Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is unfinished reform in primary care in Russia and other former Soviet Union (FSU) countries. The traditional 'Semashko' multi-specialty polyclinic model has been retained, while its major characteristics are increasingly questioned. The search for a new model is on a health policy agenda. It is relevant for many other countries. Objectives: In this paper, we explore the strengths and weaknesses of the multi-specialty polyclinic model currently found in Russia and other FSU countries, as well as the features of the emerging multi-disciplinary and large-scale primary care models internationally. The comparison of the two is a major research question. Health policy implications are discussed. Methods: We use data from two physicians' surveys and recent literature to identify the characteristics of multi-specialty polyclinics, indicators of their performance and the evaluation in the specific country context. The review of the literature is used to describe new primary care models internationally. Results: The Semashko polyclinic model has lost some of its original strengths due to the excessive specialization of service delivery. We demonstrate the strengths of extended practices in Western countries and conclude that FSU countries should "leapfrog" the phase of developing solo practices and build a multi-disciplinary model similar to the extended practices model in Europe. The latter may act as a 'golden mean' between the administrative dominance of the polyclinic model and the limited capacity of solo practices. The new model requires a separation of primary care and outpatient specialty care, with the transformation of polyclinics into centers of outpatient diagnostic and specialty services that become part of hospital services while working closely with primary care. Conclusion: The comprehensiveness of care in a big setting and potential economies of scale, which are major strengths of the polyclinic model, should be retained in the provision of specialty care rather than primary care. Internationally, there are lessons about the risks associated with models based on narrow specialization in caring for patients who increasingly have multiple conditions. Highlights: • The Semashko polyclinic model has lost strengths due to excessive specialization. • Solo and group PHC practices are no longer suitable to manage multimorbidity. • A new 'extended general practice' reorients the health system towards PHC. • Restructuring polyclinics is possible by transforming them into outpatient specialty units of hospital structures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Obesity (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2) is a major risk factor for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and affects most patients with HFpEF. Patients living with obesity may experience delays in HFpEF diagnosis and management. We aimed to understand the clinical journey of patients with obesity and HFpEF and the role of primary care providers (PCPs) in diagnosing and managing patients with both conditions. Methods: An anonymous, US population-based online survey was conducted in September 2020 among 114 patients with self-reported HFpEF and obesity and 200 healthcare providers, 61 of whom were PCPs who treat patients with HFpEF and obesity. Results: Half of patients (51%) with HFpEF reported waiting an average of 11 months to discuss their symptoms with a PCP; 11% then received their diagnosis from a PCP. PCPs initiated treatment and oversaw the management of HFpEF only 35% of the time, and 44% of PCPs discussed obesity treatment medication options with their patients. Only 20% of PCPs indicated they had received formal obesity management training, and 79% of PCPs indicated they would be interested in obesity management training and support. Conclusion: PCPs could play a valuable role in addressing obesity and referring patients with obesity and signs and symptoms of HFpEF to cardiologists. Increased awareness of HFpEF and its link to obesity may help PCPs more quickly identify and diagnose their patients with these conditions. Plain Language Summary: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a common form of heart failure. Many patients who have HFpEF also have obesity or excess weight. We wanted to understand the medical experience of patients with HFpEF and obesity and the role that primary care providers (PCPs) play in managing patients with these diseases. We surveyed 114 patients with HFpEF and obesity and 200 healthcare providers who treat patients with HFpEF and obesity, 61 of whom were PCPs. One-quarter of patients had a major heart-related event that led to their HFpEF diagnosis. Half of the patients said they had an initial discussion about HFpEF symptoms with a PCP, but only one in ten were diagnosed by a PCP. Few PCPs said they received obesity management training, but most were interested in receiving more obesity management training and support. PCPs play an important role in organizing care for patients with HFpEF and obesity. However, there is room to improve HFpEF awareness and access to obesity management tools and strategies among PCPs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Due to the significant increase in the prevalence of food-related diseases, the value that physicians place on nutritional advice may have implications for patient treatment. The objective of this study was to evaluate the perception of the importance of nutritional intervention among physicians in the Universidad San Francisco de Quito's (USFQ) healthcare system. Methods: This cross-sectional study employed a telephone survey administered to a subset of all medical doctors (MDs) working in the healthcare system clinics of USFQ between 2021 and 2022. Study participants were recruited through voluntary response sample from a complete list of 253 MD. The single time questionnaire consisted of a 22-item validated survey in which attitudes, self-perceived capacity, and knowledge about nutrition ofmedical doctors were evaluated. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics, two-sided t test, bivariate associations and linear and logistic regressions. Results: 136 MDs completed the survey yielding a response rate of 54%. Our analysis grouped participants into clinical (CE) and non-clinical specialties, hereafter referred to as surgical MDs. While a higher percentage of physicians in CE are confident in their ability to provide examples of recommended food portions based on national or international guidelines, 1 in 10 do not know how to use and interpret BMI or waist circumference, and around 1 in 3 do not know how many calories there are in one gram of fat, protein, or carbohydrates, and their basic metabolic functions. Almost all survey participants believe MDs can have an impact on the eating behavior of a patient if time is used to discuss the problem, however, almost half of survey participants believe nutrition counseling is not an effective use of time. Conclusion: It is important to explore the perceptions and self-confidence of physicians around nutrition related issues. Our results demonstrated that nearly 1 in 4 surgical MDs do not feel capable of recognizing nutritional risk in patients, which highlights the essentiality of physicians having an updated understanding of basic nutrition principles. Future research should examine how commonly MDs refer patients to nutritionists/dietitians, as well as strategies for improving physician knowledge on basic nutrition concepts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient experience is an important indicator of the quality of healthcare. Patients with multimorbidity often face adverse health outcomes and increased healthcare utilisation. General practitioners play a crucial role in managing these patients. The main aim of our study was to perform an in-depth assessment of differences in patient-reported experience with general practice between patients living with chronic conditions and multimorbidity, and those with no chronic conditions. Methods: We performed secondary analyses of a national survey of patient experience with general practice in 2021 (response rate 41.9%, n = 7,912). We described the characteristics of all survey respondents with no, one, two, and three or more self-reported chronic conditions. We assessed patient experience using four scales from the Norwegian patient experience with GP questionnaire (PEQ-GP). These scales were used as dependent variables in bivariate and multivariate analyses and for testing the measurement model, including confirmatory factor analysis and a multigroup CFA to assess measurement invariance. Sentiment and content analysis of free-text comments was also performed. Results: Patients with chronic conditions consistently reported lower scores on the GP and GP practice experience scales, compared to those without chronic conditions. This pattern persisted even after adjustment for patient background variables. The strongest associations were found for the scale of "Enablement", followed by the scales of "GP" and "Practice". The subscale "Accessibility" did not correlate statistically significantly with any number of chronic conditions. The analysis of free-text comments echoed the quantitative results. Patients with multimorbidity stressed the importance of time spent on consultations, meeting the same GP, follow-up and relationship more often than patients with no chronic conditions. Our study also confirmed measurement invariance across patients with no chronic conditions and patients with multimorbidity, indicating that the observed differences in patient experience were a result of true differences, rather than artifacts of measurement bias. Conclusions: The findings highlight the need for the healthcare system to provide customised support for patients with chronic conditions and multimorbidity. Addressing the specific needs of patients with multimorbidity is a critical step towards enhancing patient experience and the quality of care in general practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Care of older adults requires comprehensive management and control of systemic diseases, which can be effectively managed by family physicians. Complicated medical conditions in older patients admitted to orthopedic departments (orthopedic patients) necessitate interprofessional collaboration. Nutrition is one of the essential components of management involved in improving the systemic condition of older patients. Nutrition support teams play an important role in nutrition management and can be supported by family physicians. However, the role of family physicians in nutrition support teams is not well documented. This study aimed to investigate the role of family physicians in supporting nutrition management in orthopedic patients. Methods: This qualitative study was conducted between January and June 2023 using constructivist grounded theory methodology. Eight family medicine physicians, three orthopedic surgeons, two nurses, two pharmacists, four rehabilitation therapists, four nutritionists, and one laboratory technician working in Japanese rural hospitals participated in the research. Data collection was performed through ethnography and semi-structured interviews. The analysis was performed iteratively during the study. Results: Using a grounded theory approach, four theories were developed regarding family physicians' role in providing nutrition support to orthopedic patients: hierarchical and relational limitation, delay of onset and detection of the need for geriatric care in orthopedic patients, providing effective family medicine in hospitals, and comprehensive management through the nutrition support team. Conclusions: The inclusion of family physicians in nutrition support teams can help with early detection of the rapid deterioration of orthopedic patients' conditions, and comprehensive management can be provided by nutrition support teams. In rural primary care settings, family physicians play a vital role in providing geriatric care in community hospitals in collaboration with specialists. Family medicine in hospitals should be investigated in other settings for better geriatric care and to drive