Page 136 - Demo

Chapter 6134on their general practices. Participants felt responsible for this patient group but found it difficult to provide them with the appropriate (MH) care, leading to participants feeling frustration, uncertainty, and despondency. Reasons for the perceived complexity in delivering (MH) care to patients with both MID and MH problems were captured in four main themes emerging from the focus groups: 1] GPs’ and MHNPs’ struggles with adapting to challenging patient characteristics; 2] importance and difficulties of establishing a good doctor–patient relationship; 3] facilitating and hampering roles of the patient’s network; 4] GPs’ and MHNPs’ challenges to provide care in the healthcare chain (Box 6.1). Below, each theme is described, ending in each case with a box of practice-based insights that, according to the participants, could contribute positively to the quality of care regarding the respective theme (Boxes 6.2–6.5). For readability, the term practitioner is used for both GPs and MHNPs; when relevant, GP or MHNP is specified.Table 6.1. Participants’ characteristicsNo Focus groupaAge(years)Sexb GP/MHNPc Work experience (years)Experience with patients with MIDd1 36 F MHNP 7 ++1 46 F GP 16 ++1 63 F MHNP 5 ++1 46 F GP 15 +1 65 M MHNP 10 ++1 46 M GP 15 ++1 49 F GP 14 ++2 39 F GP 1 +++2 37 F GP 5 +2 35 F GP 4 ++2 36 F GP 3 ++2 40 F GP 5 ++3 62 F MHNP 18 ++3 36 F MHNP 3 +++3 52 F MHNP 11 +3 56 F MHNP 8 +++3 58 F MHNP 8 +3 55 F MHNP 9 +4 45 F GP 21 +4 32 M GP 3 ++4 45 F GP 17 ++4 31 M GP 2 +4 56 M GP 22 ++4 53 M GP 20 ++4 34 M GP 7 +Katrien Pouls sHL.indd 134 24-06-2024 16:26