Challenges in implementing GP clusters in Scotland: a qualitative study comparing the views of senior primary care stakeholders in 2016 with those in 2021.

BACKGROUND: Formation of GP clusters began in Scotland in April 2016 as part of a new Scottish GP contract. They aim to improve the care quality for local populations (intrinsic role) and the integration of health and social care (extrinsic role). AIM: To compare predicted challenges of cluster implementation in 2016 with reported challenges in 2021. DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative study of senior national stakeholders in primary care in Scotland. METHOD: Qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with 12 senior primary care national stakeholders in 2016 (n = 6) and 2021 (n = 6). RESULTS: Predicted challenges in 2016 included balancing intrinsic and extrinsic roles, providing sufficient support, maintaining motivation and direction, and avoiding variation between clusters. Progress of clusters in 2021 was perceived as suboptimal and was reported to vary significantly across the country, reflecting differences in local infrastructure. Practical facilitation (data, administrative support, training, project improvement support, and funded time) and strategic guidance from the Scottish Government was felt to be lacking. GP engagement with clusters was felt to be hindered by the significant time and workforce pressures facing primary care. These barriers were considered as collectively contributing to cluster lead 'burnout' and loss of momentum, exacerbated by inadequate opportunities for shared learning between clusters across Scotland. Such barriers preceded, but were perpetuated by, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: Apart from the COVID-19 pandemic, many of the challenges reported by stakeholders in 2021 were predicted in 2016. Accelerating progress in cluster working will require renewed investment and support applied consistently across the country.

Determinants of post-COVID-19 symptoms among adults aged 55 or above with chronic conditions in primary care: data from a prospective cohort in Hong Kong.

Background: Primary care patients, especially those with an older age, are one of the most vulnerable populations for post-COVID-19 symptoms. Identifying predictors of post-COVID symptoms can help identify high-risk individuals for preventive care. Methods: Out of 977 primary care patients aged 55 years or above with comorbid physical and psychosocial conditions in a prospective cohort in Hong Kong, 207 patients infected in the previous 5-24 weeks were included. The three most common post-COVID-19 symptoms (breathlessness, fatigue, cognitive difficulty), which lasted beyond the 4-week acute infection period, were assessed using items from the COVID-19 Yorkshire Rehabilitation Scale (C19-YRS), together with other self-reported symptoms. Multivariable analyses were conducted to identify predictors of post-acute and long COVID-19 symptoms (5-24 weeks after infection). Results: The 207 participants had a mean age of 70.8 ± 5.7 years, 76.3% were female, and 78.7% had ≥2 chronic conditions. In total, 81.2% reported at least one post-COVID symptom (mean: 1.9 ± 1.3); 60.9, 56.5 and 30.0% reported fatigue, cognitive difficulty, and breathlessness respectively; 46.1% reported at least one other new symptom (such as other respiratory-related symptoms (14.0%), insomnia or poor sleep quality (14.0%), and ear/nose/throat symptoms (e.g., sore throat) (10.1%), etc.). Depression predicted post-COVID-19 fatigue. The female sex predicted cognitive difficulty. Receiving fewer vaccine doses (2 doses vs. 3 doses) was associated with breathlessness. Anxiety predicted a higher overall symptom severity level of the three common symptoms. Conclusion: Depression, the female sex, and fewer vaccine doses predicted post-COVID symptoms. Promoting vaccination and providing intervention to those at high-risk for post-COVID symptoms are warranted.

GP-led adapted comprehensive geriatric assessment for frail older people: a multi-methods evaluation of the 'Living Well Assessment' quality improvement project in Scotland.

BACKGROUND: Evidence to support comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in primary care for frail older people is limited. AIM: To evaluate a GP-led adapted CGA quality improvement project. DESIGN & SETTING: Multi-methods evaluation in a large practice in Midlothian in Scotland. METHOD: The intervention was conducted by 10 GPs in a practice of approximately 11 000 patients, initially in the patient's home, and then remotely (by telephone or video consultation) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Evaluation included a patient questionnaire, and qualitative interviews with GPs delivering the Living Well Assessment (LWA), analysed by thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 165/220 (75%) patients responded to the survey, of which 86% reported a 'very good experience' of the LWA. The method of delivery did not significantly influence this although most (58%) stated a preference for face-to-face consultation. For the 31% who preferred remote LWA, most (23%) preferred telephone to video consultation (8%). Problems in remote consultations related to technical issues (video), poor vision (video), or deafness (telephone or video). GPs felt that home-based LWAs had real benefits but switching to remote during the pandemic had proven feasible. Concerns included potential increase in GP workload owing to the LWA and whether it was an efficient use of GPs' time. CONCLUSION: GP-led adapted CGA was feasible in a large practice, even during the pandemic, and highly valued by frail patients. Questions regarding efficient use of GPs' time, effectiveness in terms of important patient outcomes and impact, and cost-effectiveness, requires further investigation in a larger study.

