example co-ordination of care should be improved, shared decision-making enhanced, and patients better supported following discharge from hospital.