mutual learning among healthcare professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The World Health Organization supports interprofessional collaboration in primary care. On over the past 20 years, community pharmacists had been taking a growing number of new responsibilities and they are recognized as a core member of collaborative care teams as patient-centered care providers. This systematic review aimed to describe interprofessional collaboration in primary care involving a pharmacist, and its effect on patient related outcomes. Methods: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials cited in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo and CINAHL in English and French was conducted from inception to November 2022. Studies were included if they described an intervention piloted by a primary care provider and included a pharmacist and if they evaluated the effects of intervention on a disease or on patient related outcomes. The search generated 3494 articles. After duplicates were removed and titles and abstracts screened for inclusion, 344 articles remained. Results: Overall, 19 studies were included in the review and assessed for quality. We found 14 studies describing an exclusive collaboration between physician and pharmacist with for all studies a three-step model of pharmacist intervention: a medication review, an interview with the patient, and recommendations made to physician. Major topics in the articles eligible for inclusion included cardiovascular diseases with blood pressure, diabetes, dyslipidemia, and risk of cardiovascular diseases. Positive effects concerned principally blood pressure. Conclusions: Collaboration involving pharmacists is mainly described in relation to cardiovascular diseases, for which patient-centered indicators are most often positive. It underscores the need for further controlled studies on pharmacist-involved interprofessional collaboration across various medical conditions to improve consensus on core outcomes measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aim: Psychiatric disorders are increasing globally. Especially when these disorders affect working people, this places a financial burden on society due to long-term sick leave, the incapacity to work and the inability to earn and pay taxes. General practitioners (GPs) are often the first health professionals to be consulted by those suffering from mental health disorders. This study investigated the experiences of GPs regarding their patients with mental health disorders and identified factors that are important for a successful return to work. Methods: This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews to explore the opinions of GPs (n = 12) working in Munich, Germany, or its metropolitan area. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using the reflexive thematic analysis method. Results: GPs think of themselves as important players in the rehabilitation process of patients with mental health disorders. In their daily routine, they face many obstacles to ensure the best treatment and outcome for their patients. They also suffer from poor collaboration with other stakeholders, such as psychiatric hospitals, therapists or employers. They indicate that the mental health disorder of each patient is unique, including the barriers to and possibilities of a successful return to work. Additionally, the workplace appears to play a crucial role in the success rate of re-entry into work. It can exacerbate the course of mental health disorders or support recovery. Fear, shame and stigmatization of the patients are personal factors responsible for prolonged sick leave. Conclusion: We conclude that GPs believe that they can have a major impact on the rehabilitation of patients with mental health disorders. As such, special focus should be placed on supporting them in this context. [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: Advance care planning (ACP) is a process intended to help ensure people receive medical care that is consistent with their values, goals, and preferences during serious and chronic illness. Barriers to implementing ACP in primary care settings exist. Community-led ACP initiatives exist in British Columbia to engage the public directly. These initiatives may help prepare people for conversations with their primary care providers. The objectives of this study were to elicit primary care providers' perceptions of the utility and desired content of community-led ACP activities and suggestions for integrating community-led ACP activities with primary care. Methods: We conducted an online cross-sectional survey of primary care providers practicing in British Columbia, Canada in 2021. Both quantitative and qualitative survey questions addressed ACP engagement in practice, the perceived role and desired outcomes of community-led ACP activities, and ways to integrate community-led ACP activities with primary care. Results: Eighty-one providers responded. Over 80% perceived a moderate or greater potential impact of community-led ACP activities. The most common reasons for not referring a patient to a community-led ACP activity were lack of awareness of the option locally (62.1%) and in general (44.8%). Respondents wanted their patients to reflect on their values, wishes and preferences for care, to have at least thought about their goals of care and to have chosen a substitute decision maker in the community. They indicated a desire for a summary of their patient's participation and a follow-up discussion with them about their ACP. They suggested ways to integrate referral to programs into existing health care system structures. Conclusions: Community-led ACP activities were perceived to be useful to engage and prepare patients to continue ACP discussions with clinicians. Efforts should be made to establish and integrate community-based ACP initiatives within existing primary care systems to ensure awareness and uptake. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: An increased focus on quality and patient safety has led to the evolution of hospitalists. The number of hospitalists covering ward and outpatient care is on the rise in Japan. However, it is unclear what roles hospital workers themselves consider important in their practice. Therefore, this study investigated what hospitalists and non-hospitalist generalists in Japan consider important for the practice of their specialty. Methods: This was an observational study that included Japanese hospitalists (1) currently working in a general medicine (GM) or general internal medicine department and (2) working at a hospital. Using originally developed questionnaire items, we surveyed the items important to hospitalists and non-hospitalist generalists. Results: There were 971 participants (733 hospitalists, 238 non-hospitalist) in the study. The response rate was 26.1%. Both hospitalists and non-hospitalists ranked evidence-based medicine as the most important for their practice. In addition, hospitalists ranked diagnostic reasoning and inpatient medical management as the second and third most important roles for their practice, while non-hospitalists ranked inpatient medical management and elderly care as second and third. Conclusions: This is the first study investigating the roles Japanese hospitalists consider important and comparing those to that of non-hospitalist generalists. Many of the items that hospitalists considered important were those that hospitalists in Japan are working on within and outside academic societies. We found that diagnostic medicine and quality and safety are areas that are likely to see further evolution as hospitalists specifically emphasized on them. In the future, we expect to see suggestions and research for further enhancing the items that hospital workers value and emphasise upon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite well-documented increased demands and shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) during previous disease outbreaks, health systems in Canada were poorly prepared to meet the need for PPE during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the primary care sector, PPE shortages impacted the delivery of health services and contributed to increased workload, fear, and anxiety among primary care providers. This study examines family physicians' (FPs) response to PPE shortages during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic to inform future pandemic planning. Methods: As part of a multiple case study, we conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with FPs across four regions in Canada. During the interviews, FPs were asked to describe the pandemic-related roles they performed over different stages of the pandemic, facilitators and barriers they experienced in performing these roles, and potential roles they could have filled. Interviews were transcribed and a thematic analysis approach was employed to identify recurring themes. For the current study, we examined themes related to PPE. Results: A total of 68 FPs were interviewed across the four regions. Four overarching themes were identified: 1) factors associated with good PPE access, 2) managing PPE shortages, 3) impact of PPE shortages on practice and providers, and 4) symbolism of PPE in primary care. There was a wide discrepancy in access to PPE both within and across regions, and integration with hospital or regional health authorities often resulted in better access than community-based practices. When PPE was limited, FPs described rationing and reusing these resources in an effort to conserve, which often resulted in anxiety and personal safety concerns. Many FPs expressed that PPE shortages had come to symbolize neglect and a lack of concern for the primary care sector in the pandemic response. Conclusions: During the COVID-19 pandemic response, hospital-centric plans and a lack of prioritization for primary care led to shortages of PPE for family physicians. This study highlights the need to consider primary care in PPE conservation and allocation strategies and to examine the influence of the underlying organization of primary care on PPE distribution during the pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Portuguese National Health System (NHS) provides universal coverage and near-free health care, but the population has high out-of-pocket expenses and unmet care needs. This suggests impaired accessibility, a key dimension of primary care. The COVID-19 pandemic has further affected access to health care. Understanding General Practitioners' (GP) experiences during the pandemic is necessary to reconfigure post-pandemic service delivery and to plan for future emergencies. This study aimed to assess accessibility to GPs, from their perspective, evaluating determinants of accessibility during the second pandemic year in Portugal. Methods: All GPs working in NHS Family Practices in continental Portugal were invited to participate in a survey in 2021. A structured online self-administered anonymous questionnaire was used. Accessibility was assessed through waiting times for consultations and remote contacts and provision of remote access. NHS standards were used to assess waiting times. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the study sample. Associations between categorical variables were tested using the χ2 statistic and the Student t-test was used to compare means of continuous variables. Results: A total of 420 GPs were included (7% of the target population). Median weekly working hours was 49.0 h (interquartile range 42.0–56.8), although only 14% reported a contracted weekly schedule over 40 h. Access to in-person consultations and remote contacts was reported by most GPs to occur within NHS time standards. Younger GPs more often reported waiting times over these standards. Most GPs considered that they do not have enough time for non-urgent consultations or for remote contacts with patients. Conclusions: Most GPs reported compliance with standards for waiting times for most in-person consultations and remote contacts, but they do so at the expense of work overload. A persistent excess of regular and unpaid working hours by GPs needs confirmation. If unpaid overtime is necessary to meet the