Search

Background: People with a severe mental illness (SMI) have shorter life expectancy and poorer quality of life compared to the general population. Most years lost are due to cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, and various types of cancer. We co-designed an intervention to mitigate this health problem with key stakeholders in the area, which centred on an extended consultations for people with SMI in general practice. This study aimed to1) investigate general practitioners' (GPs) experience of the feasibility of introducing extended consultations for patients with SMI, 2) assess the clinical content of extended consultations and how these were experienced by patients, and 3) investigate the feasibility of identification, eligibility screening, and recruitment of patients with SMI., Methods: The study was a one-armed feasibility study. We planned that seven general practices in northern Denmark would introduce extended consultations with their patients with SMI for 6 months. Patients with SMI were identified using practice medical records and screened for eligibility by the patients' GP. Data were collected using case report forms filled out by practice personnel and via qualitative methods, including observations of consultations, individual semi-structured interviews, a focus group with GPs, and informal conversations with patients and general practice staff., Results: Five general practices employing seven GPs participated in the study, which was terminated 3 ½ month ahead of schedule due to the COVID-19 pandemic. General practices attempted to contact 57 patients with SMI. Of these, 38 patients (67%) attended an extended consultation, which led to changes in the somatic health care plan for 82% of patients. Conduct of the extended consultations varied between GPs and diverged from the intended conduct. Nonetheless, GPs found the extended consultations feasible and, in most cases, beneficial for the patient group. In interviews, most patients recounted the extended consultation as beneficial., Discussion: Our findings suggest that it is feasible to introduce extended consultations for patients with SMI in general practice, which were also found to be well-suited for eliciting patients' values and preferences. Larger studies with a longer follow-up period could help to assess the long-term effects and the best implementation strategies of these consultations., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Background: The PRICOV-19 study aimed to assess the organization of primary health care (PHC) during the COVID-19 pandemic in 37 European countries and Israel; and its impact on different dimensions of quality of care. In this paper, we described measures taken by public PHC centers in Greece. Additionally, we explored potential differences between rural and non-rural settings., Methods: The study population consisted of the 287 public PHC centers in Greece. A random sample of 100 PHC centers stratified by Health Region was created. The online questionnaire consisted of 53 items, covering six sections: general information on the PHC center, patient flow, infection prevention, information processing, communication to patients, collaboration, and collegiality., Results: Seventy-eight PHC centers (78%) - 50 rural and 28 non-rural - responded to the survey. Certain measures were reported by few PHC centers. Specifically, the use of online messages about complaints that can be solved without a visit to the PHC center (21% rural; and 31% non-rural PHC centers), the use of video consultations with patients (12% rural; and 7% non-rural PHC centers), and the use of electronic medical records (EMRs) to systematically identify the list of patients with chronic conditions (5% rural; and 10% non-rural PHC centers) were scarcely reported. Very few PHC centers reported measures to support identifying and reaching out to vulnerable population, including patients that may have experienced domestic violence (8% rural; and 7% non-rural PHC centers), or financial problems (26% rural; and 7% non-rural PHC centers). Providing administrative documents to patients through postal mail (12% rural; and 21% non-rural PHC centers), or regular e-mail (11% rural; and 36% non-rural PHC centers), or through a secured server (8% rural; and 18% non-rural PHC centers) was rarely reported. Finally, providing information in multiple languages through a PHC website (12% rural PHC centers only), or an answering machine (6% rural PHC centers only), or leaflets (3% rural PHC centers only; and for leaflets specifically on COVID-19: 6% rural; and 8% non-rural PHC centers) were lacking in most PHC centers., Conclusion: Our study captured measures implemented by few PHC centers suggesting potential priority areas of future improvement., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the World Health Organization established a number of key recommendations such as educational activities especially within primary care practices (PCPs) which are a key component of this strategy. This paper aims to examine the educational activities of PCPs during COVID-19 pandemic and to identify the factors associated with these practices across 38 countries., Methods: A "Patient Education (PE)" score was created based on responses to six items from the self-reported questionnaire among PCPs (n = 3638) compiled by the PRICOV-19 study. Statistical analyses were performed on 3638 cases, with PCPs with missing PE score values were excluded., Results: The PE score features a mean of 2.55 (SD = 0.68) and a median of 2.50 (2.16 - 3.00), with a maximum of 4.00, and varies quite widely between countries. Among all PCPs characteristics, these factors significantly increase the PE score: the payment system type (with a capitation payment system or another system compared to the fee for service), the perception of average PCP with patients with chronic conditions and the perception of adequate governmental support., Conclusion: The model presented in this article is still incomplete and requires further investigation to identify other configuration elements favorable to educational activities. However, the results already highlight certain levers that will enable the development of this educational approach appropriate to primary care., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic immensely impacted care provision, including quality of care in general practice. This paper aimed: (1) to assess how Belgian general practices acted upon the six dimensions of quality of care during COVID-19; (2) to study differences between the three Belgian regions; and (3) to benchmark the performance of the Belgian practices against the performance in other European countries., Methods: The data collected from 479 Belgian practices during 2020-2021 using an online survey as part of the international cross-sectional PRICOV-19 study were analyzed.  Hereby, descriptive statistics, chi-squared tests, and binary logistic regression analyses were performed. Thirty-four survey questions related to the six dimensions of quality of care were selected as outcome variables. The adjusted regression models included four practice characteristics as covariates: practice type, being a teaching practice for GP trainees, multidisciplinarity of the team, and payment system., Results: Belgian practices made important organizational changes to deliver high-quality care during COVID-19. Most practices (n = 259; 56.1%) actively reached out to vulnerable patients. Limitations to the practice building or infrastructure threatened high-quality care in 266 practices (55.5%). Infection prevention measures could not always be implemented during COVID-19, such as using a cleaning protocol (n = 265; 57.2%) and providing a separate doctor bag for infection-related home visits (n = 130; 27.9%). Three hundred and sixty practices (82.0%) reported at least one safety incident related to a delayed care process in patients with an urgent condition. The adjusted regression analysis showed limited significant differences between the Belgian regions regarding the quality of care delivered. Belgian practices demonstrated varied performance compared to other European countries. For example, they excelled in always checking the feasibility of isolation at home but reported more patient safety incidents related to timely care than at least three-quarters of the other European countries., Conclusions: Future studies using different design methods are crucial to investigate which country and practice characteristics are associated with delivering high-quality care., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the large uptake in virtual care in primary care in Canada, the care of patients with type 2 diabetes has been greatly affected. This includes decreased in-person visits, laboratory testing and in-person assessments such as blood pressure (BP). No studies have investigated if these changes persisted with pandemic progression, and it is unclear if shifts impacted patient groups uniformly. The purpose of this paper was to examine changes in diabetes care pre, early, and later pandemic across different patient groups., Methods: A repeated cross-sectional design with an open cohort was used to investigate diabetes care in adults with type 2 diabetes for a 6-month interval from March 14 to September 13 over three consecutive years: 2019 (pre-pandemic period), 2020 (early pandemic period), and 2021 (later pandemic period). Data for this study were abstracted from the University of Toronto Practice-Based Research Network (UTOPIAN) Data Safe Haven, a primary care electronic medical records database in Ontario, Canada. Changes in diabetes care, which included primary care total visits, in-person visits, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) testing, and BP measurements were evaluated across the phases of the pandemic. Difference in diabetes care across patient groups, including age, sex, income quintile, prior HbA1c levels, and prior BP levels, were assessed., Results: A total of 39,401 adults with type 2 diabetes were included in the study. Compared to the 6-month pre-pandemic period, having any in-person visits decreased significantly early pandemic (OR = 0.079 (0.076-0.082)), with a partial recovery later pandemic (OR = 0.162 (95% CI: 0.157-0.169). Compared to the pre-pandemic period, there was a significant decrease early pandemic for total visits (OR = 0.486 (95% CI: 0.470-0.503)), HbA1c testing (OR = 0.401 (95% CI: 0.389-0.413)), and BP measurement (OR = 0.121 (95% CI: 0.116-0.125)), with partial recovery later pandemic., Conclusions: All measures of diabetes care were substantially decreased early pandemic, with a partial recovery later pandemic across all patient groups. With the increase in virtual care due to the COVID-19 pandemic, diabetes care has been negatively impacted over 1-year after pandemic onset., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic led to huge and rapid changes in general practice in Norway as in the rest of Europe. This paper aims to explore to what extent the COVID-19 pandemic changed the work tasks and organization of Norwegian general practice., Material and Method: We analysed data from the Norwegian part of the international, cross-sectional PRICOV-19 study, collecting data from general practice via an online self-reported questionnaire. We included 130 Norwegian general practices, representing an estimated 520 Norwegian general practitioners (GPs). All Norwegian GPs were invited to participate. In the analyses, we focused on items related to the use of alternatives to face-to-face consultations, changes in the workload, tasks and delegated responsibilities of both the GPs and other personnel in the GP offices, adaptations in routines related to hygiene measures, triage of patients, and how the official rules and recommendations affected the practices., Results: There was a large and significant increase in the use of all forms of alternative consultation forms (digital text-based, video- and telephone consultations). The use of several different infection prevention measures were significantly increased, and the provision of hand sanitizer to patients increased from 29.6% pre-pandemic to 95.1% since the pandemic. More than half of the GPs (59.5%) reported that their responsibilities in the practice had increased, and 41% were happy with the task shift. 