A mixed-methods evaluation of an Irish remote model of opioid substitution treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Providing health care to rural communities is a challenge, particular for marginalised groups like people who use drugs. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic further increases these challenges. The use of remote models of care, including telemedicine, help to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 and provide new opportunities to engage existing and new patients in treatment. It is recognised that people who used opioids have increased health needs and struggle to engage in health care compared to the general population. Opioid substitution treatment (OST) is effective at reducing these health inequalities but coverage is often inadequate. To increase access to OST during the pandemic, a national remote model of OST was developed in Ireland. An evaluation is being conducted 18 months after commencement to evaluate its effectiveness at engaging people in OST, its impact on their drug use, general health and quality of life. The evaluation also aims to describe the experiences of both services providers and users and report aspects that can be modified and improved. METHODS: A mixed-methods evaluation is being conducted. It consists of a chart review that collects demographic data (age, sex, family details and education and employment status). It also includes the collection and analysis of data on engagement in treatment, changes in drug use and general health. A series of one-to-one interviews are being conducted (service providers (n=12) and service users (n=10).Thematic analysis of the interview narratives will be conducted using NVivo 11. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The results will be ready in 2022.

Application of complexity theory in health and social care research: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Complexity theory has been chosen by many authors as a suitable lens through which to examine health and social care. Despite its potential value, many empirical investigations apply the theory in a tokenistic manner without engaging with its underlying concepts and underpinnings. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this scoping review is to synthesise the literature on empirical studies that have centred on the application of complexity theory to understand health and social care provision. METHODS: This scoping review considered primary research using complexity theory-informed approaches, published in English between 2012 and 2021. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, PSYCHINFO, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and the Health Economic Evaluations Database were searched. In addition, a manual search of the reference lists of relevant articles was conducted. Data extraction was conducted using Covidence software and a data extraction form was created to produce a descriptive summary of the results, addressing the objectives and research question. The review used the revised Arksey and O'Malley framework and adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). RESULTS: 2021 studies were initially identified with a total of 61 articles included for extraction. Complexity theory in health and social care research is poorly defined and described and was most commonly applied as a theoretical and analytical framework. The full breadth of the health and social care continuum was not represented in the identified articles, with the majority being healthcare focused. DISCUSSION: Complexity theory is being increasingly embraced in health and care research. The heterogeneity of the literature regarding the application of complexity theory made synthesis challenging. However, this scoping review has synthesised the most recent evidence and contributes to translational systems research by providing guidance for future studies. CONCLUSION: The study of complex health and care systems necessitates methods of interpreting dynamic prcesses which requires qualitative and longitudinal studies with abductive reasoning. The authors provide guidance on conducting complexity-informed primary research that seeks to promote rigor and transparency in the area. REGISTRATION: The scoping review protocol was registered at Open Science Framework, and the review protocol was published at BMJ Open (https://bit.ly/3Ex1Inu).

Differences between Rural and Urban Practices in the Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Outcomes from the PRICOV-19 Study in 38 Countries.

This paper explores the differences between rural and urban practices in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizing aspects such as management of patient flow, infection prevention and control, information processing, communication and collaboration. Using a cross-sectional design, data were collected through the online PRICOV-19 questionnaire sent to general practices in 38 countries. Rural practices in our sample were smaller than urban-based practices. They reported an above-average number of old and multimorbid patients and a below-average number of patients with a migrant background or financial problems. Rural practices were less likely to provide leaflets and information, but were more likely to have ceased using the waiting room or to have made structural changes to their waiting room and to have changed their prescribing practices in terms of patients attending the practices. They were less likely to perform video consultations or use electronic prescription methods. Our findings show the existence of certain issues that could impact patient safety in rural areas more than in urban areas due to the underlying differences in population profile and supports. These could be used to plan the organization of care for similar future pandemic situations.

Screening for and Disclosure of Domestic Violence during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Results of the PRICOV-19 Cross-Sectional Study in 33 Countries.

