ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Many patients with ongoing complaints after a SARS-CoV-2 infection are treated in primary care. Existing medical guidelines on how to diagnose and treat Long-/Post-COVID are far from being comprehensive. This study aims to describe how German general practitioners (GPs) deal with this situation, what problems they experience when managing such patients, and how they solve problems associated with the diagnosis and treatment of Long-/Post-COVID. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a qualitative study and interviewed 11 GPs. The most commonly described symptoms were ongoing fatigue, dyspnea, chest tightness and a decrease in physical capacity. The most common way to identify Long-/Post-COVID was by exclusion. Patients suffering from Long-/Post-COVID were generally treated by their GPs and rarely referred. A very common non-pharmacological intervention was to take a wait-and-see approach and grant sick leave. Other non-pharmacological interventions included lifestyle advices, physical exercise, acupuncture and exercises with intense aromas. Pharmacological treatments focused on symptoms, like respiratory symptoms or headaches. Our study's main limitations are the small sample size and therefore limited generalizability of results. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is required to develop and test pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions for patients with Long-/Post-COVID. In addition, strategies to prevent the occurrence of Long-/Post-COVID after an acute infection with SARS-CoV-2 have to be developed. The routine collection of data on the diagnosis and management of Long-/Post-COVID may help in the formulation of best practices. It is up to policymakers to facilitate the necessary implementation of effective interventions in order to limit the huge societal consequences of large groups of patients suffering from Long-/Post-COVID.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , General Practitioners , Humans , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome , Primary Health CareABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous researchers postponed their patient and public involvement (PPI) activities. This was mainly due to assumptions on patients' willingness and skills to participate digitally. In fact, digital PPI workshops differ from in-person meetings as some forms of non-verbal cues and body language may be missing and technical barriers may exist. Within our project HYPERION-TransCare we adapted our PPI workshop series for intervention development to a digital format and assessed whether these digital workshops were feasible for patients, health care professionals and researchers. METHODS: We used a digital meeting tool that included communication via audio, video and chat. Discussions were documented simultaneously on a digital white board. Technical support was provided via phone and chat during the workshops and with a technical introduction workshop in advance. The workshop evaluation encompassed observation protocols, participants' feedback via chat after each workshop on their chance to speak and the usability of the digital tools, and telephone interviews on patients' and health professionals' experiences after the end of the workshop series. RESULTS: Observation protocols showed an active role of moderators in verbally encouraging every participant to get involved. Technical challenges occurred, but were in most cases immediately addressed and solved. Participants median rating of their chance to speak and the usability of the digital tool was "very good". In the evaluation interviews participants reported a change of perspective and mutual understanding as a main benefit from the PPI workshops and described the atmosphere as inclusive and on equal footing. Benefits of the digital format such as overcoming geographical distance, saving time and combining workshop participation with professional or childcare obligations were reported. Technical support was stressed as a pre-condition for getting actively involved in digital PPI. CONCLUSIONS: Digital formats using different didactic and documentation techniques, accompanied by technical support, can foster active patient and public involvement. The advantages of digital PPI formats such as geographical flexibility and saving time for participants as well as the opportunity to prepare and hold workshops in geographically stretched research teams persists beyond the pandemic and may in some cases outweigh the advantages of in-person communication.
Digital patient and public involvement (PPI) activities differ from in-person meetings. For example, some forms of non-verbal cues and body language are limited and technical barriers may exist. Therefore, some research teams were hesitant to switch to a digital PPI format during the COVID-19 pandemic and postponed their PPI activities.In this paper, we aim to describe, how we adapted a PPI workshop series to a digital format, how patients and health care professionals experienced these digital workshops, and which conclusions we have drawn for future digital PPI activities. The workshop evaluation encompassed workshop observation protocols, participants' feedback via chat on their chance to speak and the feasibility of the digital tools, and telephone interviews on participants' experiences.The study results showed that moderators had an active role in verbally encouraging every participant to get involved. Technical challenges occurred, but were in most cases immediately addressed and solved. Most participants rated their chance to speak and the feasibility of the digital format as "very good". They described the atmosphere as inclusive and on equal footing without hierarchy between different stakeholder groups. Participants reported benefits of the digital format such as overcoming geographical distance, saving time and combining workshop participation with professional or childcare obligations. They stressed technical support as a condition for getting actively involved in digital PPI.We conclude that some advantages of digital PPI may persist beyond the pandemic. Therefore, we encourage research teams to discuss the question of digital or in-person PPI with the involved patients and health professionals and decide on a case-by-case basis.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Interventional studies on polypharmacy often fail to significantly improve patient-relevant outcomes, or confine themselves to measuring surrogate parameters. Interventions and settings are complex, with many factors affecting results. The AdAM study's aim is to reduce hospitalization and death by requiring general practitioners (GPs) to use a computerized decision-support system (CDSS). The study will undergo a process evaluation to identify factors for successful implementation and to assess whether the intervention was implemented as intended. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate our complex intervention, based on the Medical Research Council's guideline dimensions. RESEARCH QUESTIONS: We will assess implementation (reach, fidelity, dose, tailoring) by asking: (1) Who took part in the intervention (proportion of GPs using the CDSS, proportion of patients enrolled in them)? Information on GPs' and patients' characteristics will also be collected. (2) How many and which medication alerts were dealt with? (3) Was the intervention implemented as intended? (4) On what days did GPs use the intervention tool? METHODS: The process evaluation is part of a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized controlled trial. Characteristics of practices, GPs and patients using the CDSS will be compared with the non-participating population. CDSS log data will be analyzed to evaluate how the number of medication alerts changed between baseline and 2 months later, and to identify the kind of alerts that were dealt with. Comparison of enrolled patients on weekdays versus weekends will shed light on GPs' use of the CDSS in the absence or presence of patients. Outcomes will be presented using descriptive statistics, and significance tests will be used to identify associations between them. We will conduct subgroup analyses, including time effects to account for software improvements. DISCUSSION: This study protocol is the basis for conducting analyses of the quantitative process evaluation. By providing insight into how GPs conduct medication reviews, the evaluation will provide context to the trial results and support their interpretation. The evaluation relies on the proper documentation by GPs, potentially limiting its explanatory power.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Older patients with multimorbidity, polypharmacy and related complex care needs represent a growing proportion of the population and a challenge for healthcare systems. Particularly in transitional care (hospital admission and hospital discharge), medical errors, inappropriate treatment, patient concerns and lack of confidence in healthcare are major problems that may arise from a lack of information continuity. The aim of this study is to develop an intervention to improve informational continuity of care at the interface between general practice and hospital care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A qualitative approach will be used to develop our participatory intervention. Overall, 32 semistructured interviews with relevant stakeholders will be conducted and analysed. The stakeholders will include healthcare professionals from the outpatient setting (general practitioners, healthcare assistants, ambulatory care nurses) and the inpatient setting (clinical doctors, nurses, pharmacists, clinical information scientists) as well as patients and informal caregivers. At a series of workshops based on the results of the stakeholder analyses, we aim to develop a participatory intervention that will then be implemented in a subsequent pilot study. The same stakeholder groups will be invited for participation in the workshops. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this study was waived by the Ethics Committee of Goethe University Frankfurt because of the nature of the proposed study. Written informed consent will be obtained from all study participants prior to participation. Results will be tested in a pilot study and disseminated at (inter)national conferences and via publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTATION NUMBER: Clinical Trials Register: registration number DRKS00027649.