27% felt that they received adequate support from the government; however, 20% reported that guidelines from the government posed a threat to the well-being of the practice staff. We found no associations with the rurality of the practice location or size of the municipalities., Conclusion: Norwegian GPs adapted well to the need for increased use of alternatives to face-to-face consultations, and reported a high acceptance of their increased responsibilities. However, only one in four received adequate support from the government, which is an important learning point for similar situations in the future., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: The SARS-CoV2 pandemic as well as the implementation of public health measures to decrease the spread of the virus re-sparked the call for "virtual" health or "distance" treatments. This paper aimed to assess the use of video consultations, the up-to-dateness of practice websites, and the views of GPs on whether eHealth is a positive aspect for the future of their practices in publicly -funded primary healthcare facilities in Austria., Methods: The cross-sectional online questionnaire, part of the PRICOV-19 study, was conducted from December 2020 until July 2021. We randomly recruited 176 GP practices across Austria. Descriptive statistics as well as binary logistic regression models were applied to examine the associations between telemedicine use and practice factors., Results: Compared with before the pandemic (3.8%), 7.6% of publicly funded GP practices have been using video consultations since the pandemic. In line with this, 93.9% of the practices had no increase in video consultation use. Fewer than half (44.3%) had an up-to-date webpage, and 27.8% assumed that the pandemic might have been a positive driver for eHealth in their practices. Positive associations with video consultation use could be found in practices with fewer patients aged 70 years and over than the average and more patients with chronic diseases than the average., Conclusion: The use of video consultations in general practice and the readiness for other telemedicine approaches are both very low in Austria. Austria has to urgently follow the example of countries with a transparent and comprehensive national digital health strategy that includes video consultation. Without a proper payment system, patient inclusion, and support with regard to administrative and organizational aspects, no substantial change will occur in spite of an increase in need due to the pandemic and changes in the patient population., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: The international study PRICOV-19 aims to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the organisation of primary health care. The German part focuses on German general practitioners during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper addresses the following research questions: (1) How were changes in tasks on primary care and patient treatment perceived by GPs?, (2) What was the role of GPs during the pandemic, and how was their wellbeing?, (3) How did GPs perceive health policy measures?, and, (4) What influenced the attitudes of GPs on health policy measures?, Methods: This study pursues a multi-country cross-sectional design. Data collection took place throughout Germany from 01.02. to 28.02.2021 with a quantitative online questionnaire consisting of 53 items. The questionnaire was analysed through descriptive and inferential analyses using correlation and multiple regression models., Results: The response rate was 20.4% (n = 349). The respondents were mainly GPs (59.6%) in single practices (62.5%) with a mean work experience of 15 to 20 years. GPs experienced a change in their work and practice organisation (80.3%). They felt a high responsibility (70.6%) and found their work has become more meaningful to them (76%). They also saw a lack of political support (75.2%) and that the measures taken by the government overburdened the daily practice (66.4%). Not many GPs were at risk of being distressed (53.4%) but rated the health policies rather negatively (60%). The multiple regression showed, the more GPs were exposed to risk of distress, the worse they assessed the government's measures., Conclusion: GPs perceived their work as relevant and felt confident they could fulfil their tasks, but noticed that health policy initially hardly supported the outpatient sector. Health policies should increase their competence in relation to primary care, ensure its needs and consider an active inclusion of GPs in preparedness plans., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: The integration of Primary Care (PC) into broader health systems has been a goal in jurisdictions around the world. Efforts to achieve integration at the meso-level have drawn particular attention, but there are few actionable recommendations for how to enact a 'pro-integration culture' amongst government and PC governance bodies. This paper describes pragmatic integration activity undertaken by meso-level participants in Alberta, Canada, and suggests ways this activity may be generalizable to other health systems., Methods: 11 semi-structured interviews with nine key informants from meso-level organizations were selected from a larger qualitative study examining healthcare policy development and implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Selected interviews focused on participants' experiences and efforts to 'do' integration as they responded to Alberta's first wave of the Omicron variant in September 2021. An interpretive descriptive approach was used to identify repeating cycles in the integration context, and pragmatic integration activities., Results: As Omicron arrived in Alberta, integration and relations between meso-level PC and central health system participants were tense, but efforts to improve the situation were successfully made. In this context of cycling relationships, staffing changes made in reaction to exogenous shocks and political pressures were clear influences on integration. However, participants also engaged in specific behaviours that advanced a pro-integration culture. They did so by: signaling value through staffing and resource choices; speaking and enacting personal and group commitments to collaboration; persevering; and practicing bi-directional communication through formal and informal channels., Conclusions: Achieving PC integration involves not just the reactive work of responding to exogenous factors, but also the proactive work of enacting cultural, relationship, and communication behaviors. These behaviors may support integration regardless of the shocks, staff turnover, and relational freeze-thaw cycles experienced by any health system., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Primary care physicians (PCPs) play an indispensable role in providing comprehensive care and referring patients for specialty care and other medical services. As the COVID-19 outbreak disrupts patient access to care, understanding the quality of primary care is critical at this unprecedented moment to support patients with complex medical needs in the primary care setting and inform policymakers to redesign our primary care system. The traditional way of collecting information from patient surveys is time-consuming and costly, and novel data collection and analysis methods are needed. In this review paper, we describe the existing algorithms and metrics that use the real-world data to qualify and quantify primary care, including the identification of an individual's likely PCP (identification of plurality provider and major provider), assessment of process quality (for example, appropriate-care-model composite measures), and continuity and regularity of care index (including the interval index, variance index and relative variance index), and highlight the strength and limitation of real world data from electronic health records (EHRs) and claims data in determining the quality of PCP care. The EHR audits facilitate assessing the quality of the workflow process and clinical appropriateness of primary care practices. With extensive and diverse records, administrative claims data can provide reliable information as it assesses primary care quality through coded information from different providers or networks. The use of EHRs and administrative claims data may be a cost-effective analytic strategy for evaluating the quality of primary care., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Reporting of domestic violence and abuse (DVA) increased globally during the pandemic. General Practice has a central role in identifying and supporting those affected by DVA. Pandemic associated changes in UK primary care included remote initial contacts with primary care and predominantly remote consulting. This paper explores general practice's adaptation to DVA care during the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: Remote semi-structured interviews were conducted by telephone with staff from six localities in England and Wales where the Identification and Referral to Improve Safety (IRIS) primary care DVA programme is commissioned.  We conducted interviews between April 2021 and February 2022 with three practice managers, three reception and administrative staff, eight general practice clinicians and seven specialist DVA staff. Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPI&E) advisers with lived experience of DVA guided the project. Together we developed recommendations for primary care teams based on our findings., Results: We present our findings within four themes, representing primary care adaptations in delivering DVA care: 1. Making general practice accessible for DVA care: staff adapted telephone triaging processes for appointments and promoted availability of DVA support online. 2. General practice team-working to identify DVA: practices developed new approaches of collaboration, including whole team adaptations to information processing and communication 3. Adapting to remote consultations about DVA: teams were required to adapt to challenges including concerns about safety, privacy, and developing trust remotely. 