Survey to identify research priorities for primary care in Scotland during and following the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: To identify research priorities for primary care in Scotland following the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Modified James Lind Alliance methodology; respondents completed an online survey to make research suggestions and rank research themes in order of priority. SETTING: Scotland primary care. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare professionals in primary care in Scotland and members of primary care patient and public involvement groups. 512 respondents provided research suggestions; 8% (n=40) did not work in health or social care; of those who did work, 68.8% worked in primary care, 16.3% community care, 11.7% secondary care, 4.5% third sector, 4.2% university (respondents could select multiple options). Of those respondents who identified as healthcare professionals, 33% were in nursing and midwifery professions, 25% were in allied health professions (of whom 45% were occupational therapists and 35% were physiotherapists), 20% were in the medical profession and 10% were in the pharmacy profession. MAIN OUTCOMES: Suggestions for research for primary care made by respondents were categorised into themes and subthemes by researchers and ranked in order of priority by respondents. RESULTS: There were 1274 research suggestions which were categorised under 12 themes and 30 subthemes. The following five themes received the most suggestions for research: disease and illness (n=461 suggestions), access (n=202), workforce (n=164), multidisciplinary team (MDT; n=143) and integration (n=108). One hundred and three (20%) respondents to the survey participated in ranking the list of 12 themes in order of research priority. The five most highly ranked research priorities were disease and illness, health inequalities, access, workforce and MDTs. The disease and illness theme had the greatest number of suggestions for research and was scored the most highly in the ranking exercise. The subtheme ranked as the most important research priority in the disease and illness theme was 'mental health'. CONCLUSIONS: The themes and subthemes identified in this study should inform research funders so that the direction of primary healthcare is informed by evidence.

Assessing the Implementation and Effectiveness of the Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Tool for Older Adults With Complex Care Needs: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Goal-oriented care is being adopted to deliver person-centered primary care to older adults with multimorbidity and complex care needs. Although this model holds promise, its implementation remains a challenge. Digital health solutions may enable processes to improve adoption; however, they require evaluation to determine feasibility and impact. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the electronic Patient-Reported Outcome (ePRO) mobile app and portal system, designed to enable goal-oriented care delivery in interprofessional primary care practices. The research questions driving this study are as follows: Does ePRO improve quality of life and self-management in older adults with complex needs? What mechanisms are likely driving observed outcomes? METHODS: A multimethod, pragmatic randomized controlled trial using a stepped-wedge design and ethnographic case studies was conducted over a 15-month period in 6 comprehensive primary care practices across Ontario with a target enrollment of 176 patients. The 6 practices were randomized into either early (3-month control period; 12-month intervention) or late (6-month control period; 9-month intervention) groups. The primary outcome measure of interest was the Assessment of Quality of Life-4D (AQoL-4D). Data were collected at baseline and at 3 monthly intervals for the duration of the trial. Ethnographic data included observations and interviews with patients and providers at the midpoint and end of the intervention. Outcome data were analyzed using linear models conducted at the individual level, accounting for cluster effects at the practice level, and ethnographic data were analyzed using qualitative description and framework analysis methods. RESULTS: Recruitment challenges resulted in fewer sites and participants than expected; of the 176 target, only 142 (80.6%) patients were identified as eligible to participate because of lower-than-expected provider participation and fewer-than-expected patients willing to participate or perceived as ready to engage in goal-setting. Of the 142 patients approached, 45 (32%) participated. Patients set a variety of goals related to self-management, mental health, social health, and overall well-being. Owing to underpowering, the impact of ePRO on quality of life could not be definitively assessed; however, the intervention group, ePRO plus usual care (mean 15.28, SD 18.60) demonstrated a nonsignificant decrease in quality of life (t24=-1.20; P=.24) when compared with usual care only (mean 21.76, SD 2.17). The ethnographic data reveal a complex implementation process in which the meaningfulness (or coherence) of the technology to individuals' lives and work acted as a key driver of adoption and tool appraisal. CONCLUSIONS: This trial experienced many unexpected and significant implementation challenges related to recruitment and engagement. Future studies could be improved through better alignment of the research methods and intervention to the complex and diverse clinical settings, dynamic goal-oriented care process, and readiness of provider and patient participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02917954; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02917954.

