Care by general practitioners for patients with asthma or COPD during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on general practitioners' (GP) care for patients with asthma and/or COPD is largely unknown. To describe the impact of the pandemic on asthma or COPD-related GP care, we analysed routinely recorded electronic health records data from Dutch general practices and out-of-hours (OOH) services. During the COVID-19 pandemic (2020), the contact rates for asthma and/or COPD were significantly lower in GP practices and OOH services compared with the pre-pandemic period (2019) (respectively, 15% lower and 28% lower). The proportion of telephone contacts increased significantly with 13%-point in GP practices and 12%-point at OOH services, while the proportion of face-to-face contacts decreased. Furthermore, the proportion of high urgent contacts with OOH services decreased by 8.5%-point. To conclude, the overall contact rates in GP practices and OOH services decreased, while more contacts were remote. Lower contact rates have, after a short follow-up, not resulted in more patients with exacerbations in OOH care. However, this might still be expected after a longer follow-up.

Patient experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study in Dutch primary care.

BACKGROUND: Changes in primary care provision during the COVID-19 pandemic could have affected patient experience of primary care both positively and negatively. AIM: To assess the experiences of patients in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN & SETTING: A qualitative study of patients from regions with high and low COVID-19 prevalence in the Netherlands. METHOD: A qualitative study using a phenomenological framework was performed among purposively sampled patients. Individual semi-structured interviews were performed and transcribed. Data were thematically analysed by means of an inductive approach. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients were interviewed (13 men and 15 women, aged 27-91 years). After thematic analysis, two main themes emerged: accessibility and continuity of primary care. Changes considered positive during the pandemic regarding accessibility and continuity of primary care included having a quieter practice, having more time for consultations, and the use of remote care for problems with low complexity. However, patients also experienced decreases in both care accessibility and continuity, such as feeling unwelcome, the GP postponing chronic care, seeing unfamiliar doctors, and care being segregated. CONCLUSION: Despite bringing several benefits, patients indicated that the changes to primary care provision during the COVID-19 pandemic could have threatened care accessibility and continuity, which are core values of primary care. These insights can guide primary care provision not only in this and future pandemics, but also when implementing permanent changes to care provision in primary care.

Characteristics and co-admissions of mothers and babies admitted to residential parenting services in the year following birth in NSW: a linked population data study (2000-2012).

BACKGROUND: There is a tiered healthcare system in Australia to support maternal and child health, including, non-psychiatric day stay and residential parenting services (RPS) such as Tresillian and Karitane (in New South Wales [NSW]). RPS are unique to Australia, and currently there is limited information regarding the healthcare trajectory of women accessing RPS and if they are more likely to have admissions to other health facilities within the first-year post-birth. This study aimed to examine differences in hospital co-admissions for women and babies admitted to RPS in NSW in the year following birth compared to non-RPS admitted women. METHODS: A linked population data study of all women giving birth in NSW 2000-2012. Statistical differences were calculated using chi-square and student t-tests. RESULTS: Over the 12-year timeframe, 32,071 women and 33,035 babies were admitted to RPS, with 5191 of these women also having one or more hospital admissions (7607 admissions). The comparator group comprised of 99,242 women not admitted to RPS but having hospital admissions over the same timeframe (136,771 admissions). Statistically significant differences between cohorts were observed for the following parameters (p ≤ .001). Based upon calculated percentages, women who were admitted to RPS were more often older, Australian born, socially advantaged, private patients, and having their first baby. RPS admitted women also had more multiple births and labour and birth interventions (induction, instrumental birth, caesarean section, epidural, episiotomy). Their infants were also more often male and admitted to Special Care Nursery/Neonatal Intensive Care. Additionally, RPS admitted women had more admissions for mental health and behavioural disorders, which appeared to increase over time. There was no statistical difference between cohorts regarding the number of women admitted to a psychiatric facility; however, women attending RPS were more likely to have mood affective, or behavioural and personality disorder diagnoses. CONCLUSION: Women accessing RPS in the year post-birth were more socially advantaged, had higher birth intervention and more co-admissions and treatment for mental health disorders than those not accessing RPS. More research is needed into the impact of birth intervention and mental health issues on subsequent parenting difficulties.

More home births during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this observational study was to examine whether the course of pregnancy and birth and accompanying outcomes among low-risk pregnant women changed in the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the prepandemic period. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Dutch Midwifery Case Registration System (VeCaS). Differences in the course of pregnancy and birth, and accompanying maternal and neonatal outcomes, were calculated between women pregnant during the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 1 to August 3, 2020) and the prepandemic period (March 1-August 3, 2019). We also conducted a stratified analysis by parity. RESULTS: We included 5913 low-risk pregnant women of whom 2963 (50.1%) were pregnant during the first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic, and 2950 (49.9%) in the prepandemic period. During the COVID-19 pandemic, more women desired and had a home birth. More women used pain medication and fewer had an episiotomy in the COVID-19 period than prior. Multiparous women had a higher suspected rate of fetal growth restriction during COVID; however, the actual rate of small for gestational age infants was not significantly increased. We observed no differences for onset and augmentation of labor or for mode of birth, though the rate of vaginal births increased. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a higher rate of planned and actual home birth, and suspected growth restriction and a lower rate of episiotomy among low-risk pregnant women in the Netherlands.