Search

Abstract 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.

Background The COVID-19 vaccination campaign in several European countries involved collaboration between public health and Primary Health Care (PHC).Objective To highlight the role of PHC professionals in the COVID-19 vaccination rollout, specifically in terms of vaccine administration, communication and contributing to vaccination population coverage.Methods A descriptive retrospective study of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign across 28 European countries was conducted, covering data from December 2020 to November 2021. Data were collected by key informants recruited from each country, who were health professionals involved in their national vaccination campaigns. Utilising an ad-hoc semi-structured questionnaire, information was gathered on organisation, communication strategies, priority groups, vaccine types, and vaccination pathways in PHC.Results PHC participated in communication strategies in 10 out of 28 countries, and vaccination was voluntary in most of them. The priority groups for vaccination varied across Europe, and the availability of vaccines in PHC differed between countries within the European Union (EU) and non-EU countries. The BioNTech Pfizer vaccine was the most widely available vaccine in most countries, followed by Moderna and AstraZeneca. PHC administered COVID-19 vaccines to the population, being the nurses the most involved, followed by general practitioners. Vaccination appointments were available online in 18/28 or by phone in 15/28, direct appointments at health centres were available in 8/28. In several countries, healthcare professionals who administered vaccines were given extra compensation for their role.Conclusion PHC professionals played a crucial role in the successful distribution and administration of COVID-19 vaccines in European countries.

AbstractBackground Social prescribing (SP) is a patient pathway by which healthcare professionals connect patients with other sources of support, groups, or activities within their community. The awareness, practice, and perception of SP among GPs across Europe remains unclear.Objectives To explore the awareness, practice, and perception of GPs on SP in the WONCA Europe region.Methods An anonymous, cross-sectional online survey was distributed through a snowballing system, mailing lists, and at three international conferences in 2022/2023 to explore GPs’ awareness, practice, and perception of SP. The questionnaire in English contained 21 open and closed questions.Results Of the 208 participating GPs from 33 countries, 116 (56%) previously heard of ‘social prescribing’ and 66 (32%) regularly referred patients to community activities through a formal system. These 66 GPs reported different funding sources and varied activities, with an average of four activities and physical exercise being the most prevalent. Among them, 25 (38%) knew about national or local SP awareness campaigns. Of these 25, 17 (68%) agreed that SP increases their job satisfaction and 21 (84%) agreed that it has a positive impact on their patients. Variations in SP awareness and referral practice were evident across and within countries.Conclusion Despite disparities in awareness and referral practice as well as a diversity of activities and funding sources, most GPs who actively referred patients and were informed about SP campaigns agreed that SP positively impacts them and their patients.

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic substantially magnified the inequity gaps among vulnerable populations. Both public health (PH) and primary health care (PHC) have been crucial in addressing the challenges posed by the pandemic, especially in the area of vulnerable populations. However, little is known about the intersection between PH and PHC as a strategy to mitigate the inequity gap. This study aims to assess the collaboration between PHC and PH with a focus on addressing the health needs of vulnerable populations during the COVID-19 pandemic across jurisdictions. Methods We analyzed and compared data from jurisdictional reports of COVID-19 pandemic responses in PHC and PH in Belgium, Canada (Ontario), Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, and Spain from 2020 to 2021. Results Four themes emerge from the analysis: (1) the majority of the countries implemented outreach strategies targeting vulnerable groups as a means to ensure continued access to PHC; (2) digital assessment in PHC was found to be present across all the countries; (3) PHC was insufficiently represented at the decision-making level; (4) there is a lack of clear communication channels between PH and PHC in all the countries. Conclusions This study identified opportunities for collaboration between PHC and PH to reduce inequity gaps and to improve population health, focusing on vulnerable populations. The COVID-19 response in these eight countries has demonstrated the importance of an integrated PHC system. Consequently, the development of effective strategies for responding to and planning for pandemics should take into account the social determinants of health in order to mitigate the unequal impact of COVID-19. Careful, intentional coordination between PH and PHC should be established in normal times as a basis for effective response during future public health emergencies. The pandemic has provided significant insights on how to strengthen health systems and provide universal access to healthcare by fostering stronger connections between PH and PHC.