regular demands of work, then workload and specific allocated tasks warrant review. Future research should focus on younger GPs, as they seem vulnerable to restricted accessibility. GPs' preferences for more in-person care than was feasible during the pandemic must be considered when planning for the post-pandemic reconfiguration of service delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Medicinal cannabis (MC) products have been available on prescription in Australia for around six years. General practitioners (GPs) are at the forefront of MC prescribing and recent years have seen substantial increases in prescription numbers. This study examined the current knowledge, experiences, and attitudes of Australian GPs around MC. We also compared our findings to those of an earlier 2017 investigation. Method: We conducted a cross-sectional study using a 42-item on-line questionnaire adapted from our earlier 2017 survey. The current survey was completed by GPs attending an on-line, multi-topic educational seminar. Australian GPs (n = 505) completed the survey between November 2021 and February 2022. Data were synthesised using descriptive statistics. MC 'prescribers' and 'non-prescribers' responses were compared using Pearson's χ2 tests. Results: While most GPs (85.3%) had received patient enquiries about MC during the last three months, only half (52.3%) felt comfortable discussing MC with patients. Around one fifth (21.8%) had prescribed a MC product. GPs strongly supported MC prescribing for palliative care, cancer pain, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and epilepsy, more so than in our 2017 survey. Prescribing for mental health conditions (e.g., depression, anxiety) and insomnia received less support. Opioids, benzodiazepines, and chemotherapy drugs were rated as more hazardous than MC. GPs correctly endorsed concerns around Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol-related driving impairment and drug-seeking behaviour. However, additional concerns endorsed around cannabidiol causing addiction and driving impairment do not agree with current evidence. Consistent with this, many GPs (66.9%) felt they had inadequate knowledge of MC. Conclusion: Acceptance of MC as a treatment option has increased among Australian GPs since 2017. However, there is a clear need for improved training and education of GPs around cannabis-based medicines to provide increased numbers of skilled prescribers in the community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Trust between the parties is essential for the efficient functioning of the healthcare market. Physicianpatient relationship represents an asymmetric information situation and trust in physicians is critical for improving health and wellbeing of patients. In China, trust in physicians appears to be quite low creating conflicts between physicians and patients. This study aims to identify some general factors associated with trust in physicians in general using a nationally representative survey. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis using data from 2018 China Family Panel Study (CFPS). Survey responses of individuals aged 16 years or above were extracted from CFPS and the final sample consisted of 29,192 individuals. An ordered probit model was used to identify factors causing heterogeneity in the levels of trust in physicians. Results: Higher educational attainment and having medical insurance coverage are associated with higher likelihood of trusting physicians. Older adults (> = 30 years), males, urban residents, wage-earners, and self-employed persons are less likely to trust physicians. People who are diagnosed as chronic diseases or current smokers indicate lower level of trust in physicians. Higher perceived quality of services improves trust. Conclusion: Socioeconomically disadvantaged population groups and uninsured individuals are less likely to trust physicians. Health care delivery system needs to address the concerns of these specific population groups to reduce tensions between physicians and patients. Increasing health insurance coverage and offering insurance with low out-of-pocket expenses should reduce the perception that physicians are more guided by their income rather than the wellbeing of patients. The system should also develop a comprehensive bill of rights of patients to improve patientphysician relationship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Family practice registered nurses co-managing patient care as healthcare professionals in interdisciplinary primary care teams have been shown to improve access, continuity of care, patient satisfaction, and clinical outcomes for patients with chronic diseases while being cost-effective. Currently, however, it is unclear how different funding models support or hinder the integration of family practice nurses into existing primary health care systems and interdisciplinary practices. This has resulted in the underutilisation of family practice nurses in contributing to high-quality patient care. Methods: This mixed-methods project is comprised of three studies: (1) a funding model analysis; (2) case studies; and (3) an online survey with family practice nurses. The funding model analysis will employ policy scans to identify, describe, and compare the various funding models used in Canada to integrate family practice nurses in primary care. Case studies involving qualitative interviews with clinic teams (family practice nurses, physicians, and administrators) and family practice nurse activity logs will explore the variation of nursing professional practice, training, skill set, and team functioning in British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Quebec. Interview transcripts will be analysed thematically and comparisons will be made across funding models. Activity log responses will be analysed to represent nurses' time spent on independent, dependent, interdependent, or non-nursing work in each funding model. Finally, a cross-sectional online survey of family practice nurses in Canada will examine the relationships between funding models, nursing professional