4. Experiences of onward referrals for specialist DVA support: support from specialist services was effective and largely unchanged during the pandemic., Conclusions: Disruption caused by pandemic restrictions revealed how team dynamics and interactions before, during and after clinical consultations contribute to identifying and supporting patients experiencing DVA. Remote assessment complicates access to and delivery of DVA care. This has implications for all primary and secondary care settings, within the NHS and internationally, which are vital to consider in both practice and policy., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has been pervasive in its impact on all aspects of Canadian society. Along with its pervasiveness, the disease provided unprecedented complexity to the Canadian healthcare infrastructure, eliciting varying responses from the afflicted healthcare systems in Canada. However, insights into the various parameters and complexities endured by Canadian rural physicians and rural healthcare institutions during the pandemic have been scarce., Objective: This paper explores the conditions and complexity of living and working of Rural Family Physicians (RFPs) in rural healthcare in Canada during the pandemic., Methods: Community-based participatory research was utilized as a collaborative and partnership approach, equitably engaged community members in all aspects of research, ranging from designing the research question to analyzing data. Participants of this study include RFPs with at least one year of experience working in rural Canada. Data were collected through telephone interviews and analyzed according to the six-phase guide for the data's inductive thematic analysis. Data collection halted upon saturation., Results: Five significant compiled categories reflect the lived experiences of Rural Family Physicians. 1- virtual care as a challenge or forward progress; 2- canceling in-person visits and interrupting the routine; 3- shortage of health care providers and supporting staff; 4-ongoing coping process with the pandemic guidelines; 5-COVID-19 combat fatigue., Discussion: The inception of COVID-19 has significantly impacted rural physicians across several interconnected issues. This study illuminates the lesser-known effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, which heavily impacts rural healthcare., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Primary care is a relevant pillar in managing not only individual, but also societal medical crises. The COVID-19 pandemic has demanded a rapid response from primary care with interventions in the health care system. The aim of this paper was to explore the responses of primary care practitioners (PCP) during the early COVID-19 pandemic and to analyze these with a view on the resilience of the primary health care system from the PCPs perspective., Methods: Shortly after the first COVID-19 wave (July-October 2020) n = 39, semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with PCP in practices and at Corona contact points (CCP) in Baden-Wuerttemberg (Germany). Qualitative content analysis was applied, and the evolved categories were related to in a framework for resilience., Results: Primary care had an overall strong ability to adapt and show resilience, albeit with wide variance in speed and scope of the responses. When coping with uncertainty, the reasons given by PCPs in favor of opening a CCP mainly involved intrinsic motivation and self-initiative; the reasons against doing so were i.e. the lack of personal protective equipment, problems with space, and worries about organizational burden. A strong association existed between the establishment of a CCP and the use of resources (i.e. existing networks, personal protective equipment, exercising an office of professional political function). Our study predominantly found adaptive aspects for measures taken at medical practices and transformative aspects for setting up outpatient infection centers. PCPs played an important role in the coordination process (i.e. actively transferring knowledge, integration in crisis management teams, inclusion in regional strategic efforts) reaching a high level in the dimensions knowledge and legitimacy. The dimension interdependence repeatedly came into focus (i.e. working with stakeholders to open CCP, interacting among different types of primary care facilities, intersectoral interfaces). A need for regional capacity planning was visible at the time of the interviews., Conclusions: The results can be used for practical and research-based institutional and capacity planning, for developing resilience in primary care and for augmentation by perspectives from other stakeholders in the primary health care system., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objective: The potential for data collected in general practice to be linked and used to address health system challenges of maintaining quality care, accessibility and safety, including pandemic support, has led to an increased interest in public acceptability of data sharing, however practitioners have rarely been asked to share their opinions on the topic. This paper attempts to gain an understanding of general practitioner's perceptions on sharing routinely collected data for the purposes of healthcare planning and research. It also compares findings with data sharing perceptions in an international context.  MATERIALS AND METHODS: A mixed methods approach combining an initial online survey followed by face-to-face interviews (before and during COVID-19), designed to identify the barriers and facilitators to sharing data, were conducted on a cross sectional convenience sample of general practitioners across Western Australia (WA)., Results: Eighty online surveys and ten face-to-face interviews with general practitioners were conducted from November 2020 - May 2021. Although respondents overwhelmingly identified the importance of population health research, their willingness to participate in data sharing programs was determined by a perception of trust associated with the organisation collecting and analysing shared data; a clearly defined purpose and process of collected data; including a governance structure providing confidence in the data sharing initiative simultaneously enabling a process of data sovereignty and autonomy., Discussion: Results indicate strong agreement around the importance of sharing patient's medical data for population and health research and planning. Concerns pertaining to lack of trust, governance and secondary use of data continue to be a setback to data sharing with implications for primary care business models being raised., Conclusion: To further increase general practitioner's confidence in sharing their clinical data, efforts should be directed towards implementing a robust data governance structure with an emphasis on transparency and representative stakeholder inclusion as well as identifying the role of government and government funded organisations, as well as building trust with the entities collecting and analysing the data., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: In France, the first COVID-19-related lockdown (17th March to 10th May 2020) resulted in a major decrease in healthcare service utilization. This raised concerns about the continuity of care for vulnerable patients., Objectives: To identify individual and organizational factors associated with the initiatives taken by French GPs to contact vulnerable patients during the lockdown., Methods: A national observational survey using an online questionnaire was conducted to document French GPs' adaptations to the COVID-19 situation, their individual and organizational characteristics, including practice type (individual, group, multidisciplinary) and size. Data were collected from 7th to 20th May 2020 using mailing lists of GPs from the study partners and GPs who participated in a previous survey. This paper analysed answers to the question exploring whether and how GPs took initiatives to contact vulnerable patients. Responses were categorized in: no initiative; selection of patients to contact with a criteria-based strategy; initiative of contact without criteria-based strategy. Multivariate multinomial logistic regression identified factors associated with each category. Key components of the reported initiatives were described by inductive analysis of verbatim material., Results: Among the 3012 participant GPs (~ 5.6% of French GPs), 1419 (47.1%) reported initiatives to contact some patients without criteria-based strategy, and 808 (26.8%) with a strategy using various clinical/psychological/social criteria. Women GPs more often declared initiatives of contacts with a criteria-based strategy (OR = 1.41, 95% CI [1.14-1.75]) as well as GPs with more than two patients who died due to COVID-19 in comparison with those having none (OR = 1.84, 95% CI [1.43-2.36]). Teaching GPs more often used criteria-based strategies than the other GPs (OR = 1.94, 95% CI [1.51-2.48]). Compared with those working in small monodisciplinary practice, GPs working alone were less likely to implement criteria-based initiatives of contacts (OR = 0.70, 95% CI [0.51-0.97]), while GPs working in multidisciplinary practice were more likely (OR = 1.94, 95% CI [1.26-2.98] in practices > 20 professionals)., Conclusion: French GPs took various initiatives to keep in touch with vulnerable patients, more frequently when working in group practices. These findings confirm the importance of primary care organization to ensure continuity of care for vulnerable people., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: There was an increase in self-reported mental health needs during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada, with research showing reduced access to mental health services in comparison to pre-pandemic levels. This paper explores 1) barriers and facilitating factors associated with mental health service delivery via primary care settings during the first two pandemic waves in Quebec, Canada, and 2) recommendations to addressing these barriers., Methods: A qualitative descriptive study design was used. Semi-structured interviews with 20 participants (health managers, family physicians, mental health clinicians) were conducted and coded using a thematic analysis approach., Results: Barriers and facilitating factors were organized according to Chaudoir et al. (2013)'s framework of structural, organizational, provider- and patient-related, as well as innovation (technological modalities for service delivery) categories. Barriers included relocation of mental health staff to non-mental health related COVID-19 tasks (structural); mental health service interruption (organizational); mental health staff on preventive/medical leave (provider); the pandemic's effect on consultations (i.e., perceptions of increased demand) (patients); and challenges with the use of technological modalities (innovation). Facilitating factors included reinforcements to mental health care teams (structural); perceptions of reductions in wait times for mental health evaluations during the second wave due to diminished FP referrals in the first wave, as well as supports (i.e., management, private sector, mental health trained staff) for mental health service delivery (organizational); staff's mental health consultation practices (provider); and advantages in