AbstractBackground Most COVID-19 patients were treated in primary health care (PHC) in Europe.Objectives To demonstrate the scope of PHC workflow during the COVID-19 pandemic emphasising similarities and differences of patient’s clinical pathways in Europe.Methods Descriptive, cross-sectional study with data acquired through a semi-structured questionnaire in PHC in 30 European countries, created ad hoc and agreed upon among all researchers who participated in the study. GPs from each country answered the approved questionnaire. Main variable: PHC COVID-19 acute clinical pathway. All variables were collected from each country as of September 2020.Results COVID-19 clinics in PHC facilities were organised in 8/30. Case detection and testing were performed in PHC in 27/30 countries. RT-PCR and lateral flow tests were performed in PHC in 23/30, free of charge with a medical prescription. Contact tracing was performed mainly by public health authorities. Mandatory isolation ranged from 5 to 14 days. Sick leave certification was given exclusively by GPs in 21/30 countries. Patient hotels or other resources to isolate patients were available in 12/30. Follow-up to monitor the symptoms and/or new complementary tests was made mainly by phone call (27/30). Chest X-ray and phlebotomy were performed in PHC in 18/30 and 23/30 countries, respectively. Oxygen and low-molecular-weight heparin were available in PHC (21/30).Conclusion In Europe PHC participated in many steps to diagnose, treat and monitor COVID-19 patients. Differences among countries might be addressed at European level for the management of future pandemics.

Abstract Introduction To reduce inappropriate polypharmacy, deprescribing should be part of patients’ regular care. Yet deprescribing is difficult to implement, as shown in several studies. Understanding patients’ attitudes towards deprescribing at the individual and country level may reveal effective ways to involve older adults in decisions about medications and help to implement deprescribing in primary care settings. In this study we aim to investigate older adults’ perceptions and views on deprescribing in different European countries. Specific objectives are to investigate the patients’ willingness to have medications deprescribed by medication type and to have herbal or dietary supplements reduced or stopped, the role of the Patient Typology (on medication perspectives), and the impact of the patient-GP relationship in these decisions. Methods and analysis This cross-sectional survey study has two parts: Part A and Part B. Data collection for Part A will take place in nine countries, in which per country 10 GPs will recruit 10 older patients (≥65 years old) each (n = 900). Part B will be conducted in Switzerland only, in which an additional 35 GPs will recruit five patients each and respond to a questionnaire themselves, with questions about the patients’ medications, their willingness to deprescribe those, and their patient-provider relationship. For both Part A and part B, a questionnaire will be used to assess the willingness of older patients with polypharmacy to have medications deprescribed and other relevant information. For Part B, this same questionnaire will have additional questions on the use of herbal and dietary supplements. Discussion The international study design will allow comparisons of patient perspectives on deprescribing from different countries. We will collect information about willingness to have medications deprescribed by medication type and regarding herbal and dietary supplements, which adds important information to the literature on patients’ preferences. In addition, GPs in Switzerland will also be surveyed, allowing us to compare GPs’ and patients’ views and preferences on stopping or reducing specific medications. Our findings will help to understand patients’ attitudes towards deprescribing, contributing to improvements in the design and implementation of deprescribing interventions that are better tailored to patients’ preferences.

The 19th World Rural Health Conference, hosted in rural Ireland and the University of Limerick, with over 650 participants coming from 40 countries and an additional 1600 engaging online, has carefully considered how best rural communities can be empowered to improve their own health and the health of those around them. The conference also considered the role of national health systems and all stakeholders, in keeping with the commitments made through the Sustainable Development Goals and the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health as one of the fundamental rights of every human being. This conference declaration, the Limerick Declaration on Rural Healthcare, is designed to inform rural communities, academics and policymakers about how to achieve the goal of delivering high quality health care in rural and remote areas most effectively, with a particular focus on the Irish healthcare system. Congruent with current evidence and best international practice, the participants of the conference endorsed a series of recommendations for the creation of high quality, sustainable and cost-effective healthcare delivery for rural communities in Ireland and globally. The recommendations focused on four major themes: rural healthcare needs and delivery, rural workforce, advocacy and policy, and research for rural health care. Equal access to health care is a crucial marker of democracy. Hence, we call on all governments, policymakers, academic institutions and communities globally to commit to providing their rural dwellers with equitable access to health care that is properly resourced and fundamentally patient-centred in its design.

