Gender Differences in Perceived Working Conditions of General Practitioners During the COVID-19 Pandemic-a Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has revealed gender-specific differences between general practitioners in adapting to the posed challenges. As primary care workforce is becoming increasingly female, in many countries, it is essential to take a closer look at gender-specific influences when the global health care system is confronted with a crisis. OBJECTIVE: To explore gender-specific differences in the perceived working conditions and gender-specific differences in challenges facing GPs at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. DESIGN: Online survey in seven countries. PARTICIPANTS: 2,602 GPs from seven countries (Austria, Australia, Switzerland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Slovenia). Of the respondents, 44.4% (n = 1,155) were women. MAIN MEASURES: Online survey. We focused on gender-specific differences in general practitioners' perceptions of working conditions at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. KEY RESULTS: Female GPs rated their skills and self-confidence significantly lower than male GPs (f: 7.1, 95%CI: 6.9-7.3 vs. m: 7.6, 95%CI 7.4-7.8; p < .001), and their perceived risk (concerned about becoming infected or infecting others) higher than men (f: 5.7, 95%CI: 5.4-6.0 vs. m: 5.1, 95%CI: 4.8-5.5; p = .011). Among female GPs, low self-confidence in the treatment of COVID-19 patients appear to be common. Results were similar in all of the participating countries. CONCLUSIONS: Female and male GPs differed in terms of their self-confidence when dealing with COVID-19-related issues and their perceptions of the risks arising from the pandemic. To ensure optimal medical care, it is important that GPs realistically assess their own abilities and overall risk.

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.

COVI-Prim international: Similarities and discrepancies in the way general practices from seven different countries coped with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objectives: General practitioners (GPs) are frequently patients' first point of contact with the healthcare system and play an important role in identifying, managing and monitoring cases. This study investigated the experiences of GPs from seven different countries in the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. Design: International cross-sectional online survey. Setting: General practitioners from Australia, Austria, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Slovenia and Switzerland. Participants: Overall, 1,642 GPs completed the survey. Main outcome measures: We focused on how well-prepared GPs were, their self-confidence and concerns, efforts to control the spread of the disease, patient contacts, information flow, testing procedures and protection of staff. Results: GPs gave high ratings to their self-confidence (7.3, 95% CI 7.1-7.5) and their efforts to control the spread of the disease (7.2, 95% CI 7.0-7.3). A decrease in the number of patient contacts (5.7, 95% CI 5.4-5.9), the perception of risk (5.3 95% CI 4.9-5.6), the provision of information to GPs (4.9, 95% CI 4.6-5.2), their testing of suspected cases (3.7, 95% CI 3.4-3.9) and their preparedness to face a pandemic (mean: 3.5; 95% CI 3.2-3.7) were rated as moderate. GPs gave low ratings to their ability to protect staff (2.2 95% CI 1.9-2.4). Differences were identified in all dimensions except protection of staff, which was consistently low in all surveyed GPs and countries. Conclusion: Although GPs in the different countries were confronted with the same pandemic, its impact on specific aspects differed. This partly reflected differences in health care systems and experience of recent pandemics. However, it also showed that the development of structured care plans in case of future infectious diseases requires the early involvement of primary care representatives.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the continuity of care for at-risk patients in Swiss primary care settings: A mixed-methods study.