The COVID-19 pandemic left no one untouched, and reports of domestic violence (DV) increased during the crisis. DV victims rarely seek professional help, yet when they do so, they often disclose it to their general practitioner (GP), with whom they have a trusting relationship. GPs rarely screen and hence rarely take the initiative to discuss DV with patients, although victims indicate that offering this opportunity would facilitate their disclosure. This paper aims to describe the frequency of screening for DV by GPs and disclosure of DV by patients to the GP during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to identify key elements that could potentially explain differences in screening for and disclosure of DV. The PRICOV-19 data of 4295 GP practices from 33 countries were included in the analyses, with practices nested in countries. Two stepwise forward clustered ordinal logistic regressions were performed. Only 11% of the GPs reported (much) more disclosure of DV by patients during COVID-19, and 12% reported having screened for DV (much). Most significant associations with screening for and disclosure of DV concerned general (pro)active communication. However, (pro)active communication was performed less frequently for DV than for health conditions, which might indicate that GPs are insufficiently aware of the general magnitude of DV and its impact on patients and society, and its approach/management. Thus, professional education and training for GPs about DV seems highly and urgently needed.

The Organization of Outreach Work for Vulnerable Patients in General Practice during COVID-19: Results from the Cross-Sectional PRICOV-19 Study in 38 Countries.

The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affected vulnerable populations' access to health care. By proactively reaching out to them, general practices attempted to prevent the underutilization of their services. This paper examined the association between practice and country characteristics and the organization of outreach work in general practices during COVID-19. Linear mixed model analyses with practices nested in countries were performed on the data of 4982 practices from 38 countries. A 4-item scale on outreach work was constructed as the outcome variable with a reliability of 0.77 and 0.97 at the practice and country level. The results showed that many practices set up outreach work, including extracting at least one list of patients with chronic conditions from their electronic medical record (30.1%); and performing telephone outreach to patients with chronic conditions (62.8%), a psychological vulnerability (35.6%), or possible situation of domestic violence or a child-rearing situation (17.2%). Outreach work was positively related to the availability of an administrative assistant or practice manager (p < 0.05) or paramedical support staff (p < 0.01). Other practice and country characteristics were not significantly associated with undertaking outreach work. Policy and financial interventions supporting general practices to organize outreach work should focus on the range of personnel available to support such practice activities.

Responding to COVID-19: The Suitability of Primary Care Infrastructure in 33 Countries.

COVID-19 proved that primary care (PC) providers have an important role in managing health emergencies, such as epidemics. Little is known about the preparedness of primary care practice infrastructure to continue providing high quality care during this crisis. The aim of this paper is to describe the perceived limitations to the infrastructure of PC practices during COVID-19 and to determine the factors associated with a higher likelihood of infrastructural barriers in providing high quality care. This paper presents the results of an online survey conducted between November 2020 and November 2021 as a part of PRICOV-19 study. Data from 4974 practices in 33 countries regarding perceived limitations and intentions to make future adjustments to practice infrastructure as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic were collected. Approximately 58% of practices experienced limitations to the building or other practice infrastructure to provide high-quality and safe care during the COVID-19 pandemic, and in 54% making adjustments to the building or the infrastructure was considered. Large variations between the countries were found. The results show that infrastructure constraints were directly proportional to the size of the practice. Better pandemic infection control equipment, governmental support, and a fee-for-service payment system were found to be associated with a lower perceived need for infrastructural changes. The results of the study indicate the need for systematic support for the development of practice infrastructure in order to provide high-quality, safe primary care in the event of future crises similar to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Enhancing the management of long COVID in general practice: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Long COVID is a multifaceted condition, and it has impacted a considerable proportion of those with acute COVID-19. Affected patients often have complex care needs requiring holistic and multidisciplinary care, the kind routinely provided in general practice. However, there is limited evidence regarding GP interventions. AIM: This study aimed to identify key concepts and knowledge gaps around long COVID by conducting a scoping review of literature on the condition's management by GPs. DESIGN & SETTING: Arksey and O'Malley's six-stage scoping review framework, with recommendations by Levac et al, was used. METHOD: PubMed, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Google searches were conducted to identify relevant peer reviewed and grey literature, and study selection process was conducted according to the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Braun and Clarke's 'Thematic Analysis' approach was used to interpret data. RESULTS: Nineteen of 972 identified articles were selected for review. These included peer reviewed articles and grey literature spanning a wide range of countries. Six themes were identified regarding GP management of long COVID, these being: (1) GP uncertainty, (2) listening and empathy, (3) assessment and monitoring of symptoms, (4) coordinating access to appropriate services, (5) facilitating provision of continual and integrated multidisciplinary care and (6) need to provide or facilitate psychological support. CONCLUSION: The findings show that GPs can play and have played a key role in the management of long COVID, and that patient care can be improved through better understanding of patient experiences, standardised approaches for symptom identification and treatment, and facilitation of access to multidisciplinary specialist services when needed. Future research evaluating focused GP interventions is needed.

