Background: GPs providing patient-centred care (PCC) is embedded in international health care policies due to its positive impact on patients and potential to lower health care costs. However, what is currently known about GP-delivered PCC is unknown. Objective: To synthesize literature investigating GP-delivered PCC and address ‘what is currently known about GP-delivered PCC?’ Method: A systematic literature search was conducted between June and July 2018. Eligible articles were empirical, full-text studies published in English between January 2003 and July 2018, related to at least three of the four dimensions of PCC described by Hudon et al. (2011), and related to preventative, acute, and/or chronic care by GPs. Following screening, full-text articles were independently assessed for inclusion by two investigators. Data were extracted and quality assessed by two researchers. Findings on PCC were analysed thematically (meta-synthesis). Results: Thirty medium- to high-quality studies met the inclusions criteria. Included studies utilized varied designs, with the most frequent being quantitative, cross-sectional. A theoretical model of PCC was synthesized from included studies and contained four major components: (i) understanding the whole person, (ii) finding common ground, (iii) experiencing time and (iv) aiming for positive outcomes. Harms of PCC were rarely reported. Conclusions: Four overarching theoretical components of PCC relate to elements of the consultation and experience of time. These components can be used to inform the development of toolkits to support GPs and general practice organizations in pursuit of PCC as well as tools to measure patient-centredness.

Background: Patients, providers and health care organisations benefit from an increased understanding and implementation of patient-centred care (PCC) by general practitioners (GPs). This study aimed to evaluate and advance a theoretical model of PCC developed in consultation with practising GPs and patient advocates. Methods: Qualitative description in a social constructivist/interpretivist paradigm. Participants were purposively sampled from six primary care organisations in south east Queensland/northern New South Wales, Australia. Participants engaged in focus group discussions where they expressed their perceptions, views and feelings of an existing PCC model. Data was analysed thematically using a constant-comparison approach. Results: Three focus groups with 15 patient advocates and three focus groups with 12 GPs were conducted before thematic saturation was obtained. Three themes emerged: i) the model represents the ideal, ii) considering the system and collaborating in care and iii) optimising the general practice environment. The themes related to participants’ impression of the model and new components of PCC perceived to be experienced in the ‘real world’. The data was synthesised to produce an advanced model of PCC named, “Putting Patients First: A Map for PCC”. Conclusions: Our revised PCC model represents an enhanced understanding of PCC in the ‘real world’ and can be used to inform patients, providers and health organisations striving for PCC. Qualitative testing advanced and supported the credibility of the model and expanded its application beyond the doctor-patient encounter. Future work could incorporate our map for PCC in tool/tool kits designed to support GPs and general practice with PCC.

Background Patient-centred care (PCC) is care that is respectful and responsive to the wishes of patients. The body of literature on PCC delivered by general practitioners (GPs) has increased steadily over time. There is an opportunity to advance the work on GP-delivered PCC through qualitative research involving both patients and providers. Aim To explore the perceptions and experiences of PCC by patient advocates and GPs. Design and setting Qualitative description in a social constructivist paradigm. Participants were sampled from six primary care organisations in south east Queensland/northern New South Wales, Australia. Method Purposive sampling was used to recruit English-speaking adult participants who were either practising GPs or patient advocates. Focus group sessions explored participants’ perceptions and experiences of PCC. Data were analysed thematically using a constant-comparative approach. Results Three focus groups with 15 patient advocates and three focus groups with 12 practising GPs were conducted before thematic saturation was obtained. Five themes emerged: (1) understanding of PCC is varied and personal, (2) valuing humanistic care, (3) considering the system and collaborating in care, (4) optimising the general practice environment and (5) needing support for PCC that is embedded into training. Conclusion Patient advocates’ and GPs’ understanding of PCC are diverse, which can hinder strategies to implement and sustain PCC improvements. Future research should explore novel interventions that expose GPs to unique feedback from patients, assess the patient-centeredness of the environment and promote GP self-reflection on PCC.

Aim: To identify minimum reporting standards for assessing the processes and outcomes of Australian primary care dietetics practice.Methods: A sequential, mixed‐method, exploratory process with peer‐nominated Australian ‘thought leaders’. A literature review was undertaken to identify possible standards, followed by semi‐structured qualitative interviews with thought leaders. Content analysis was used to identify a comprehensive group of items that could inform evidence‐based reporting standards. Two rounds of a modified Delphi survey were conducted with the same thought leaders to seek consensus on the most relevant items. Individual items were analysed for content validity, and those with a rating of excellent item‐content validity (index >0.78) were included as evidenced‐based standards for primary care practice.Results: Twenty‐six thought leaders (response rate: 87%) from all mainland Australian states completed a qualitative interview and two rounds of modified‐Delphi consensus surveys. Items were identified and categorised into three domains: business, clinical, and implementation. Content analysis identified 216 items published or used in practice by the thought leaders. After two rounds of consensus review, 97 items (45 business, 33 clinical, and 19 implementation) achieved excellent consensus ratings. Combining these items into a standardised tool, the scale‐content validity index average was >0.90, which is considered excellent content validity.Conclusions: This study has identified minimum reporting standards for evidence‐based process and outcome assessments in primary care dietetics practice in Australia. Incorporating such standards into a standardised tool could enable benchmarking across the dietetics workforce and contribute to a broader understanding of the dietetic impact on public health.

Background: Priority patients in primary care include people from low-income, rural, or culturally and linguistically diverse communities, and First Nations people.Aim: To describe the effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability of behaviour change tools that have been tested by family doctors working with priority patients.Design and setting: A global systematic review.Method: Five databases were searched for studies published from 2000 to 2021, of any design, that tested the effectiveness or feasibility of tangible, publicly available behaviour change tools used by family doctors working with priority patients. The methodological quality of each study was appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.Results: Thirteen of 4931 studies screened met the eligibility criteria, and described 12 tools. The health-related behaviours targeted included smoking, diet and/or physical activity, alcohol and/or drug use, and suicidal ideation. Six tools had an online/web/app-based focus; the remaining six utilised only printed materials and/or in-person training. The effectiveness of the tools was assessed in 11 studies, which used diverse methods, with promising results for enabling behaviour change. The nine studies that assessed feasibility found that the tools were easy to use and enhanced the perceived quality of care.Conclusion: Many of the identified behaviour change tools were demonstrated to be effective at facilitating change in a target behaviour and/or feasible for use in practice. The tools varied across factors, such as the mode of delivery and the way the tool was intended to influence behaviour. There is clear opportunity to build on existing tools to enable family doctors to assist priority patients towards achieving healthier lifestyles.