Lassa Samuel, Burton Chris, Dickson Jon M
Royal Primary Care, Ashgate Research Unit, Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS, Chesterfield, UK.
School of Medicine & Population Health, Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
BJGP Open. 2025 Apr 24;9(1). doi: 10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0074. Print 2025 Apr.
GPs are often required to make decisions about the management of acute illness in people living with dementia. These decisions are often complex and involve multiple informants.
We aimed to explore how GPs made decisions about acute illness in people with dementia using a micropolitics approach.
DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 13 GPs with a range of years of experience working in South Yorkshire, UK.
Interviews were conducted by phone. Interviews focused on GPs' accounts to reflect their own perceptions and choices as portrayed to the interviewer. The analysis used the lens of micropolitics in the analysis and interpretation of the themes, with a focus on decisions between GP, patient, family and carers, and other health and social care providers about the management of acute illness in a person with dementia.
The results showed that GPs act as street-level bureaucrats while carrying out their role, using discretion during decision-making in an environment characterised by uncertainties and work pressures. In addition, GPs use the 'soft power' skills of diplomacy, such as negotiation, persuasion, and engagement, in navigating difficult decision-making situations, while building relationships and partnerships with various actors in the health system.
GPs possess and express power, and influence decision-making in people living with dementia when navigating biomedical, social, and psychological factors. This power comes in the form of soft power (street-level diplomacy) and the more formal power of street-level bureaucracy.
全科医生(GPs)常常需要对痴呆症患者的急性病管理做出决策。这些决策通常很复杂,且涉及多个信息提供者。
我们旨在运用微观政治方法探究全科医生如何对痴呆症患者的急性病做出决策。
对英国南约克郡13名具有不同工作年限的全科医生进行定性的半结构化访谈。
通过电话进行访谈。访谈聚焦于全科医生的叙述,以反映他们向访谈者所描述的自身认知和选择。分析在主题的分析和解读中运用微观政治视角,重点关注全科医生、患者、家属和护理人员以及其他健康和社会护理提供者之间关于痴呆症患者急性病管理的决策。
结果表明,全科医生在履行职责时扮演着基层官僚的角色,在充满不确定性和工作压力的环境中决策时运用自由裁量权。此外,全科医生在应对艰难决策情况时会运用外交“软实力”技巧,如谈判、说服和参与,同时与卫生系统中的各种行为者建立关系和伙伴关系。
全科医生拥有并展现出权力,在权衡生物医学、社会和心理因素时影响痴呆症患者的决策。这种权力以软实力(基层外交)和基层官僚更正式的权力形式存在。