Search

Background: Healthcare workers (HCWs) in the United Kingdom (UK) have faced many challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, some of these arising out of their social positions. Existing literature explicating these challenges (e.g., lack of appropriate PPE, redeployment, understaffing) have highlighted inequities in how these have been experienced by HCWs based on ethnicity, gender or, job role. In this paper, we move a step ahead and examine how the intersection of these social positions have impacted HCWs' experiences of challenges during the pandemic. Methods: We collected qualitative data, using interviews and focus groups, from 164 HCWs from different ethnicities, gender, job roles, migration statuses, and regions in the United Kingdom (UK) between December 2020 and July 2021. Interviews and focus groups were conducted online or by telephone, and recorded with participants' permission. Recordings were transcribed and a hybrid thematic analytical approach integrating inductive data-driven codes with deductive ones informed by an intersectional framework was adopted to analyse the transcripts. Results: Thematic analysis of transcripts identified disempowerment, disadvantage and, discrimination as the three main themes around which HCWs' experiences of challenges were centred, based on their intersecting identities (e.g., ethnicity gender, and/or migration status). Our analysis also acknowledges that disadvantages faced by HCWs were linked to systemic and structural factors at the micro, meso and macro ecosystemic levels. This merging of analysis which is grounded in intersectionality and considers the ecosystemic levels has been termed as 'intrasectionalism'. Discussion: Our research demonstrates how an intrasectional lens can help better understand how different forms of mutually reinforcing inequities exist at all levels within the healthcare workforce and how these impact HCWs from certain backgrounds who face greater disadvantage, discrimination and disempowerment, particularly during times of crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]