BackgroundIntermediate care is often defined as healthcare occurring somewhere between traditional primary (community) and secondary (hospital) care settings. High quality intermediate care is important in dementia, may prevent caregiver burnout and also lead to optimal care for people with dementia. However, very little is known about the point of intermediate care for persons with dementia in Europe.Research questionsWhat intermediate care services exist and how are they utilized in the care of people with dementia in Europe?ObjectiveThis study aims at describing the point of view of General Practitioners on intermediate care services for people with dementia across Europe.MethodsKey informant survey was sent to GPs via a self-developed questionnaire with space for open ended comments. 16 European countries participated to this cross-sectional mixed method study. Given the volunteer nature of the study, no minimum sample size requirements were applied to participation. Convenience sampling technique was used to address variations due to regional variations and regulations within the same country. Descriptive analyses of all intermediate care facilities groups by countries were performed. Qualitative analyses approach was used for the optional-free text to exemplify and/or complete the reasons contained in the closed response categories.ResultsThe questionnaire was sent to 16 European countries. 583 questionnaires were analyzed. The responding physicians were 48 (± 11) years old on average and they had been in practice for an average of 18 (+ /11) years. The types of intermediate care considered were integrated at-home services, respite and relief services, day care centers and nursing homes. Their availability was considered very inhomogeneous by the majority of respondents. The main benefits of intermediate care cited were better medical care for the patient (78%), better quality of life for the caregiver (67%), prevention of the caregiver burden (73%) and a break for the caregiver (59%). The reported difficulties were: accessing these facilities due to limited financial support (76%) and cumbersome administrative procedures (67%). Many other facets of our findings were captured in the qualitative themes that emerged.ConclusionIntermediate care in Europe is diverse and heterogeneous. Major concerns of GPs are about the cost issues and the cumbersome administrative procedures to access them.

Introduction: Remote consultations help reduce contact between people and prevent cross-contamination. Little is known about the changes in consultation in European rural primary care during the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic. The purpose of this mixed-methods cross-sectional study was to find out more about the effects of the pandemic on changes in patient consultations in European rural primary care. Methods: A key informant survey from 16 member countries of the European Rural and Isolated Practitioners Association (EURIPA) was undertaken using a self-developed questionnaire. The steering committee of this project, called EURIPA Covid-19 study, developed a semi-structured questionnaire with 68 questions, 21 of which included free-text comments. Proportions were calculated for dichotomized or categorized data, and means were calculated for continuous data. Multivariate analysis by logistic regression model was used to assess the association of multiple variables. Results: A total of 406 questionnaires from primary care providers (PCPs) in 16 European countries were collected; 245 respondents (60.5%) were females, 152 PCPs were rural (37.5%), 124 semi-rural (30.5%). Mean age of the respondents was 45.9 years (standard deviation (SD) 11.30) while mean seniority (length of experience) was 18.2 years (SD 11.6). A total of 381 (93.8%) respondents were medical doctors. Significant differences were found between countries in adopting alternative arrangements to face-to-face consultation: remote teleconsultation is well appreciated by both healthcare professionals and patients, but the most common way of remote consultation remains telephone consultation. A factor significantly inversely associated with the adoption of video consultation was the seniority of the PCP (odds ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.40, p=0.03). Conclusion: Telephone consultation is the most common form of remote consultation. The adoption of video-consultation is inversely related to the seniority of the informants.

Abstract Background Influenza-like illness (ILI) and Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) are a considerable health problem in Europe. Most diagnoses are made by family physicians (FPs) and based on symptoms and clinical signs rather than on diagnostic testing. The International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC) advocates that FPs record patients’ ‘Reasons for Encounters’ (RfEs) as they are presented to them. This study analyses the association of patients’ RfEs with FPs’ diagnoses of ILI and ARI diagnoses and FPs’ management of those patients. Methods Cohort study of practice populations. Over a 4-month period during the winter season 2013–14, eight FPs recorded ILI and ARI patients’ RfEs and how they were managed. FPs recorded details of their patients using the ICPC format, collecting data in an Episode of Care (EoC) structure. Results There were 688 patients diagnosed as having ILI; between them they presented with a total of 2,153 RfEs, most commonly fever (79.7%), cough (59.7%) and pain (33.0%). The 848 patients with ARI presented with a total of 1,647 RfEs, most commonly cough (50.4%), throat symptoms (25.9%) and fever (19.9%). For patients with ILI, 37.0% of actions were related to medication for respiratory symptoms; this figure was 38.4% for patients with ARI. FPs referred six patients to specialists or hospitals (0.39% of all patients diagnosed with ILI and ARI). Conclusions In this study of patients with ILI and ARI, less than half received a prescription from their FPs, and the illnesses were mainly managed in primary care, with few patients’ needing referral. The ICPC classification allowed a standardised data collection system, providing documentary evidence of the management of those diseases.