Safety Culture and the Positive Association of Being a Primary Care Training Practice during COVID-19: The Results of the Multi-Country European PRICOV-19 Study.

The day-to-day work of primary care (PC) was substantially changed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Teaching practices needed to adapt both clinical work and teaching in a way that enabled the teaching process to continue, while maintaining safe and high-quality care. Our study aims to investigate the effect of being a training practice on a number of different outcomes related to the safety culture of PC practices. PRICOV-19 is a multi-country cross-sectional study that researches how PC practices were organized in 38 countries during the pandemic. Data was collected from November 2020 to December 2021. We categorized practices into training and non-training and selected outcomes relating to safety culture: safe practice management, community outreach, professional well-being and adherence to protocols. Mixed-effects regression models were built to analyze the effect of being a training practice for each of the outcomes, while controlling for relevant confounders. Of the participating practices, 2886 (56%) were non-training practices and 2272 (44%) were training practices. Being a training practice was significantly associated with a lower risk for adverse mental health events (OR: 0.83; CI: 0.70-0.99), a higher number of safety measures related to patient flow (Beta: 0.17; CI: 0.07-0.28), a higher number of safety incidents reported (RR: 1.12; CI: 1.06-1.19) and more protected time for meetings (Beta: 0.08; CI: 0.01-0.15). No significant associations were found for outreach initiatives, availability of triage information, use of a phone protocol or infection prevention measures and equipment availability. Training practices were found to have a stronger safety culture than non-training practices. These results have important policy implications, since involving more PC practices in education may be an effective way to improve quality and safety in general practice.

Distress and Wellbeing among General Practitioners in 33 Countries during COVID-19: Results from the Cross-Sectional PRICOV-19 Study to Inform Health System Interventions.

Emerging literature is highlighting the huge toll of the COVID-19 pandemic on frontline health workers. However, prior to the crisis, the wellbeing of this group was already of concern. The aim of this paper is to describe the frequency of distress and wellbeing, measured by the expanded 9-item Mayo Clinic Wellbeing Index (eWBI), among general practitioners/family physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic and to identify levers to mitigate the risk of distress. Data were collected by means of an online self-reported questionnaire among GP practices. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software using Version 7 of the database, which consisted of the cleaned data of 33 countries available as of 3 November 2021. Data from 3711 respondents were included. eWBI scores ranged from -2 to 9, with a median of 3. Using a cutoff of ≥2, 64.5% of respondents were considered at risk of distress. GPs with less experience, in smaller practices, and with more vulnerable patient populations were at a higher risk of distress. Significant differences in wellbeing scores were noted between countries. Collaboration from other practices and perception of having adequate governmental support were significant protective factors for distress. It is necessary to address practice- and system-level organizational factors in order to enhance wellbeing and support primary care physicians.