increasing the use of technological modalities in practice (innovation)., Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study to explore barriers and facilitating factors to mental health service delivery during the pandemic in Quebec, Canada. Some barriers identified were caused by the pandemic, such as the relocation of staff to non-mental health services and mental health service interruption. Offering services virtually seemed to facilitate mental health service delivery only for certain population groups. Recommendations related to building and strengthening human and technological capacity during the pandemic can inform mental health practices and policies to improve mental health service delivery in primary care settings and access to mental health services via access points., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: General practitioners (GPs) play a crucial role in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic as the first point of contact for possibly infected patients and are responsible for short and long-term follow-up care of the majority of COVID-19 patients. Nonetheless, they experience many barriers to fulfilling this role. The PRICOV-19 study investigates how GP practices in 38 countries are organized during the COVID-19 pandemic to guarantee safe, effective, patient-centered, and equitable care. Also, the shift in roles and tasks and the wellbeing of staff members is researched. Finally, PRICOV-19 aims to study the association with practice- and health care system characteristics. It is expected that both characteristics of the GP practice and health care system features are associated with how GP practices can cope with these challenges. This paper describes the protocol of the study., Methods: Using a cross-sectional design, data are collected through an online questionnaire sent to GP practices in 37 European countries and Israel. The questionnaire is developed in multiple phases, including a pilot study in Belgium. The final version includes 53 items divided into six sections: patient flow (including appointments, triage, and management for routine care); infection prevention; information processing; communication; collaboration and self-care; and practice and participant characteristics. In the countries where data collection is already finished, between 13 and 636 GP practices per country participated in the study. Questionnaire data are linked with OECD and HSMR data regarding national policy responses to the pandemic and analyzed using multilevel models considering the system- and practice-level., Discussion: To the best of our knowledge, the PRICOV-19 study is the largest and most comprehensive study that examines how GP practices function during the COVID-19 pandemic. Its results can significantly contribute to better preparedness of primary health care systems across Europe for future major outbreaks of infectious diseases., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Health data is important, however, not always well managed. The aim of this study was to investigate the experiences of patients and primary care physicians, their expectations and the obstacles encountered when using health data - both patient-generated as well as physician-generated. Methods: We conducted a qualitative interview study. We included adult persons who were ready to talk about the topic. Participants were recruited from primary care. The interviews were recorded using a dictaphone, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a content analysis method. Results: Altogether, we conducted 14 individual interviews, with patients (n = 7) and with physicians (n = 7). We found that both patients and physicians emphasized the importance of easy access to health data in digital health information systems. However, patients may not always understand medical terminology and physicians found that the quality of medical documents needs inspection. Both parties found that patient-generated data is a useful source of information, and that it should be used more often. Conclusions: The pandemic has highlighted the value of easy access to health data. The development of a health information system is useful to health care providers and patients, enables the transfer of evidence-based medicine, and supports health literacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic overwhelmed health systems and disrupted the delivery of health services globally. Community Health Workers (CHWs) play a critical role in linking communities to health systems, supporting the prevention and control of diseases in many low- and middle-income countries. However, their roles, barriers, and facilitators in the response and control of the COVID-19 pandemic have not been well documented. We described the roles of CHWs in the COVID-19 response, including the barriers and facilitators. Methods: A cross-sectional study design was used to assess the COVID-19 response in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Nigeria, Senegal, and Uganda. This involved 110 key informant interviews with policymakers, health facility managers, district health managers, and CHWs to understand the role of CHWs in the COVID 19 response, selected purposively. The total sample size was based on information saturation in each of the countries. A document review on the COVID-19 response was also conducted. We searched Google, Google Scholar, and PubMed for published and grey literature. Data from the selected documents were extracted into a Google master matrix in MS Excel and analyzed thematically. Results: In COVID-19 Control, CHWs supported community-based surveillance, contact tracing, risk communication, community mobilization, and home-based care. To support the continuity of other non-COVID-19 services, the CHWs conducted community mobilization, sensitizations, outreaches, referrals, and patient follow-ups. CHWs were challenged by movement restrictions, especially in the initial stages of the lockdown, inadequate PPE, increased workload, low allowances, and motivation. CHW were facilitated by trainings, the development of guidelines, development partners' support/funding, and the provision of personal protective equipment (PPE) and tools. Conclusion: CHWs supported both the COVID-19 control and continuity of non-COVID-19 health care during the COVID-19 pandemic. CHWs are a critical resource that must be adequately supported to build resilient health systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Primary Health Care (PHC) plays a crucial role in managing the COVID-19 pandemic, with only 8% of cases requiring hospitalization. However, PHC COVID-19 data often goes unnoticed on European government dashboards and in media discussions. This project aims to examine official information on PHC patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe, with specific objectives: (1) Describe PHC's clinical pathways for acute COVID-19 cases, including long-term care facilities, (2) Describe PHC COVID-19 pandemic indicators, (3) Develop COVID-19 PHC activity indicators, (4) Explain PHC's role in vaccination strategies, and (5) Create a PHC contingency plan for future pandemics. Methods: A mixed-method study will employ two online questionnaires to gather retrospective PHC data on COVID-19 management and PHC involvement in vaccination strategies. Validation will occur through focus group discussions with medical and public health (PH) experts. A two-wave Delphi survey will establish a European PHC indicators dashboard for future pandemics. Additionally, a coordinated health system action plan involving PHC, secondary care, and PH will be devised to address future pandemic scenarios. Analysis: Quantitative data will be analysed using STATA v16.0 for descriptive and multivariate analyses. Qualitative data will be collected through peer-reviewed questionnaires and content analysis of focus group discussions. A Delphi survey and multiple focus groups will be employed to achieve consensus on PHC indicators and a common European health system response plan for future pandemics. The Eurodata research group involving researchers from 28 European countries support the development. Discussion: While PHC manages most COVID-19 acute cases, data remains limited in many European countries. This study collects data from numerous countries, offering a comprehensive perspective on PHC's role during the pandemic in Europe. It pioneers the development of a PHC dashboard and health system plan for pandemics in Europe. These results may prove invaluable in future pandemics. However, data may have biases due to key informants' involvement and may not fully represent all European GP practices. PHC has a significant role in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic, as most of the cases are mild or moderate and only 8% needed hospitalization. However, PHC COVID-19 activity data is invisible on governments' daily dashboards in Europe, often overlooked in media and public debates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The PRICOV-19 study aimed to assess the organization of primary health care (PHC) during the COVID-19 pandemic in 37 European countries and Israel; and its impact on different dimensions of quality of care. In this paper, we described measures taken by public PHC centers in Greece. Additionally, we explored potential differences between rural and non-rural settings. Methods The study population consisted of the 287 public PHC centers in Greece. A random sample of 100 PHC centers stratified by Health Region was created. The online questionnaire consisted of 53 items, covering six sections: general information on the PHC center, patient flow, infection prevention, information processing, communication to patients, collaboration, and collegiality. Results Seventy-eight PHC centers (78%) - 50 rural and 28 non-rural – responded to the survey. Certain measures were reported by few PHC centers. Specifically, the use of online messages about complaints that can be solved without a visit to the PHC center (21% rural; and 31% non-rural PHC centers), the use of video consultations with patients (12% rural; and 7% non-rural PHC centers), and the use of electronic medical records (EMRs) to systematically identify the list of patients with chronic conditions (5% rural; and 10% non-rural PHC centers) were scarcely reported. Very few PHC centers reported measures to support identifying and reaching out to vulnerable population, including patients that may have experienced domestic violence (8% rural; and 7% non-rural PHC centers), or financial problems (26% rural; and 7% non-rural PHC centers). Providing administrative documents to patients through postal mail (12% rural; and 21% non-rural PHC centers), or regular e-mail (11% rural; and 36% non-rural PHC centers), or through a secured server (8% rural; and 18% non-rural PHC centers) was rarely reported. Finally, providing information in multiple languages through a PHC website (12% rural PHC centers only), or an answering machine (6% rural PHC centers only), or leaflets (3% rural PHC centers only; and for leaflets specifically on COVID-19: 6% rural; and 8% non-rural PHC centers) were lacking in most PHC centers. Conclusion Our study captured measures implemented by few PHC centers suggesting potential priority areas of future improvement.