Social Prescribing is a mechanism by which primary care team members can refer patients to community groups to improve their health and well-being. It integrates health, social care, and community, allowing patients to actively improve their health and well-being by participating in community initiatives and activities. These activities have traditionally been part of community life in European countries, and the benefits need to be consistently recognized.

Abstract Background General practitioners (GPs) should regularly review patients’ medications and, if necessary, deprescribe, as inappropriate polypharmacy may harm patients’ health. However, deprescribing can be challenging for physicians. This study investigates GPs’ deprescribing decisions in 31 countries. Methods In this case vignette study, GPs were invited to participate in an online survey containing three clinical cases of oldest-old multimorbid patients with potentially inappropriate polypharmacy. Patients differed in terms of dependency in activities of daily living (ADL) and were presented with and without history of cardiovascular disease (CVD). For each case, we asked GPs if they would deprescribe in their usual practice. We calculated proportions of GPs who reported they would deprescribe and performed a multilevel logistic regression to examine the association between history of CVD and level of dependency on GPs’ deprescribing decisions. Results Of 3,175 invited GPs, 54% responded (N = 1,706). The mean age was 50 years and 60% of respondents were female. Despite differences across GP characteristics, such as age (with older GPs being more likely to take deprescribing decisions), and across countries, overall more than 80% of GPs reported they would deprescribe the dosage of at least one medication in oldest-old patients (> 80 years) with polypharmacy irrespective of history of CVD. The odds of deprescribing was higher in patients with a higher level of dependency in ADL (OR =1.5, 95%CI 1.25 to 1.80) and absence of CVD (OR =3.04, 95%CI 2.58 to 3.57). Interpretation The majority of GPs in this study were willing to deprescribe one or more medications in oldest-old multimorbid patients with polypharmacy. Willingness was higher in patients with increased dependency in ADL and lower in patients with CVD.

Objective To explore dementia management from a primary care physician perspective. Design One-page seven-item multiple choice questionnaire; free text space for every item; final narrative question of a dementia case story. Inductive explorative grounded theory analysis. Derived results in cluster analyses. Appropriateness of dementia drugs assessed by tertiary care specialist. Setting Twenty-five European General Practice Research Network member countries. Subjects Four hundred and forty-five key informant primary care physician respondents of which 106 presented 155 case stories. Main outcome measures Processes and typologies of dementia management. Proportion of case stories with drug treatment and treatment according to guidelines. Results Unburdening dementia – a basic social process – explained physicians’ dementia management according to a grounded theory analysis using both qualitative and quantitative data. Unburdening starts with Recognizing the dementia burden by Burden Identification and Burden Assessment followed by Burden Relief. Drugs to relieve the dementia burden were reported for 130 of 155 patients; acetylcholinesterase inhibitors or memantine treatment in 89 of 155 patients – 60% appropriate according to guidelines and 40% outside of guidelines. More Central and Northern primary care physicians were allowed to prescribe, and more were engaged in dementia management than Eastern and Mediterranean physicians according to cluster analyses. Physicians typically identified and assessed the dementia burden and then tried to relieve it, commonly by drug prescriptions, but also by community health and home help services, mentioned in more than half of the case stories. Conclusions Primary care physician dementia management was explained by an Unburdening process with the goal to relieve the dementia burden, mainly by drugs often prescribed outside of guideline indications. Implications: Unique data about dementia management by European primary care physicians to inform appropriate stakeholders.Key points Dementia as a syndrome of cognitive and functional decline and behavioural and psychological symptoms causes a tremendous burden on patients, their families, and society. •We found that a basic social process of Unburdening dementia explained dementia management according to case stories and survey comments from primary care physicians in 25 countries. •First, Burden Recognition by Identification and Assessment and then Burden Relief – often by drugs. •Prescribing physicians repeatedly broadened guideline indications for dementia drugs. The more physicians were allowed to prescribe dementia drugs, the more they were responsible for the dementia work-up. Our study provides unique data about dementia management in European primary care for the benefit of national and international stakeholders.

