Search

Community-based primary care, such as general practice (GP) or urgent care, serves as the primary point of access to healthcare for most Australians and New Zealanders. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has created significant and ongoing disruptions to primary care. Traditional research methods have contributed to gaps in understanding the experiences of primary care workers during the pandemic. This paper describes a novel research design and method that intended to capture the evolving impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on primary care workers in Australia and New Zealand. Recurrent, rapid cycle surveys were fielded from May 2020 through December 2021 in Australia, and May 2020 through February 2021 in New Zealand. Rapid survey development, fielding, triangulated analysis and dissemination of results allowed close to real-time communication of relevant issues among general practice workers, researchers and policy-makers. A conceptual model is presented to support longitudinal analysis of primary care worker experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia and New Zealand, and key learnings from applying this novel method are discussed. This paper will assist future research teams in development and execution of policy-relevant research in times of change and may inform further areas of interest for COVID-19 research in primary care. [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: Social prescribing link workers are non-health or social care professionals who connect people with psychosocial needs to non-clinical community supports. They are being implemented widely, but there is limited evidence for appropriate target populations or cost effectiveness. This study aimed to explore the feasibility, potential impact on health outcomes and cost effectiveness of practice-based link workers for people with multimorbidity living in deprived urban communities. Methods: A pragmatic exploratory randomised trial with wait-list usual care control and blinding at analysis was conducted during the COVID 19 pandemic (July 2020 to January 2021). Participants had two or more ongoing health conditions, attended a general practitioner (GP) serving a deprived urban community who felt they may benefit from a one-month practice-based social prescribing link worker intervention.. Feasibility measures were recruitment and retention of participants, practices and link workers, and completion of outcome data. Primary outcomes at one month were health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) and mental health (HADS). Potential cost effectiveness from the health service perspective was evaluated using quality adjusted life years (QALYs), based on conversion of the EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-A capability index to utility scoring. Results: From a target of 600, 251 patients were recruited across 13 general practices. Randomisation to intervention (n = 123) and control (n = 117) was after baseline data collection. Participant retention at one month was 80%. All practices and link workers (n = 10) were retained for the trial period. Data completion for primary outcomes was 75%. There were no significant differences identified using mixed effects regression analysis in EQ-5D-5L (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.09) or HADS (MD 0.05, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.73), and no cost effectiveness advantages. A sensitivity analysis that considered link workers operating at full capacity in a non-pandemic setting, indicated the probability of effectiveness at the €45,000 ICER threshold value for Ireland was 0.787 using the ICECAP-A capability index. Conclusions: While the trial under-recruited participants mainly due to COVID-19 restrictions, it demonstrates that robust evaluations and cost utility analyses are possible. Further evaluations are required to establish cost effectiveness and should consider using the ICE-CAP-A wellbeing measure for cost utility analysis. Registration: This trial is registered on ISRCTN. Title: Use of link workers to provide social prescribing and health and social care coordination for people with complex multimorbidity in socially deprived areas. Trial ID: ISRCTN10287737. Date registered 10/12/2019. Link: https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN10287737 [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: 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]

Introduction. Regular diabetic foot checks, at least annually, are important for early identification of risk factors and prevention of ulceration and amputation. To ensure this, most general practices in Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ) offer free annual diabetes reviews (ADRs) which include a comprehensive foot evaluation. However, attendance rates at these ADRs are low. Aim. To explore patients' perspectives on the barriers to attending ADRs and foot checks. Methods. Semi-structured interviews with people with type 2 diabetes who were overdue their ADR (n = 13; 7 women, 6 Māori) from two urban practices were conducted. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim and then analysed using an inductive thematic analysis approach. Results. We identified three key themes demonstrating barriers to attendance: healthcareassociated factors (suboptimal clinician-patient relationship, not having a consistent general practitioner (GP)); patient-related factors (co-morbid health conditions, issues surrounding identity, and logistical issues); and systemic factors (COVID-19 pandemic, travel distance to the practice, unawareness of available foot care services). Participants' feedback focused on patient-centred approaches for improvements to service delivery, for example using online educational materials, and utilising culturally appropriate models of health including Te Whare Tapa Whā and Whānau Ora approach. Discussion. We identified several barriers to attendance, some of which are potentially modifiable. Addressing modifiable barriers and incorporating suggestions made by participants may improve access to the ADR and reduce non-attendance. Further participatory action research could explore these insights in ways that facilitate tino rangatiratanga (self-determination) and palpable action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, in March 2020 health care delivery underwent considerable changes. It is unclear how this may have affected the delivery of Brief Interventions (BIs) for smoking and alcohol. We examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the receipt of BIs for smoking and alcohol in primary care in England and whether certain priority groups (e.g., less advantaged socioeconomic positions, or a history of a mental health condition) were differentially affected. Methods: We used nationally representative data from a monthly cross-sectional survey in England between 03/2014 and 06/2022. Monthly trends in the receipt of BIs for smoking and alcohol were examined using generalised additive models among adults who smoked in the past-year (weighted N = 31,390) and those using alcohol at increasing and higher risk levels (AUDIT score 38, weighted N = 22,386), respectively. Interactions were tested between social grade and the change in slope after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and results reported stratified by social grade. Further logistic regression models assessed whether changes in the of receipt of BIs for smoking and alcohol, respectively, from 12/2016 to 01/2017 and 10/2020 to 06/2022 (or 03/2022 in the case of BIs for alcohol), depended on history of a mental health condition. Results: The receipt of smoking BIs declined from an average prevalence of 31.8% (95%CI 29.4–35.0) pre-March 2020 to 24.4% (95%CI 23.5–25.4) post-March 2020. The best-fitting model found that after March 2020 there was a 12-month decline before stabilising by June 2022 in social grade ABC1 at a lower level (~ 20%) and rebounding among social grade C2DE (~ 27%). Receipt of BIs for alcohol was low (overall: 4.1%, 95%CI 3.9–4.4) and the prevalence was similar pre- and post-March 2020. Conclusions: The receipt of BIs for smoking declined following March 2020 but rebounded among priority socioeconomic groups of people who smoked. BIs for alcohol among those who use alcohol at increasing and higher risk levels were low and there was no appreciable change over time. Maintaining higher BI delivery among socioeconomic and mental health priority groups of smokers and increasing and higher risk alcohol users is important to support reductions in smoking and alcohol related inequalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]