Abstract Background In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the World Health Organization established a number of key recommendations such as educational activities especially within primary care practices (PCPs) which are a key component of this strategy. This paper aims to examine the educational activities of PCPs during COVID-19 pandemic and to identify the factors associated with these practices across 38 countries. Methods A "Patient Education (PE)" score was created based on responses to six items from the self-reported questionnaire among PCPs (n = 3638) compiled by the PRICOV-19 study. Statistical analyses were performed on 3638 cases, with PCPs with missing PE score values were excluded. Results The PE score features a mean of 2.55 (SD = 0.68) and a median of 2.50 (2.16 – 3.00), with a maximum of 4.00, and varies quite widely between countries. Among all PCPs characteristics, these factors significantly increase the PE score: the payment system type (with a capitation payment system or another system compared to the fee for service), the perception of average PCP with patients with chronic conditions and the perception of adequate governmental support. Conclusion The model presented in this article is still incomplete and requires further investigation to identify other configuration elements favorable to educational activities. However, the results already highlight certain levers that will enable the development of this educational approach appropriate to primary care.

Background: Personalised Care and Support Planning (PCSP) replaces conventional annual reviews for people with long-term conditions. It is designed to help healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients engage in conversations as equals and collaboratively plan actions oriented to each patient's priorities, alongside biomedical concerns. Little is known about how the shift to remote consulting initiated with COVID-19 restrictions has impacted PCSP. Aim: To investigate HCPs' experiences of conducting PCSP conversations remotely and consider implications for the fulfilment of PCSP ambitions as remote consulting continues beyond COVID-19 restrictions. Methods: 19 semi-structured interviews with HCPs in England and Scotland; interpretive analysis. Results: HCPs' accounts made clear that COVID-19 restrictions impacted multiple aspects of PCSP delivery, not just the mode of conversation. Broader disruption to general practice systems for gathering and sharing information ahead of PCSP conversations, and moves to 'wide window' appointment times, made it harder for patients to be prepared for PCSP conversations. This constrained scope to achieve PCSP ambitions even with the best professional communication skills. Most remote PCSP conversations were conducted by telephone. In the absence of visual communication with patients, it was sometimes harder to achieve the ambitions of PCSP conversations, including to balance patient and professional agendas, fulfil key planning activities, and foster a relational ethos of equal, collaborative partnership. The challenges were particularly severe when working with new patients and people with complex clinical and social problems. Although options for telephone appointments now offer valued flexibility, sustained experience of struggling to achieve PCSP ambitions via remote consulting led some HCPs to lower their standards for judging a "good" PCSP conversation, and to diminished professional satisfaction. Conclusions: There are significant challenges to fulfilling the ambitions of PCSP via telephone, especially when preparatory support is limited. This study provides grounds for scepticism about how compatible telephone appointments can be with this person-centred model of working, especially for people who are socially disadvantaged and live with complex health conditions. These threats to the provision of person-centred support for people with long-term conditions warrant careful attention going forward if the PCSP model and its benefits are to be sustained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, family physicians (FPs) served as the the initial point of contact for patients potentially infected with the virus, necessitating frequent updates to treatment protocols. However, practices also faced organizational challenges in providing care to other patients who also needed their medical attention. The pressure on FPs increased and affected their well-being. The international PRICOV-19 study, titled "Primary care in times of COVID-19 pandemic," investigated how FPs functioned during the COVID‐19 pandemic. This article examines the correlation between various organizational and structural COVID-19-related variables and the well-being of FPs in Slovenia. Methods: Between October 2020 and January 2021, we conducted an online cross-sectional survey. The questionnaire was distributed to 1040 Slovenian FPs and 218 family medicine (FM) trainees. Part of the questionnaire assessed the cooperation and well-being of FPs. The Mayo Clinic Well-being Index was used for the assessment. FP's well-being was also assessed descriptively by asking open-ended questions about maintaining mental health during the pandemic. Potential factors associated with FPs' well-being were identified using a multivariate linear regression method. Results: The final sample comprised 191 participants (response rate 14.1%). The mean value ± standard deviation of the Mayo Well-being Index was 3.3 ± 2.6 points. The FPs with the poorest well-being had 5–15 years of work experience and worked in a practice where work could not be distributed in the absence of a co-worker without compromising the well-being of colleagues. Physical activity was identified as the most common method of maintaining mental health among FPs. Conclusions: The results of the study suggest that targeted interventions are needed to support FPs mid-career, increase resilience in practice, promote strong team dynamics, and prioritise physical activity in healthcare. Addressing these aspects can contribute to the well-being of individual FPs and the overall health of the healthcare workers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient safety is defined as the prevention of harm to patients and aims to prevent errors. This analysis explores factors associated with the reported occurrence of patient safety incidents (PSIs) in general practices in Ireland at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: The PRICOV-19 was a cross-sectional study to record the (re)organisation of care provided in general practice and changes implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic in 38 countries. Primary outcomes include three potential scenarios of PSIs: delayed care due to practice factors, delayed care due to patient factors, and delayed care due to triage. Exploratory variables included demographic and organisational characteristics, triage, collaboration, and strategies to safeguard staff members' well-being. Results: Of the 172 participating Irish general practices, 71% (n = 122) recorded at least one potential PSI. The most frequent incident was delayed care due to patient factors (65%), followed by practice (33%) and triage (30%). Multivariate analysis showed that delayed care due to patient factors was associated with changes in the process of repeat prescriptions (OR 6.7 [CI 95% 2.5 to 19.6]). Delayed care due to practice factors was associated with suburbs/small towns (OR 4.2 [1.1 to 19.8]) and structural changes to the reception (OR 3.5 [1.2 to 11.4]). While delayed care due to patient factors was associated with having a practice population of 6000–7999 patients (OR 4.7 [1.1 to 27.6]) and delayed care due to practice factors was associated with having a practice population of 2000–3999 patients (OR 4.2 [1.2 to 17.1]). No linear associations were observed with higher or lower patient numbers for any factor. Delayed care due to triage was not associated with any exploratory variables. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in dramatic changes in the delivery of care through general practices in Ireland. Few factors were associated with the reported occurrence of PSIs, and these did not show consistent patterns. Sustained improvements were made in relation to repeat prescriptions. The lack of consistent patterns, potentially confirms that the autonomous decisions made in general practice in response to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic could have benefitted patient safety (See Graphical abstract). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In Flanders, general practitioners (GPs) were among the first ones to collect data regarding COVID-19 cases. Intego is a GPs' morbidity registry in primary care with data collected from the electronic medical records from a sample of general practices. The Intego database contain elaborate information regarding patient characteristics, such as comorbidities. At the national level, the Belgian Public Health Institute (Sciensano) recorded all test-confirmed COVID-19 cases, but without other patient characteristics. Methods: Spatio and spatio-temporal analyses were used to analyse the spread of COVID-19 incidence at two levels of spatial aggregation: the municipality and the health sector levels. Our study goal was to compare spatio-temporal modelling results based on the Intego and Sciensano data, in order to see whether the Intego database is capable of detecting epidemiological trends similar to those in the Sciensano data. Comparable results would allow researchers to use these Intego data, and their wealth of patient information, to model COVID-19-related processes. Results: The two data sources provided comparable results. Being a male decreased the odds of having COVID-19 disease. The odds for the age categories (17,35], (35,65] and (65,110] of being a confirmed COVID-19 case were significantly higher than the odds for the age category [0,17]. In the Intego data, having one of the following comorbidities, i.e., chronic kidney disease, heart and vascular disease, and diabetes, was significantly associated with being a COVID-19 case, increasing the odds of being diagnosed with COVID-19. Conclusion: We were able to show how an alternative data source, the Intego data, can be used in a pandemic situation. We consider our findings useful for public health officials who plan intervention strategies aimed at monitor and control disease outbreaks such as that of COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Higher numbers of family physicians (FPs) stopped practicing or retired during the COVID-19 pandemic, worsening the family doctor shortage in Canada. Our study objective was to determine which factors were associated with FPs' plans to retire earlier during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We administered two cross-sectional online surveys to Ontario FPs asking whether they were "planning to retire earlier" as a result of the pandemic during the first and third COVID-19 pandemic waves (Apr-Jun 2020 and Mar-Jul 2021). We used logistic regression to determine which factors were associated with early retirement