Introduction: This article describes the views of European rural general practitioners regarding the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) of the implementation of a chronic care model (CCM) in European rural primary care. Methods: This was a mixed-methods online survey. Data were collected from 227 general practitioners between May and December 2017. Categorical data were analysed using descriptive methods while free-text responses were analysed using qualitative methods. The setting was rural primary care in nine European countries (including Central and Eastern Europe). Main outcomes measures were respondents' evaluations of a chronic care model in their rural healthcare settings in terms of SWOT. Results: The SWOT analysis showed that the expertise of healthcare professionals and the strength of relationships and communications between professionals, caregivers and patients are positive components of the CCM system. However, ensuring adequate staffing levels and staff competency are issues that would need to be addressed. Opportunities included the need to enable patients to participate in decision making by ensuring adequate health literacy. Conclusion: The CCM could certainly have benefits for health care in rural settings but staffing levels and staff competency would need to be addressed before implementation of CCM in such settings. Improving health literacy among patients and their carers will be essential to ensure their full participation in the implementation of a successful CCM.

Diagnostic strategies should always take into consideration the setting in which they are administered. The predictive value, positive or negative of a clinical sign or diagnostic test has a different weight in family medicine than in the hospital setting. Many tests have not been formally evaluated in primary care; unfortunately, very often low prevalence settings are used to conduct screening in these populations, and often result in unrealistically high prevalence estimates for chronic disease and these results are then used to conclude that General Practitioners are not good at detecting diseases. In primary care, the prevalence and incidence of disease differs from what appears in the hospital setting, and severe disease occurs less frequently in general practice than in hospital because there is no preventive selection. This requires a specific probability-based decision-making process, based by the knowledge of patients and the community. In primary care, the diagnostic strategy should begin with complaints and symptoms and address uncertainty and complexity, using step-by-step strategies, including watchful waiting, presumptive symptomatic treatment, and focusing on low-tech strategies.

BackgroundThe best management of hypertension in frail oldest-old (≥80 years of age) remains unclear and we still lack guidelines that provide specific recommendations. Our study aims to investigate guideline use in general practitioners (GPs) and to examine if guideline use relates to different decisions when managing hypertension in frail oldest-old.Design/settingCross-sectional study among currently active GPs from 29 countries using a case-vignettes survey.MethodsGPs participated in a survey with case-vignettes of frail oldest-olds varying in systolic blood pressure (SBP) levels and cardiovascular disease (CVD). GPs from 26 European countries and from Brazil, Israel and New Zealand were invited. We compared the percentage of GPs reporting using guidelines per country and further stratified on the most frequently mentioned guidelines. To adjust for patient characteristics (SBP, CVD and GPs' sex, years of experience, prevalence of oldest-old and location of their practice), we used a mixed-effects regression model accounting for clustering within countries.ResultsOverall, 2,543 GPs from 29 countries were included. 59.4% of them reported to use guidelines. Higher guideline use was found in female (p = 0.031) and less-experienced GPs (pConclusionMany GPs reported using guidelines to manage hypertension in frail oldest-old patients, however guideline users did not decide differently from non-users concerning hypertension treatment decisions. Instead of focusing on the fact if GPs use guidelines or not, we as a scientific community should put an emphasis on what guidelines suggest in frail and oldest-old patients.

Objectives: We previously found large variations in general practitioner (GP) hypertension treatment probability in oldest-old (>80 years) between countries. We wanted to explore whether differences in country-specific cardiovascular disease (CVD) burden and life expectancy could explain the differences. Design: This is a survey study using case-vignettes of oldest-old patients with different comorbidities and blood pressure levels. An ecological multilevel model analysis was performed. Setting: GP respondents from European General Practice Research Network (EGPRN) countries, Brazil and New Zeeland. Subjects: This study included 2543 GPs from 29 countries. Main outcome measures: GP treatment probability to start or not start antihypertensive treatment based on responses to case-vignettes; either low (80 years of age). • In this study including 1947 GPs from 29 countries, we found that a high country-specific cardiovascular disease (CVD) burden (i.e. myocardial infarction and/or stroke) was associated with a higher GP treatment probability in patients aged >80 years. • However, the association was modified by country-specific life expectancy at age 60. While there was a positive association for GPs in countries with a low life expectancy at age 60, there was no association in countries with a high life expectancy at age 60. • These findings help explaining some of the large variation seen in the decision as to whether or not to treat hypertension in the oldest-old.

