Search

General practice/family medicine has recently been recognized as a medical discipline in Austria. This paper is a short report on the prevailing understanding of its goals and subjects, comparing the Austrian perception with international definitions. It comments on shortcomings and introduces an outline for the development of a revised professional theory.At present, there is no clear uniform image of the discipline, neither among the general public, nor among physicians, healthcare professionals or decision makers. The reason for this lies in the historical development which, with the triumph of specialization, has led to a loss of importance for generalist medicine. Now it is the fragmentation that extensive specialization entails that gives a new meaning to generalist, contextual and patient-centered medicine.This change needs to be analyzed and understood. A description of the responsibilities, tasks and very specific methods unique to the discipline will be developed, which should enable the sensible, contemporary use of general practice/family medicine for the benefit of patients and the healthcare system., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Concerns are growing when it comes to the shortage of primary care physicians, therefore it seems necessary to take a closer look at job satisfaction and self-care as one of many influences on career choice. A higher job satisfaction reduces the risk to experience burnout and job-related stress and in addition it will contribute to staying in the profession. The objective of this study is to investigate the impact of regular participation in Balint groups on job satisfaction and self-care among general practitioners., Methods: Descriptive qualitative study with semi-structured expert interviews of 7 general practitioners. Thematical analysis of data and narrative summary., Results: A total of 402 coded segments were categorized into 8 main themes and 39 subthemes. Interviewees emphasized changes in self-care and job satisfaction as a result of Balint work and mentioned Balint work as a burnout prophylaxis for themselves. Competences that were learnt or improved through Balint work were described as well as aspects such as feedback and connection with colleagues or professional challenges and difficulties., Conclusion: The results of the study give rise to the assumption that regular participation in Balint groups might help to improve self-care, resilience, and contribute to job satisfaction. Further research is needed before a general recommendation can be made. Many positive aspects were described by the experts, while no harmful negative influences of Balint work were identified., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

These S1 guidelines are an updated and expanded version of the S1 guidelines on long COVID differential diagnostic and management strategies. They summarize the state of knowledge on postviral conditions like long/post COVID at the time of writing. Due to the dynamic nature of knowledge development, they are intended to be "living guidelines". The focus is on practical applicability at the level of primary care, which is understood to be the appropriate place for initial access and for primary care and treatment. The guidelines provide recommendations on the course of treatment, differential diagnostics of the most common symptoms that can result from infections like with SARS-CoV-2, treatment options, patient management and care, reintegration and rehabilitation. The guidelines have been developed through an interdisciplinary and interprofessional process and provide recommendations on interfaces and possibilities for collaboration., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objective: To increase knowledge of discrete symptoms shall help to avoid misinterpretation of test results and to gain better understanding of associations between early symptoms and severe disease to provide additional criteria for targeted early interventions., Design: Retrospective observational study., Setting: Austrian GP practices in the year 2020, patients above 18 years were included., Participants: We recruited 25 practices which included 295 participants with a positive SARS-CoV‑2 test., Main Outcome Measures: Data collection comprised basic demographic data, risk factors and the recording of symptoms at several points in time in the course of the illness. Descriptive analyses for possible associations between demographics and symptoms were conducted by means of cross tabulation. Group differences (hospitalized yes/no) were assessed using Fisher's exact test. The significance level was set to 0.05; due to the observational character of the study, no adjustment for multiplicity was performed., Results: Only one third of patients report symptoms generally understood to be typical for COVID‑19. Most patients presented with unspecific complaints. We found symptoms indicating complicated disease, depending on when they appear. The number of symptoms may be a predictor for the need of hospital care. More than 50% of patients still experience symptoms 14 days after onset., Conclusion: Unspecific symptoms are valuable indicators in the detection of early COVID‑19 disease that practitioners and the general public should be aware of also in the interpretation of low sensitivity tests. Monitoring patients using the indicators we identified may help to identify patients who are likely to profit from early intervention., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

This guideline comprises the state of science at the time of the editorial deadline. In view of the high turnover of knowledge the guideline is designed as a living guideline. The main objective was to provide a tool for the use in primary care, being considered well suited as a first point of entry and for the provision of care. The guideline gives recommendations on the differential diagnosis of symptoms following SARS-CoV‑2 infection, on their therapeutic options, as well as for guidance and care of the patients concerned. It also offers advice concerning return to daily life and rehabilitation. Long COVID being a very variable condition, we chose an interdisciplinary approach., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: The practice of inappropriate medication and drug prescription is a major risk factor for adverse drug reactions in geriatric patients and increases the individual, as well as overall, rates of hospital admissions, resulting in increased health care expenditures. A consensus-based list of drugs, generally to be avoided in geriatric patients, is a practical tool to possibly improve the quality of prescribing., Objective: The aim was to develop a consensus-based list of potentially inappropriate medications (PIM) for geriatric patients in Austria. Local market characteristics and documented prescribing regimens were considered in detail., Methods: A two-round Delphi process involving eight experts in the field of geriatric medicine was undertaken to create a list of potentially inappropriate medications. Using a 5-point Likert scale (from strong agreement to strong disagreement), mean ratings from the experts were evaluated for each drug selected in the first round. The participants were first asked to comment on the potential inappropriateness of a preliminary list of drugs, and to propose alternate substances missing in the previous questionnaire for a second rating process. All drugs whose upper limit of the 95% CI was less than 3.0 were classified as potentially inappropriate. Drugs with a 95% CI enclosing 3.0 entered a second rating by the experts, in addition to other substances suggested during the first questionnaire. Drugs in the second rating were evaluated in comparable fashion to the first one. The final list was synthesized from the results in both rounds., Results: Out of a preliminary list of 102 drugs, 61 drugs (59.2%) were classified as potentially inappropriate for geriatric persons in the first Delphi- round. In the second rating, six drugs that were reevaluated, and six drugs proposed additionally, were rated as potentially inappropriate. The final list contains 73 drugs to be avoided in older patients because of an unfavorable benefit/risk profile and/or unproven effectiveness. The list also contains suggestions for therapeutic alternatives and information about pharmacological and pharmacokinetic characteristics of all drugs judged as potentially inappropriate., Conclusion: The current Austrian list of potentially inappropriate medications may be a helpful tool for clinicians to increase the quality of prescribing in older patients. Like all explicit lists previously published, its validity needs to be proven in validation studies.