Impact of COVID-19 on loneliness, mental health, and health service utilisation: a prospective cohort study of older adults with multimorbidity in primary care.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the psychological health and health service utilisation of older adults with multimorbidity, who are particularly vulnerable. AIM: To describe changes in loneliness, mental health problems, and attendance to scheduled medical care before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN AND SETTING: Telephone survey on a pre-existing cohort of older adults with multimorbidity in primary care. METHOD: Mental health and health service utilisation outcomes were compared with the outcomes before the onset of the COVID-19 outbreak in Hong Kong using paired t-tests, Wilcoxon's signed-rank test, and McNemar's test. Loneliness was measured by the De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale. The secondary outcomes (anxiety, depression, and insomnia) were measured by the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire, the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder tool, and the Insomnia Severity Index. Appointments attendance data were extracted from a computerised medical record system. Sociodemographic factors associated with outcome changes were examined by linear regression and generalised estimating equations. RESULTS: Data were collected from 583 older (≥60 years) adults. There were significant increases in loneliness, anxiety, and insomnia, after the onset of the COVID-19 outbreak. Missed medical appointments over a 3-month period increased from 16.5% 1 year ago to 22.0% after the onset of the outbreak. In adjusted analysis, being female, living alone, and having >4 chronic conditions were independently associated with increased loneliness. Females were more likely to have increased anxiety and insomnia. CONCLUSION: Psychosocial health of older patients with multimorbidity markedly deteriorated and missed medical appointments substantially increased after the COVID-19 outbreak.

Global, regional, and national estimates of the population at increased risk of severe COVID-19 due to underlying health conditions in 2020: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: The risk of severe COVID-19 if an individual becomes infected is known to be higher in older individuals and those with underlying health conditions. Understanding the number of individuals at increased risk of severe COVID-19 and how this varies between countries should inform the design of possible strategies to shield or vaccinate those at highest risk. METHODS: We estimated the number of individuals at increased risk of severe disease (defined as those with at least one condition listed as "at increased risk of severe COVID-19" in current guidelines) by age (5-year age groups), sex, and country for 188 countries using prevalence data from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2017 and UN population estimates for 2020. The list of underlying conditions relevant to COVID-19 was determined by mapping the conditions listed in GBD 2017 to those listed in guidelines published by WHO and public health agencies in the UK and the USA. We analysed data from two large multimorbidity studies to determine appropriate adjustment factors for clustering and multimorbidity. To help interpretation of the degree of risk among those at increased risk, we also estimated the number of individuals at high risk (defined as those that would require hospital admission if infected) using age-specific infection-hospitalisation ratios for COVID-19 estimated for mainland China and making adjustments to reflect country-specific differences in the prevalence of underlying conditions and frailty. We assumed males were twice at likely as females to be at high risk. We also calculated the number of individuals without an underlying condition that could be considered at increased risk because of their age, using minimum ages from 50 to 70 years. We generated uncertainty intervals (UIs) for our estimates by running low and high scenarios using the lower and upper 95% confidence limits for country population size, disease prevalences, multimorbidity fractions, and infection-hospitalisation ratios, and plausible low and high estimates for the degree of clustering, informed by multimorbidity studies. FINDINGS: We estimated that 1·7 billion (UI 1·0-2·4) people, comprising 22% (UI 15-28) of the global population, have at least one underlying condition that puts them at increased risk of severe COVID-19 if infected (ranging from <5% of those younger than 20 years to >66% of those aged 70 years or older). We estimated that 349 million (186-787) people (4% [3-9] of the global population) are at high risk of severe COVID-19 and would require hospital admission if infected (ranging from <1% of those younger than 20 years to approximately 20% of those aged 70 years or older). We estimated 6% (3-12) of males to be at high risk compared with 3% (2-7) of females. The share of the population at increased risk was highest in countries with older populations, African countries with high HIV/AIDS prevalence, and small island nations with high diabetes prevalence. Estimates of the number of individuals at increased risk were most sensitive to the prevalence of chronic kidney disease, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and chronic respiratory disease. INTERPRETATION: About one in five individuals worldwide could be at increased risk of severe COVID-19, should they become infected, due to underlying health conditions, but this risk varies considerably by age. Our estimates are uncertain, and focus on underlying conditions rather than other risk factors such as ethnicity, socioeconomic deprivation, and obesity, but provide a starting point for considering the number of individuals that might need to be shielded or vaccinated as the global pandemic unfolds. FUNDING: UK Department for International Development, Wellcome Trust, Health Data Research UK, Medical Research Council, and National Institute for Health Research.