Abstract Background In oldest-old patients (>80), few trials showed efficacy of treating hypertension and they included mostly the healthiest elderly. The resulting lack of knowledge has led to inconsistent guidelines, mainly based on systolic blood pressure (SBP), cardiovascular disease (CVD) but not on frailty despite the high prevalence in oldest-old. This may lead to variation how General Practitioners (GPs) treat hypertension. Our aim was to investigate treatment variation of GPs in oldest-olds across countries and to identify the role of frailty in that decision. Methods Using a survey, we compared treatment decisions in cases of oldest-old varying in SBP, CVD, and frailty. GPs were asked if they would start antihypertensive treatment in each case. In 2016, we invited GPs in Europe, Brazil, Israel, and New Zealand. We compared the percentage of cases that would be treated per countries. A logistic mixed-effects model was used to derive odds ratio (OR) for frailty with 95% confidence intervals (CI), adjusted for SBP, CVD, and GP characteristics (sex, location and prevalence of oldest-old per GP office, and years of experience). The mixed-effects model was used to account for the multiple assessments per GP. Results The 29 countries yielded 2543 participating GPs: 52% were female, 51% located in a city, 71% reported a high prevalence of oldest-old in their offices, 38% and had >20 years of experience. Across countries, considerable variation was found in the decision to start antihypertensive treatment in the oldest-old ranging from 34 to 88%. In 24/29 (83%) countries, frailty was associated with GPs’ decision not to start treatment even after adjustment for SBP, CVD, and GP characteristics (OR 0.53, 95%CI 0.48–0.59; ORs per country 0.11–1.78). Conclusions Across countries, we found considerable variation in starting antihypertensive medication in oldest-old. The frail oldest-old had an odds ratio of 0.53 of receiving antihypertensive treatment. Future hypertension trials should also include frail patients to acquire evidence on the efficacy of antihypertensive treatment in oldest-old patients with frailty, with the aim to get evidence-based data for clinical decision-making.

Introduction: Chronic peripheral neuropathic pain (CPNP) is a condition due to peripheral nervous system diseases or injury, but its prevalence is unknown in Italian primary care. Aim: The aim of this study is to assess the prevalence of CPNP in a rural primary care area in Northern Italy. Materials and Methods: A multicenter audit study was carried out in a rural area in Northern Italy with 113 participating general practitioners (GPs) seeing 58,480 patients> 18 years during 3 months. Patients who for any reason attended GPs' surgeries and had symptoms suggestive of neuropathic pain (NP) were given the NP diagnostic questionnaire “Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions” (DN4) and recorded their pain level on a visual analog scale (VAS). Results: Chronic NP was established by a DN4 score of ≥4 and a VAS pain score of ≥40 mm for> 6 months together with a clinical diagnosis in 448 (254 women and 194 men) out of 58,480 patients giving a prevalence of 0.77%. 179 patients (0.31%) had diabetes neuropathy, 142 (0.24%) had postherpetic pain, 41 (0.07%) had trigeminal neuralgia, 27 (0.05%) had NP postinjury, 27 (0.05%) had NP caused by nerve entrapments, 11 (0.02%) had NP triggered by systemic diseases, and 21 (0.04%) had NP of unknown etiology. Conclusions: The prevalence of CPNP in this population of primary care attenders in a rural area in Northern Italy was 0.77%. Diabetes neuropathy (0.31%) and postherpetic pain (0.24%) were the two most common subgroups of NP, followed by trigeminal neuralgia (0.07%).

Italian Primary Care System has been modelled after the NHS in UK and was established in 1978. In 2000 Italy’s healthcare system was regarded, by a World Health Organization’s ranking, as the 2nd best in the world after France; since then, the performance has constantly decreased mainly because of the austerity policy. This austerity policy is not justified by the Official OECD figures which show that Italian Health Care expenditures are below the average in OECD Countries. Quality outcomes almost always show a clear North-South divide in almost all health care sectors. Responsibility for health care is now shared between the central government and 19 regions and 2 autonomous provinces (Trento and Bolzano), which traditionally differ a lot in terms of economic development, per capita income, demography and culture. Disparities can be found in almost any area of health care provision, in health policy making, health care expenditure, quality of health care, public satisfaction and health care services organization. The pros of the Italian Primary Care System are the continuity of care and the universalism; the cons are the crippling bureaucracy, the workload, the lack of basic social benefits for GPs such as subsidized sick leaves and the lack of University Department of Primary Care and finally the absence of any perspective of professional development in the Academic field.