planning, adjusting for age. Results: The age-adjusted proportion of FP respondents planning to retire earlier was 8.2% (of 393) in the first-wave and 20.5% (of 454) in the third-wave. Planning for earlier retirement during the third-wave was associated with age over 50 years (50–59 years odds ratio (OR) 5.37 (95% confidence interval (CI):2.33–12.31), 60 years and above OR 4.18 (95% CI: 1.90-10.23)), having difficulty handling increased non-clinical responsibilities (OR 2.95 (95% CI: 1.79–4.94)), feeling unsupported to work virtually (OR 1.96 (95% CI: 1.19–3.23)) or in-person (OR 2.70 (95% CI: 1.67–4.55)), feeling unable to provide good care (OR 1.82 (95% CI: 1.10–3.03)), feeling work was not valued (OR 1.92 (95% CI: 1.15–3.23)), feeling frightened of dealing with COVID-19 (OR 2.01 (95% CI: 1.19–3.38)), caring for an elderly relative (OR 2.36 (95% CI: 1.69–3.97)), having difficulty obtaining personal protective equipment (OR 2.00 (95% CI: 1.16–3.43)) or difficulty implementing infection control practices in clinic (OR 2.10 (95% CI: 1.12–3.89)). Conclusions: Over 20% of Ontario FP respondents were considering retiring earlier by the third-wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Supporting FPs in their clinical and non-clinical roles, such that they feel able to provide good care and that their work is valued, reducing non-clinical (e.g., administrative) responsibilities, dealing with pandemic-related fears, and supporting infection control practices and personal protective equipment acquisition in clinic, particularly in those aged 50 years or older may help increase family physician retention during future pandemics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Over the past two decades, Canadian provinces and territories have introduced a series of primary care reforms in an attempt to improve access to and quality of primary care services, resulting in diverse organizational structures and practice models. We examine the impact of these reforms on family physicians' (FPs) ability to adapt their roles during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the provision of routine primary care. Methods: As part of a larger case study, we conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with FPs in four Canadian regions: British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, and Ontario. During the interviews, participants were asked about their personal and practice characteristics, the pandemic-related roles they performed over different stages of the pandemic, the facilitators and barriers they experienced in performing these roles, and potential roles FPs could have filled. Interviews were transcribed and a thematic analysis approach was applied to identify recurring themes in the data. Results: Sixty-eight FPs completed an interview across the four regions. Participants described five areas of primary care reform that impacted their ability to operate and provide care during the pandemic: funding models, electronic medical records (EMRs), integration with regional entities, interdisciplinary teams, and practice size. FPs in alternate funding models experienced fewer financial constraints than those in fee-for-service practices. EMR access enhanced FPs' ability to deliver virtual care, integration with regional entities improved access to personal protective equipment and technological support, and team-based models facilitated the implementation of infection prevention and control protocols. Lastly, larger group practices had capacity to ensure adequate staffing and cover additional costs, allowing FPs more time to devote to patient care. Conclusions: Recent primary care system reforms implemented in Canada enhanced FPs' ability to adapt to the uncertain and evolving environment of providing primary care during the pandemic. Our study highlights the importance of ongoing primary care reforms to enhance pandemic preparedness and advocates for further expansion of these reforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: General practitioners (GPs) have a vital role in reaching out to vulnerable populations during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Nonetheless, they experience many challenges to fulfill this role. This study aimed to examine associations between practice characteristics, patient population characteristics and the extent of deprivation of practice area on the one hand, and the level of outreach work performed by primary care practices (PCPs) during the COVID-19 pandemic on the other hand. Methods: Belgian data from the international PRICOV-19 study were analyzed. Data were collected between December 2020 and August 2021 using an online survey in PCPs. Practices were recruited through randomized and convenience sampling. Descriptive statistics and ordinal logistic regression analyses were performed. Four survey questions related to outreach work constitute the outcome variable. The adjusted models included four practice characteristics (practice type, being a teaching practice for GP trainees; the presence of a nurse or a nurse assistant and the presence of a social worker or health promotor), two patient population characteristics (social vulnerability and medical complexity) and an area deprivation index. Results: Data from 462 respondents were included. First, the factors significantly associated with outreach work in PCPs are the type of PCP (with GPs working in a group performing more outreach work), and the presence of a nurse (assistant), social worker or health promotor. Second, the extent of outreach work done by a PCP is significantly associated with the social vulnerability of the practice's patient population. This social vulnerability factor, affecting outreach work, differed with the level of medical complexity of the practice's patient population and with the level of deprivation of the municipality where the practice is situated. Conclusions: In this study, outreach work in PCPs during the COVID-19 pandemic is facilitated by the group-type cooperation of GPs and by the support of at least one staff member of the disciplines of nursing, social work, or health promotion. These findings suggest that improving the effectiveness of outreach efforts in PCPs requires addressing organizational factors at the practice level. This applies in particular to PCPs having a more socially vulnerable patient population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Village health volunteers (VHVs) engaging in community-based COVID-19 prevention and control measures played a key role in mitigating effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand. We conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire survey study to investigate factors affecting VHVs' COVID-19 self-protective behaviors and social distancing in Songkhla Province during the first COVID-19 outbreak. Such information may help to understand how to support VHVs in future pandemics. Methods: A total of 152 VHVs from 13 sub-districts participated in the study, completing a 54-item questionnaire based on the Health Belief Model (HBM). The questionnaire included items assessing susceptibility, severity, benefits, barriers, self-efficacy, social distancing, and self-protective behavior. Stepwise multiple regression analysis determined which aspects of the HBM could explain VHVs' self-protective behavior. Results: The VHV population sampled broadly reflected the main demographic characteristics of the local population, although VHVs were predominantly female. Self-protective behavior was significantly associated with VHVs' role (higher perceived compliance for village leaders than non-leaders) but not with other demographic characteristics. Most VHVs reported high levels of self-efficacy (80.5%), adherence to social distancing measures (70.9%), and engagement in self-protective behavior (72.8%) against COVID-19. However, compliance with hand hygiene appeared to be suboptimal, suggesting room for improvement. Self-efficacy and perceived social distancing showed strong and moderate correlations with self-protective behavior against COVID-19 (r = 0.917, β = 0.819; and r = 0.561, β = 0.173 respectively; p < 0.001). The final HBM-based regression model accounted for 87.2% of the variance in VHVs' self-protective behavior. Conclusions: This study highlights the importance of VHVs' self-efficacy for achieving self-protective behavior during a COVID-19 outbreak, and suggests that self-efficacy may help to overcome barriers that might otherwise hinder behaviors to mitigate against COVID-19. Policies that support self-efficacy should be implemented in any future pandemic, and steps to support VHVs with hand hygiene compliance and empower non-leaders to increase their self-protective behavior may also be helpful. Whilst the HBM provided a useful framework for interpretation, the final model was driven mainly by self-efficacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the large uptake in virtual care in primary care in Canada, the care of patients with type 2 diabetes has been greatly affected. This includes decreased in-person visits, laboratory testing and in-person assessments such as blood pressure (BP). No studies have investigated if these changes persisted with pandemic progression, and it is unclear if shifts impacted patient groups uniformly. The purpose of this paper was to examine changes in diabetes care pre, early, and later pandemic across different patient groups. Methods A repeated cross-sectional design with an open cohort was used to investigate diabetes care in adults with type 2 diabetes for a 6-month interval from March 14 to September 13 over three consecutive years: 2019 (pre-pandemic period), 2020 (early pandemic period), and 2021 (later pandemic period). Data for this study were abstracted from the University of Toronto Practice-Based Research Network (UTOPIAN) Data Safe Haven, a primary care electronic medical records database in Ontario, Canada. Changes in diabetes care, which included primary care total visits, in-person visits, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) testing, and BP measurements were evaluated across the phases of the pandemic. Difference in diabetes care across patient groups, including age, sex, income quintile, prior HbA1c levels, and prior BP levels, were assessed. Results A total of 39,401 adults with type 2 diabetes were included in the study. Compared to the 6-month pre-pandemic period, having any in-person visits decreased significantly early pandemic (OR = 0.079 (0.076–0.082)), with a partial recovery later pandemic (OR = 0.162 (95% CI: 0.157–0.169). Compared to the pre-pandemic period, there was a significant decrease early pandemic for total visits (OR = 0.486 (95% CI: 0.470–0.503)), HbA1c testing (OR = 0.401 (95% CI: 0.389–0.413)), and BP measurement (OR = 0.121 (95% CI: 0.116–0.125)), with partial recovery later pandemic. Conclusions All measures of diabetes care were substantially decreased early pandemic, with a partial recovery later pandemic across all patient groups. With the increase in virtual care due to the COVID-19 pandemic, diabetes care has been negatively impacted over 1-year after pandemic onset.