Changes to primary care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic and perceived impact on medication safety: A survey study.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on the delivery of primary care around the world. In Ireland, the use of technologies such as virtual consultations and the electronic transfer of prescriptions became widespread in order to deliver care to patients while minimising infection risk. The impact of these changes on medication safety is not yet known. Objectives: The aims of this survey study were to investigate 1) the changes that have occurred in Irish primary care since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and 2) the impact of these changes on medication safety. Methods: Anonymous, online surveys were distributed to general practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists from August-September 2021. Surveys contained quantitative (multiple-choice, Likert scale) and qualitative (free-text) questions concerning workflow changes, medication safety incidents and near misses, and GP/pharmacist perspectives on medication safety and COVID-19. Reported medication safety incidents and near misses were categorised according to the WHO Conceptual Framework for the International Classification for Patient Safety. Results: In total, there were 251 responses to the survey, comprising of 211 pharmacists and 40 GPs. The most significant workflow changes during the pandemic were the widespread use of a secure clinical email service (Healthmail) that facilitates electronic prescription transfer and communication (75.3% of respondents) and the increased use of telephone consultations (49%). Overall, Healthmail was widely perceived to have had a positive impact on medication safety. Most GPs did not perceive a change in the frequency of medication safety incidents during the pandemic, while most pharmacists reported a slight increase in incidents. Survey participants highlighted pressure, patient expectations, and patient monitoring as significant challenges encountered during the pandemic. Conclusions: During the pandemic, a number of significant changes occurred in primary care in Ireland, particularly involving communication of healthcare information, with varying impacts on workflow and medication safety. Future research should focus on the optimisation of electronic prescribing and telemedicine services in Ireland, patient perspectives on the changes in primary care, and interventions to improve medication safety in primary care.

Practice and System Factors Impact on Infection Prevention and Control in General Practice during COVID-19 across 33 Countries: Results of the PRICOV Cross-Sectional Survey.

Infection prevention and control (IPC) is an evidence-based approach used to reduce the risk of infection transmission within the healthcare environment. Effective IPC practices ensure safe and quality healthcare. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for enhanced IPC measures and the World Health Organization (WHO) emphasized the need for strict adherence to the basic principles of IPC. This paper aims to describe the IPC strategies implemented in general practice during the COVID-19 pandemic and to identify the factors that impact their adoption. Data were collected by means of an online self-reported questionnaire among general practices. Data from 4466 practices in 33 countries were included in the analysis. Our results showed a notable improvement in IPC during COVID-19 with more practices reporting that staff members never wore nail polish (increased from 34% to 46.2%); more practices reporting that staff never wear a ring/bracelet (increased from 16.1% to 32.3%); and more practices using a cleaning protocol (increased from 54.9% to 72.7%). Practice population size and the practice payment system were key factors related to adoption of a) range of IPC measures including patient flow arrangements and infrastructural elements. An understanding of the interplay between policy, culture, systemic supports, and behavior are necessary to obtain sustained improvement in IPC measures.

Perspectives on the production, and use, of rapid evidence in decision making during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe perceptions of providing, and using rapid evidence, to support decision making by two national bodies (one public health policy and one front-line clinical practice) during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Descriptive qualitative study (March-August 2020): 25 semistructured interviews were conducted, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. SETTING: Data were obtained as part of an evaluation of two Irish national projects; the Irish COVID-19 Evidence for General Practitioners project (General Practice (GP) project) which provided relevant evidence to address clinical questions posed by GPs; and the COVID-19 Evidence Synthesis Team (Health Policy project) which produced rapid evidence products at the request of the National Public Health Emergency Team. PARTICIPANTS: Purposive sample of 14 evidence providers (EPs: generated and disseminated rapid evidence) and 11 service ssers (SUs: GPs and policy-makers, who used the evidence). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participant perceptions. RESULTS: The Policy Project comprised 27 EPs, producing 30 reports across 1432 person-work-days. The GP project comprised 10 members from 3 organisations, meeting 49 times and posting evidence-based answers to 126 questions. Four unique themes were generated. 'The Work' highlighted that a structured but flexible organisational approach to producing evidence was essential. Ensuring quality of evidence products was challenging, particularly in the context of absent or poor-quality evidence. 'The Use' highlighted that rapid evidence products were considered invaluable to decision making. Trust and credibility of EPs were key, however, communication difficulties were highlighted by SUs (eg, website functionality). 'The Team' emphasised that a highly skilled team, working collaboratively, is essential to meeting the substantial workload demands and tight turnaround time. 'The Future' highlighted that investing in resources, planning and embedding evidence synthesis support, is crucial to national emergency preparedness. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid evidence products were considered invaluable to decision making. The credibility of EPs, a close relationship with SUs and having a highly skilled and adaptable team to meet the workload demands were identified as key strengths that optimised the utilisation of rapid evidence. ETHICS APPROVAL: Ethical approval was obtained from the National Research Ethics Committee for COVID-19-related Research, Ireland.

Reanalysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial on Promoting Influenza Vaccination in General Practice Waiting Rooms: A Zelen Design.

In 2014-2015, we conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) assessing the effect of an advertising campaign for influenza vaccination using posters and pamphlets in general practitioner (GP) waiting rooms. No effect of the intervention could be demonstrated, but the immunization uptake increased in both arms of the study. In 2019, we deepened the investigations explaining the increased uptake conducting a registry-based 4/2/1 cluster RCT designed by Zelen with two extra years of follow-up of the study cohort. The study population included 23,024 patients eligible to be vaccinated who were registered with 175 GPs. The main outcome remained the number of vaccination units delivered per study group. Data were extracted from the SNIIRAM warehouse claim database for the Lille-Douai district (northern France). No difference in vaccination uptake was found in the Zelen versus the control group of the initial RCT. Overall, the proportion of vaccinated patients increased in the cohort from 51.4% to 70.4% over the three years. Being vaccinated the previous year was a strong predictor of being vaccinated in a subsequent year. The increase in vaccination uptake, especially among people older than 65, can be explained by a cohort effect. Health promotion and the promotion of primary health care may play an important role in this increase.

General practitioners' perceptions of using virtual primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic: An international cross-sectional survey study.

With the onset of COVID-19, general practitioners (GPs) and patients worldwide swiftly transitioned from face-to-face to digital remote consultations. There is a need to evaluate how this global shift has impacted patient care, healthcare providers, patient and carer experience, and health systems. We explored GPs' perspectives on the main benefits and challenges of using digital virtual care. GPs across 20 countries completed an online questionnaire between June-September 2020. GPs' perceptions of main barriers and challenges were explored using free-text questions. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. A total of 1,605 respondents participated in our survey. The benefits identified included reducing COVID-19 transmission risks, guaranteeing access and continuity of care, improved efficiency, faster access to care, improved convenience and communication with patients, greater work flexibility for providers, and hastening the digital transformation of primary care and accompanying legal frameworks. Main challenges included patients' preference for face-to-face consultations, digital exclusion, lack of physical examinations, clinical uncertainty, delays in diagnosis and treatment, overuse and misuse of digital virtual care, and unsuitability for certain types of consultations. Other challenges include the lack of formal guidance, higher workloads, remuneration issues, organisational culture, technical difficulties, implementation and financial issues, and regulatory weaknesses. At the frontline of care delivery, GPs can provide important insights on what worked well, why, and how during the pandemic. Lessons learned can be used to inform the adoption of improved virtual care solutions and support the long-term development of platforms that are more technologically robust and secure.

Distress and Wellbeing among General Practitioners in 33 Countries during COVID-19: Results from the Cross-Sectional PRICOV-19 Study to Inform Health System Interventions

Emerging literature is highlighting the huge toll of the COVID-19 pandemic on frontline health workers. However, prior to the crisis, the wellbeing of this group was already of concern. The aim of this paper is to describe the frequency of distress and wellbeing, measured by the expanded 9-item Mayo Clinic Wellbeing Index (eWBI), among general practitioners/family physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic and to identify levers to mitigate the risk of distress. Data were collected by means of an online self-reported questionnaire among GP practices. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software using Version 7 of the database, which consisted of the cleaned data of 33 countries available as of 3 November 2021. Data from 3711 respondents were included. eWBI scores ranged from −2 to 9, with a median of 3. Using a cutoff of ≥2, 64.5% of respondents were considered at risk of distress. GPs with less experience, in smaller practices, and with more vulnerable patient populations were at a higher risk of distress. Significant differences in wellbeing scores were noted between countries. Collaboration from other practices and perception of having adequate governmental support were significant protective factors for distress. It is necessary to address practice- and system-level organizational factors in order to enhance wellbeing and support primary care physicians.