practice, training, skill set, team functioning, and patient care co-management in primary care. We will employ bivariate tests and multivariable regression to examine these relationships in the survey results. Discussion: This project aims to address a gap in the literature on funding models for family practice nurses. In particular, findings will support provincial and territorial governments in structuring funding models that optimise the roles of family practice nurses while establishing evidence about the benefits of interdisciplinary team-based care. Overall, the findings may contribute to the integration and optimisation of family practice nursing within primary health care, to the benefit of patients, primary healthcare providers, and health care systems nationally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Having a regular family physician is associated with many benefits. Formal attachment – an administrative patient-family physician agreement – is a popular feature in primary care, intended to improve access to and continuity of care with a family physician. However, little evidence exists about its effectiveness. In Quebec, Canada, where over 20% of the population is unattached, centralized waiting lists help attach patients. This provides a unique opportunity to observe the influence of attachment in previously unattached patients. The aim was to evaluate changes in access to and continuity of primary care associated with attachment to a family physician through Quebec's centralized waiting lists for unattached patients. Methods: We conducted an observational longitudinal population cohort study, using medical services billing data from public health insurance in the province of Québec, Canada. We included patients attached through centralized waiting lists for unattached patients between 2012 and 2014 (n = 410,140). Our study was informed by Aday and Andersen's framework for the study of access to health services. We compared outcomes during four 12-month periods: two periods before and two periods after attachment, with T0–2 years as the reference period. Outcome measures were number of primary care visits and Bice-Boxerman Concentration of Care Index at the physician and practice level (for patients with ≥2 visits in a given period). We included age, sex, region remoteness, medical vulnerability, and Charlson Comorbidity Index as covariates in regression models fitted with generalized estimating equations. Results: The number of primary care visits increased by 103% in the first post attachment year and 29% in the second year (p < 0.001). The odds of having all primary care visits concentrated with a single physician increased by 53% in the first year and 22% (p < 0.001) in the second year after attachment. At the practice level, the odds of perfect concentration of care increased by 19% (p < 0.001) and 15% (p < 0.001) respectively, in first and second year after attachment. Conclusion: Our results show an increase in patients' number of primary care visits and concentration of care at the family physician and practice level after attachment to a family physician. This suggests that attachment may help improve access to and continuity of primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Measuring and addressing the disparity between access to healthcare resources and underlying health needs of populations is a prominent focus in health policy development. More recently, the fair distribution of healthcare resources among population subgroups have become an important indication of health inequities. Single disease outcomes are commonly used for healthcare resource allocations; however, leveraging population-level comorbidity measures for health disparity research has been limited. This study compares the geographical distribution of comorbidity and associated healthcare utilization among commercially insured individuals in South Africa (SA) relative to the distribution of physicians. Methods: A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis was performed comparing the geographical distribution of comorbidity and physicians for 2.6 million commercially insured individuals over 2016–2017, stratified by geographical districts and population groups in SA. We applied the Johns Hopkins ACG® System across the claims data of a large health plan administrator to measure a comorbidity risk score for each individual. By aggregating individual scores, we determined the average healthcare resource need of individuals per district, known as the comorbidity index (CMI), to describe the disease burden per district. Linear regression models were constructed to test the relationship between CMI, age, gender, population group, and population density against physician density. Results: Our results showed a tendency for physicians to practice in geographic areas with more insurance enrollees and not necessarily where disease burden may be highest. This was confirmed by a negative relationship between physician density and CMI for the overall population and for three of the four major population groups. Among the population groups, the Black African population had, on average, access to fewer physicians per capita than other population groups, before and after adjusting for confounding factors. Conclusion: CMI is a novel measure for healthcare disparities research that considers both acute and chronic conditions contributing to current and future healthcare costs. Our study linked and compared the population-level geographical distribution of CMI to the distribution of physicians using routinely collected data. Our results could provide vital information towards the more equitable distribution of healthcare providers across population groups in SA, and to meet the healthcare needs of disadvantaged communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Trust between the parties is essential for the efficient functioning of the healthcare market. Physician-patient relationship represents an asymmetric information situation and trust in physicians is critical for improving health and wellbeing of patients. In China, trust in physicians appears to be quite low creating conflicts between physicians and patients. This study aims to identify some general factors associated with trust in physicians in general using a nationally representative survey. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis using data from 2018 China Family Panel Study (CFPS). Survey responses of individuals aged 16 years or above were extracted from CFPS and the final sample consisted of 29,192 individuals. An ordered probit model was used to identify factors causing heterogeneity in the levels of trust in physicians. Results: Higher educational attainment and having medical insurance coverage are associated with higher likelihood of trusting physicians. Older adults (> = 30 years), males, urban residents, wage-earners, and self-employed persons are less likely to trust physicians. People who are diagnosed as chronic diseases or current smokers indicate lower level of trust in physicians. Higher perceived quality of services improves trust. Conclusion: Socioeconomically disadvantaged population groups and uninsured individuals are less likely to trust physicians. Health care delivery system needs to address the concerns of these specific population groups to reduce tensions between physicians and patients. Increasing health insurance coverage and offering insurance with low out-of-pocket expenses should reduce the perception that physicians are more guided by their income rather than the wellbeing of patients. The system should also develop a comprehensive bill of rights of patients to improve patient-physician relationship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The demand for home healthcare is increasing in Japan, and a 24-hour on-call system could be a burden for primary care physicians. Identifying high-risk patients who need frequent emergency house calls could help physicians prepare and allocate medical resources. The aim of the present study was to develop a risk score to predict the frequent emergency house calls in patients who receive regular home visits. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study with linked medical and long-term care claims data from two Japanese cities. Participants were ≥ 65 years of age and had newly started regular home visits between July 2014 and March 2018 in Tsukuba city and between July 2012 and March 2017 in Kashiwa city. We followed up with patients a year after they began the regular home visits or until the month following the end of the regular home visits if this was completed within 1 year. We calculated the average number of emergency house calls per month by dividing the total number of emergency house calls by the number of months that each person received regular home visits (1–13 months). The primary outcome was the "frequent" emergency house calls, defined as its use once per month or more, on average, during the observation period. We used the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) logistic regression with 10-fold cross-validation to build the model from 19 candidate variables. The predictive performance was assessed with the area under the curve (AUC). Results: Among 4888 eligible patients, frequent emergency house calls were observed in 13.0% of participants (634/4888). The risk score included three variables with the following point assignments: home oxygen therapy (3 points); long-term care need level 4–5 (1 point); cancer (4 points). While the AUC of a model that included all candidate variables was 0.734, the AUC of the 3-risk score model was 0.707, suggesting good discrimination. Conclusions: This easy-to-use risk score would be useful for assessing high-risk patients and would allow the burden on primary care physicians to be reduced through measures such as clustering high-risk patients in well-equipped medical facilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The majority of severely ill and dying people in Germany can be administered primary palliative care (PPC) by general practitioners (GP). However, the current provision of PPC does not match the needs of the population. Although several public health strategies aim at strengthening the role of GPs in PPC provision, it remains challenging for GP teams to integrate PPC into their daily routines. Aim: A Delphi study with GPs was conducted to achieve consensus on specific measures for improving the integration of PPC into everyday GP practice. Methods: The study is part of the junior research project "Primary Palliative Care in General Practice" (ALLPRAX). After having developed, tested and evaluated 26 practical measures for GP practices to improve their PPC, a Delphi consensus study among GPs took place. In 2020, 569 GPs were asked to rate the relevance and feasibility of the measures on a 4-point Likert scale via an anonymous online questionnaire. Consensus was defined as a sum percentage of 'strongly agree' and 'somewhat agree' responses ≥75% after two rounds. Between these rounds, measures that were not consented in the first round were adapted in light of respondents' free text comments and suggestions. Results: The response rate was 11.3% in round 1 (n = 64) and 53.1% in round 2 (n = 34). From the initial n = 26 measures, n = 20 measures achieved consensus and were included in the final intervention package. The consented measures pertained to four main topics: advance care planning with patients, consulting and informing patients and family caregivers, GP office organisation and continuing education. N = 6 measures did not achieve consensus, predominantly due to time and workload constraints. Conclusion: The consented measures provide valuable support to improve the provision of PPC by GPs. They can be used freely and flexibly, according to the needs of individual GP teams, and are thus suitable for implementation nationwide. Trial registration: The study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (Registration N° DRKS00011821; 4 December 2017; https://apps.who.int/trialsearch/) and the German Register of Health Care Research (Registration N° VfD_ALLPRAX_16_003817; 30 March 2017). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]