Premium
Nurses’ and physicians’ experiences with diabetes consultations and the use of dialogue tools in the DiaPROM pilot trial: A qualitative study
Author(s) -
Haugstvedt A.,
Hernar I.,
Graue M.,
Strandberg R. B.,
Stangeland Lie S.,
Sigurdardottir A. K.,
Richards D.,
Kolltveit B.C. H.
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
diabetic medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.474
H-Index - 145
eISSN - 1464-5491
pISSN - 0742-3071
DOI - 10.1111/dme.14419
Subject(s) - medicine , psychosocial , thematic analysis , multidisciplinary approach , psychological intervention , nursing , qualitative research , focus group , medline , intervention (counseling) , guideline , health care , family medicine , medical education , psychiatry , economics , economic growth , social science , marketing , sociology , political science , law , business , pathology
Aim To explore nurses’ and physicians’ experiences with diabetes consultations in general and the use of dialogue tools in the Diabetes Patient‐Related Outcome Measures (DiaPROM) pilot trial. Methods We used a qualitative explorative design by conducting semi‐structured in‐depth interviews with five nurses and nine physicians engaged in the DiaPROM pilot trial. The pilot trial aimed to test an intervention utilizing the patient‐reported Problem Areas In Diabetes (PAID) scale and person‐centred communication skills as dialogue tools in clinical consultations with adults with type 1 diabetes. We used thematic analysis to analyse the data. Results We generated three themes (each including two subthemes) from the analysis of participants’ experiences: (1) ‘Conflicting demands and priorities’ (subthemes: ‘Balancing guideline recommendations with patients’ main concerns’ and ‘Experiencing that patients need more support to disclose their emotional concerns’); (2) ‘Insights about using dialogue tools’ (subthemes: ‘The benefits and challenges of using the PAID as a dialogue tool’ and ‘Communication techniques are helpful’); and (3) ‘Facilitating new interventions is challenging’ (subthemes: ‘Unclear roles and responsibilities in the multidisciplinary teamwork’ and ‘The capacity sets the limit, not the willingness’). Conclusions Our findings indicate that the physicians and nurses experienced substantial challenges related to time and resources in the use of dialogue tools to support people's emotional concerns in clinical diabetes consultations. Thus, there is a need for healthcare organizations to adjust priorities to focus on the emotional burden of diabetes if the multidisciplinary diabetes teams are to successfully integrate psychosocial support into routine diabetes care.