Emotional distress, occupational stress and burnout among Family Doctors in Europe: Monitoring and testing of interventions is required.

In recent years, the medical literature from a wide range of medical specialities has exploded with publications on the theme of emotional distress, stress and burnout in the practice of medicine. Improving the work-life of health care providers is necessary to optimise health system performance. COVID-19 has caused considerable additional pressure on health services across Europe and there have been calls for interventions to address the psychological and occupational stress caused by the pandemic. Although there is an ongoing need to monitor these factors among family physicians, and other staff working in primary care across Europe, we must also identify supports and promote them. Further research is needed to explore causative factors and provide convincing evidence in relation to effective interventions.

Envisioning a resilient future for biodiversity conservation in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to affect societies across the world, the ongoing economic and social disruptions are likely to present fundamental challenges for current and future biodiversity conservation.We review the literature for outcomes of past major societal, political, economic and zoonotic perturbations on biodiversity conservation, and demonstrate the complex implications of perturbation events upon conservation efforts. Building on the review findings, we use six in-depth case studies and the emerging literature to identify positive and negative outcomes of the COVID-19 pandemic, known and anticipated, for biodiversity conservation efforts around the world.A number of similarities exist between the current pandemic and past perturbations, with experiences highlighting that the pandemic-induced declines in conservation revenue and capacity, livelihood and trade disruptions are likely to have long-lasting and negative implications for biodiversity and conservation efforts.Yet, the COVID-19 pandemic also brought about a global pause in human movement that is unique in recent history, and may yet foster long-lasting behavioural and societal changes, presenting opportunities to strengthen and advance conservation efforts in the wake of the pandemic. Enhanced collaborations and partnerships at the local level, cross-sectoral engagement, local investment and leadership will all enhance the resilience of conservation efforts in the face of future perturbations. Other actions aimed at enhancing resilience will require fundamental institutional change and extensive government and public engagement and support if they are to be realised.The pandemic has highlighted the inherent vulnerabilities in the social and economic models upon which many conservation efforts are based. In so doing, it presents an opportunity to reconsider the status quo for conservation, and promotes behaviours and actions that are resilient to future perturbation. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

Evaluating the Impact of COVID-19 on the Adoption of Virtual Care in General Practice in 20 Countries (inSIGHT): Protocol and Rationale Study.

BACKGROUND: In recent decades, virtual care has emerged as a promising option to support primary care delivery. However, despite the potential, adoption rates remained low. With the outbreak of COVID-19, it has suddenly been pushed to the forefront of care delivery. As we progress into the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a need and opportunity to review the impact remote care had in primary care settings and reassess its potential future role. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the perspectives of general practitioners (GPs) and family doctors on the (1) use of virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic, (2) perceived impact on quality and safety of care, and (3) essential factors for high-quality and sustainable use of virtual care in the future. METHODS: This study used an online cross-sectional questionnaire completed by GPs distributed across 20 countries. The survey was hosted in Qualtrics and distributed using email, social media, and the researchers' personal contact networks. GPs were eligible for the survey if they were working mainly in primary care during the period of the COVID-19 pandemic. Descriptive statistical analysis will be performed for quantitative variables, and relationships between the use of virtual care and perceptions on impact on quality and safety of care and participants' characteristics may be explored. Qualitative data (free-text responses) will be analyzed using framework analysis. RESULTS: Data collection took place from June 2020 to September 2020. As of this manuscript's submission, a total of 1605 GP respondents participated in the questionnaire. Further data analysis is currently ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: The study will provide a comprehensive overview of the availability of virtual care technologies, perceived impact on quality and safety of care, and essential factors for high-quality future use. In addition, a description of the underlying factors that influence this adoption and perceptions, in both individual GP and family doctor characteristics and the context in which they work, will be provided. While the COVID-19 pandemic may prove the first great stress test of the capabilities, capacity, and robustness of digital systems currently in use, remote care will likely remain an increasingly common approach in the future. There is an imperative to identify the main lessons from this unexpected transformation and use them to inform policy decisions and health service design. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/30099.