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, older patients in primary care were triaged based on their frailty or assumed vulnerability for poor outcomes, while evidence on the prognostic value of vulnerability measures in COVID-19 patients in primary care was lacking. Still, knowledge on the role of vulnerability is pivotal in understanding the resilience of older people during acute illness, and hence important for future pandemic preparedness. Therefore, we assessed the predictive value of different routine care-based vulnerability measures in addition to age and sex for 28-day mortality in an older primary care population of patients with COVID-19. Methods: From primary care medical records using three routinely collected Dutch primary care databases, we included all patients aged 70 years or older with a COVID-19 diagnosis registration in 2020 and 2021. All-cause mortality was predicted using logistic regression based on age and sex only (basic model), and separately adding six vulnerability measures: renal function, cognitive impairment, number of chronic drugs, Charlson Comorbidity Index, Chronic Comorbidity Score, and a Frailty Index. Predictive performance of the basic model and the six vulnerability models was compared in terms of area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC), index of prediction accuracy and the distribution of predicted risks. Results: Of the 4,065 included patients, 9% died within 28 days after COVID-19 diagnosis. Predicted mortality risk ranged between 7–26% for the basic model including age and sex, changing to 4–41% by addition of comorbidity-based vulnerability measures (Charlson Comorbidity Index, Chronic Comorbidity Score), more reflecting impaired organ functioning. Similarly, the AUC of the basic model slightly increased from 0.69 (95%CI 0.66 – 0.72) to 0.74 (95%CI 0.71 – 0.76) by addition of either of these comorbidity scores. Addition of a Frailty Index, renal function, the number of chronic drugs or cognitive impairment yielded no substantial change in predictions. Conclusion: In our dataset of older COVID-19 patients in primary care, the 28-day mortality fraction was substantial at 9%. Six different vulnerability measures had little incremental predictive value in addition to age and sex in predicting short-term mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic led to huge and rapid changes in general practice in Norway as in the rest of Europe. This paper aims to explore to what extent the COVID-19 pandemic changed the work tasks and organization of Norwegian general practice. Material and method We analysed data from the Norwegian part of the international, cross-sectional PRICOV-19 study, collecting data from general practice via an online self-reported questionnaire. We included 130 Norwegian general practices, representing an estimated 520 Norwegian general practitioners (GPs). All Norwegian GPs were invited to participate. In the analyses, we focused on items related to the use of alternatives to face-to-face consultations, changes in the workload, tasks and delegated responsibilities of both the GPs and other personnel in the GP offices, adaptations in routines related to hygiene measures, triage of patients, and how the official rules and recommendations affected the practices. Results There was a large and significant increase in the use of all forms of alternative consultation forms (digital text-based, video- and telephone consultations). The use of several different infection prevention measures were significantly increased, and the provision of hand sanitizer to patients increased from 29.6% pre-pandemic to 95.1% since the pandemic. More than half of the GPs (59.5%) reported that their responsibilities in the practice had increased, and 41% were happy with the task shift. 27% felt that they received adequate support from the government; however, 20% reported that guidelines from the government posed a threat to the well-being of the practice staff. We found no associations with the rurality of the practice location or size of the municipalities. Conclusion Norwegian GPs adapted well to the need for increased use of alternatives to face-to-face consultations, and reported a high acceptance of their increased responsibilities. However, only one in four received adequate support from the government, which is an important learning point for similar situations in the future.

Abstract Background The SARS-CoV2 pandemic as well as the implementation of public health measures to decrease the spread of the virus re-sparked the call for “virtual” health or “distance” treatments. This paper aimed to assess the use of video consultations, the up-to-dateness of practice websites, and the views of GPs on whether eHealth is a positive aspect for the future of their practices in publicly -funded primary healthcare facilities in Austria. Methods The cross-sectional online questionnaire, part of the PRICOV-19 study, was conducted from December 2020 until July 2021. We randomly recruited 176 GP practices across Austria. Descriptive statistics as well as binary logistic regression models were applied to examine the associations between telemedicine use and practice factors. Results Compared with before the pandemic (3.8%), 7.6% of publicly funded GP practices have been using video consultations since the pandemic. In line with this, 93.9% of the practices had no increase in video consultation use. Fewer than half (44.3%) had an up-to-date webpage, and 27.8% assumed that the pandemic might have been a positive driver for eHealth in their practices. Positive associations with video consultation use could be found in practices with fewer patients aged 70 years and over than the average and more patients with chronic diseases than the average. Conclusion The use of video consultations in general practice and the readiness for other telemedicine approaches are both very low in Austria. Austria has to urgently follow the example of countries with a transparent and comprehensive national digital health strategy that includes video consultation. Without a proper payment system, patient inclusion, and support with regard to administrative and organizational aspects, no substantial change will occur in spite of an increase in need due to the pandemic and changes in the patient population.

Abstract Background The international study PRICOV-19 aims to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the organisation of primary health care. The German part focuses on German general practitioners during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper addresses the following research questions: (1) How were changes in tasks on primary care and patient treatment perceived by GPs?, (2) What was the role of GPs during the pandemic, and how was their wellbeing?, (3) How did GPs perceive health policy measures?, and, (4) What influenced the attitudes of GPs on health policy measures? Methods This study pursues a multi-country cross-sectional design. Data collection took place throughout Germany from 01.02. to 28.02.2021 with a quantitative online questionnaire consisting of 53 items. The questionnaire was analysed through descriptive and inferential analyses using correlation and multiple regression models. Results The response rate was 20.4% (n = 349). The respondents were mainly GPs (59.6%) in single practices (62.5%) with a mean work experience of 15 to 20 years. GPs experienced a change in their work and practice organisation (80.3%). They felt a high responsibility (70.6%) and found their work has become more meaningful to them (76%). They also saw a lack of political support (75.2%) and that the measures taken by the government overburdened the daily practice (66.4%). Not many GPs were at risk of being distressed (53.4%) but rated the health policies rather negatively (60%). The multiple regression showed, the more GPs were exposed to risk of distress, the worse they assessed the government's measures. Conclusion GPs perceived their work as relevant and felt confident they could fulfil their tasks, but noticed that health policy initially hardly supported the outpatient sector. Health policies should increase their competence in relation to primary care, ensure its needs and consider an active inclusion of GPs in preparedness plans.