Continuity of care is important for the health of aging individuals with comorbidities. When initial coronavirus mitigation campaigns involved messaging such as "Stay at home-stay safe," and banned provision of non-urgent care, at-risk patients depending upon regular consultations with general practitioners (GPs) faced confusion about the possibility of seeking non-COVID-19 related healthcare. We employed a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design, consisting of a quantitative component followed by a qualitative component, to understand at-risk patients' health services use during the COVID-19 pandemic in Switzerland. Quantitatively, we used electronic medical records data from 272 GPs and 266,796 patients. Based on pre-pandemic data, we predicted weekly consultation counts as well as weekly measurement counts (blood pressure, glycated hemoglobin, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol) per 100 patients that would be expected in 2020 in absence of a pandemic and compared those to actual observed values. Qualitatively, we conducted 23 semi-structured interviews with 24 GPs (∼45 min) and 37 interviews with at-risk patients (∼35 min). Quantitative results demonstrate a significant decrease in consultation and measurement counts during the first shutdown period, with consultation counts quickly returning to normal and moving within expected values for the rest of 2020. Qualitative data contextualize these findings with GPs describing constantly implementing material, administrative, and communication changes. GPs reported communication gaps with the authorities and noted a lack of clear guidelines delineating how to define "at-risk patients" and what cases were "urgent" to treat during shutdowns. Patient interviews show that patient-level factors, such as fear of contracting coronavirus, perceptions that GPs were overburdened, and a sense of solidarity, influenced patients' decisions to consult less at the beginning of the pandemic. Findings demonstrate communication gaps during pandemic periods and provide valuable lessons for future pandemic preparedness, particularly the need for contingency plans for the overall healthcare system instead of plans focusing only on the infectious agent itself.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Intensity of Health Services Use in General Practice: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Objectives: We aimed to explore the impact of the Swiss shutdown in spring 2020 on the intensity of health services use in general practice. Methods: Based on an electronic medical records database, we built one patient cohort each for January-June 2019 (control, 173,523 patients) and 2020 (179,086 patients). We used linear regression to model weekly consultation counts and blood pressure (BP) and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) measurement counts per 100 patients and predicted non-shutdown values. Analyses were repeated for selected at-risk groups and different age groups. Results: During the shutdown, weekly consultation counts were lower than predicted by -17.2% (total population), -16.5% (patients with hypertension), -17.5% (diabetes), -17.6% (cardiovascular disease), -15.7% (patients aged <60 years), -20.4% (60-80 years), and -14.5% (>80 years). Weekly BP counts were reduced by -35.3% (total population) and -35.0% (hypertension), and HbA1c counts by -33.2% (total population) and -29.8% (diabetes). p-values <0.001 for all reported estimates. Conclusion: Our results document consequential decreases in consultation counts and chronic disease monitoring during the shutdown. It is crucial that health systems remain able to meet non-COVID-19-related health care needs.

Reorganisation of GP surgeries during the COVID-19 outbreak: analysis of guidelines from 15 countries.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) play a key role in managing the COVID-19 outbreak. However, they may encounter difficulties adapting their practices to the pandemic. We provide here an analysis of guidelines for the reorganisation of GP surgeries during the beginning of the pandemic from 15 countries. METHODS: A network of GPs collaborated together in a three-step process: (i) identification of key recommendations of GP surgery reorganisation, according to WHO, CDC and health professional resources from health care facilities; (ii) collection of key recommendations included in the guidelines published in 15 countries; (iii) analysis, comparison and synthesis of the results. RESULTS: Recommendations for the reorganisation of GP surgeries of four types were identified: (i) reorganisation of GP consultations (cancelation of non-urgent consultations, follow-up via e-consultations), (ii) reorganisation of GP surgeries (area partitioning, visual alerts and signs, strict hygiene measures), (iii) reorganisation of medical examinations by GPs (equipment, hygiene, partial clinical examinations, patient education), (iv) reorganisation of GP staff (equipment, management, meetings, collaboration with the local community). CONCLUSIONS: We provide here an analysis of guidelines for the reorganisation of GP surgeries during the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak from 15 countries. These guidelines focus principally on clinical care, with less attention paid to staff management, and the area of epidemiological surveillance and research is largely neglected. The differences of guidelines between countries and the difficulty to apply them in routine care, highlight the need of advanced research in primary care. Thereby, primary care would be able to provide recommendations adapted to the real-world settings and with stronger evidence, which is especially necessary during pandemics.