4.6 Article

General Practitioner's Experience of Public-Private Partnerships to Develop Team-Based Care: A Qualitative Study

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Volume 68, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/ijph.2023.1606453

Keywords

general practitioner; reform of the PHC system; multidisciplinary health team; family medicine; public-private partnership

Ask authors/readers for more resources

GPs have a positive view of this public-private partnership and see an opportunity to be involved in developing public health policies. However, financial concerns and coordination with nurses are the main issues that they are concerned about.
Objectives: A tripartite public-private partnership was established between GPs' practices, public health authorities and a university department of family medicine, to develop multidisciplinary teams and integrate nurses into GPs' practices. The present paper describes the points of view of the GPs involved in this collaboration.Methods: We conducted a qualitative study, with data coming from eight interviews with GPs, one from each practice. We also used the facilitator's project diary to complete the discussion.Results: The principal issue discussed was the financial aspects of the collaboration. GPs are generally satisfied, but time spent coordinating with nurses and transferring activities made them fear financial losses. Secondly, the partnership with public health authorities was well appreciated, but not clear enough. Some aspects of the partnership, such as referring patient to the nurse should have been better defined et controlled. The last aspect was the academic support. It allowed reducing GPs' workload in training nurses and supporting the project implementation within the GPs' practice.Conclusion: GPs have a positive point of view of such public-private partnership and saw an opportunity to be involved in developing public health policies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available