Background: During the Covid-19 pandemic, family medicine practices (FMPs) changed to improve safety against new coronavirus infections for both patients and employees. Protocols for treating patients with suspected Sars-Cov-2 infections were established to protect medical staff and other patients from being infected. However, these protocols also led to increased safety risks, such as delays in treating patients with other medical conditions. This exploratory study aimed to investigate safety risks in treating patients in FMPs during the Covid-19 pandemic and to suggest improvements to prevent Covid-19 in FMPs in Slovenia. Methods: A cross-sectional study was rolled out in FMPs in Slovenia as part of the international Pricov-19 study. Data collection on safety management during the Covid-19 pandemic in FMPs in Slovenia took place from November 2020 until January 2021 using a self-administered online survey for FP working in Slovenia. A chi-square test, ANOVA, independent samples t-test or bivariate correlation test was performed to explore associations regarding the safety of patients' management variables. Results: From the 191 participating family physicians (FPs) (15.2% response rate), 54.8% reported having treated patients with fever (not Covid-19) late due to the new protocols at least once, and 54.8% reported patients with urgent conditions having been seen late at least once due to not coming. In the suburbs and rural environments FPs more often reported that at least once patient with a fever (not Covid-19) was seen late due to the protocol (p = 0.017) and more often reported that at least once patient with an urgent condition was seen late due to not coming to their FP (p = 0.017). The larger the practice, the more they reported that at least once a patient with fever (not Covid-19) was seen late due to the protocol (p = 0.012) and the more they reported at least once a patient with an urgent condition was seen late due to not coming to their FP (p = 0.012). Conclusion: Covid-19 affected the safety of patient management in FMP in Slovenia. The most common problem was foregone care. Therefor, protocols for chronic patient management in the event of epidemics need to be established. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has made devastating impacts on public health and global economy. While most people experience mild symptoms, it is highly transmissible and deadly in at-risk populations. Telemedicine has the potential to prevent hospitalization and provide remote care. Methods: This retrospective study included 336 people with COVID-19, among which 141 (42%) and 195 (58%) were in Delta and Omicron dominant groups, respectively. Patients were confirmed to have COVID-19 by PCR or rapid test and were cared for via telemedicine. Severe cases were hospitalized for more intensive treatment. Results: The majority of individuals recovered at home (97.02%), while 2.98% required hospitalization. All hospital admissions were in Delta dominant group. No deaths were reported. Delta dominant group was more likely to develop loss of taste and smell, decreased appetite and need longer treatment time than those in Omicron dominant group. Conclusions: Telemedicine is a safe measure to provide at-home care for people with COVID-19 infections caused by both Delta and Omicron variants. Trial registration: This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board Committee of University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Ho Chi Minh City (IRB No: 22115–DHYD). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has had an enormous impact on health systems in Europe and has generated unprecedented challenges for tertiary care. Less is known about the effects on the activities of local family doctors (FDs), who have shifted tasks and adapted their practice to accommodate the new services brought by the pandemic. The PRICOV-19 study was a multi-country survey aiming to understand the challenges posed by the pandemic in primary health care (PHC) practices around Europe. Within the framework of this study, we assessed the impact of the pandemic on PHC facilities in urban, rural, and mixed urban/rural areas in the Republic of Moldova. Methods: We present the results from the PRICOV-19 questionnaire designed at Ghent University (Belgium) and distributed between January and March 2021 to PHC facilities from the 35 districts of the Republic of Moldova. This analysis presents descriptive data on limitations to service delivery, staff role changes, implementation and acceptance of COVID-19 guidelines, and incidents reported on staff and patient safety during the pandemic. Results: Results highlighted the differences between facilities located in urban, rural, and mixed areas in several dimensions of PHC. Nearly half of the surveyed facilities experienced limitations in the building or infrastructure when delivering services during the pandemic. 95% of respondents reported an increase in time spent giving information to patients by phone, and 88% reported an increase in responsibilities. Few practices reported errors in clinical assessments, though a slightly higher number of incidents were reported in urban areas. Half of the respondents reported difficulties delivering routine care to patients with chronic conditions and a delay in treatment-seeking. Conclusions: During the pandemic, the workload of PHC staff saw a significant increase, and practices met important structural and organizational limitations. Consequently, these limitations may have also affected care delivery for vulnerable patients with chronic conditions. Adjustments and bottlenecks need to be addressed, considering the different needs of PHC facilities in urban, rural, and mixed areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cancer and chronic diseases are a major cost to the healthcare system and multidisciplinary models with access to prevention and screening resources have demonstrated improvements in chronic disease management and prevention. Research demonstrated that a trained Prevention Practitioner (PP) in multidisciplinary team settings can improve achievement of patient level prevention and screening actions seven months after the intervention. Methods: We tested the effectiveness of the PP intervention in a pragmatic two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial. Patients aged 40–65 were randomized at the physician level to an intervention group or to a wait-list control group. The intervention consisted of a patient visit with a PP. The PP received training in prevention and screening and use of the BETTER WISE tool kit. The effectiveness of the intervention was assessed using a composite outcome of the proportion of the eligible prevention and screening actions achieved between intervention and control groups at 12-months. Results: Fifty-nine physicians were recruited in Alberta, Ontario, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Of the 1,005 patients enrolled, 733 (72.9%) completed the 12-month analysis. The COVID-19 pandemic occurred during the study time frame at which time nonessential prevention and screening services were not available and in-person visits with the PP were not allowed. Many patients and sites did not receive the intervention as planned. The mean composite score was not significantly higher in patients receiving the PP intervention as compared to the control group. To understand the impact of COVID on the project, we also considered a subset of patients who had received the intervention and who attended the 12-month follow-up visit before COVID-19. This assessment demonstrated the effectiveness of the BETTER visits, similar to the findings in previous BETTER studies. Conclusions: We did not observe an improvement in cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) outcomes at 12 months after a BETTER WISE prevention visit: due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the study was not implemented as planned. Though benefits were described in those who received the intervention before COVID-19, the sample size was too small to make conclusions. This study may be a harbinger of a substantial decrease and delay in CCDPS activities under COVID restrictions. Trial registration: ISRCTN21333761. Registered on 19/12/2016. http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN21333761. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on older adults were felt throughout the health care system, from intensive care units through to long-term care homes. Although much attention has been paid to hospitals and long-term care homes throughout the pandemic, less attention has been paid to the impact on primary care clinics, which had to rapidly change their approach to deliver timely and effective care to older adult patients. This study examines how primary care clinics, in three Canadian provinces, cared for their older adult patients during the pandemic, while also navigating the rapidly changing health policy landscape. Methods: A qualitative case study approach was used to gather information from nine primary care clinics, across three Canadian provinces. Interviews were conducted with primary care providers (n = 17) and older adult patients (n = 47) from October 2020 to September 2021. Analyses of the interviews were completed in the language of data collection (English or French), and then summarized in English using a coding framework. All responses that related to COVID-19 policies at any level were also examined. Results: Two main themes emerged from the data: (1) navigating the noise: understanding and responding to public health orders and policies affecting health and health care, and (2) receiving and delivering care to older persons during the pandemic: policy-driven challenges & responses. Providers discussed their experiences wading through the health policy directives, while trying to provide good quality care. Older adults found the public health information overwhelming, but appreciated the approaches adapted by primary care clinics to continue providing care, even if it looked different. Conclusions: COVID-19 policy and guideline complexities obliged primary care providers to take an important role in understanding, implementing and adapting to them, and in explaining them, especially to older adults and their care partners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have led to the adoption of AI-driven symptom checkers in primary care. This study aimed to evaluate both patients' and physicians' attitudes towards these tools in Italian general practice settings, focusing on their perceived utility, user satisfaction, and potential challenges. Methods: This feasibility study involved ten general practitioners (GPs) and patients visiting GP offices. The patients used a chatbot-based symptom checker before their medical visit and conducted anamnestic screening for COVID-19 and a medical history algorithm concerning the current medical problem. The entered data were forwarded to the GP as medical history aid. After the medical visit, both physicians and patients evaluated their respective symptoms. Additionally, physicians performed a final overall evaluation of the symptom checker after the conclusion of the practice phase. Results: Most patients did not use symptom checkers. Overall, 49% of patients and 27% of physicians reported being rather or very satisfied with the symptom checker. The most frequent patient-reported reasons for satisfaction were ease of use, precise and comprehensive questions, perceived time-saving potential, and encouragement of self-reflection. Every other patient would consider at-home use of the symptom checker for the first appraisal of health problems to save time, reduce unnecessary visits, and/or as an aid for the physician. Patients' attitudes towards the symptom checker were not significantly associated with age, sex, or level of education. Most patients (75%) and physicians (84%) indicated that the symptom checker had no effect on the duration of the medical visit. Only a few participants found the use of the symptom checker to be disruptive to the medical visit or its quality. Conclusions: The findings suggest a positive reception of the symptom checker, albeit with differing focus between patients and physicians. With the potential to be integrated further into primary care, these tools require meticulous clinical guidance to maximize their benefits. Trial registration: The study was not registered, as it did not include direct medical intervention on human participants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Primary care and other health services have been disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic, yet the consequences of these service disruptions on patients' care experiences remain largely unstudied. People with mental-physical multimorbidity are vulnerable to the effects of the pandemic, and to sudden service disruptions. It is thus essential to better understand how their care experiences have been impacted by the current pandemic. This study aims to improve understanding of the care experiences of people with mental-physical multimorbidity during the pandemic and identify strategies to enhance these experiences. Methods: We will conduct a mixed-methods study with multi-phase approach involving four distinct phases. Phase 1 will be a qualitative descriptive study in which we interview individuals with mental-physical multimorbidity and health professionals in order to explore the impacts of the pandemic on care experiences, as well as their perspectives on how care can be improved. The results of this phase will inform the design of study phases 2 and 3. Phase 2 will involve journey mapping exercises with a sub-group of participants with mental-physical multimorbidity to visually map out their care interactions and experiences over time and the critical moments that shaped their experiences. Phase 3 will involve an online, cross-sectional survey of care experiences administered to a larger group of people with mental disorders and/or chronic physical conditions. In phase 4, deliberative dialogues will be held with key partners to discuss and plan strategies for improving the delivery of care to people with mental-physical multimorbidity. Pre-dialogue workshops will enable us to synthesize an prepare the results from the previous three study phases. Discussion: Our study results will generate much needed evidence of the positive and negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the care experiences of people with mental-physical multimorbidity and shed light on strategies that could improve care quality and experiences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]