[Acute Cough in Adult Patients]. / Akuter Husten bei erwachsenen Patient*innen.

Background: Acute cough (< 8 weeks) is a frequent complaint in family practice consultations. The most common cause are respiratory infections. The Guideline "Acute and chronic cough" of the German College of General Practitioners and Family Physicians (DEGAM) was updated in 2021 and contains recommendations for an evidence-based approach for the management of acute cough in primary care. Methods: The guideline has been updated in accordance with the findings of a systematic search of the literature for international guidelines and systematic reviews. All recommendations were developed by an interdisciplinary guideline committee and agreed by formal consensus. Results: History-taking, exclusion of red flags and a physical examination are the basis of diagnostic evaluation. If an acute, uncomplicated bronchitis is likely, no laboratory tests, sputum diagnostics, or chest x-rays should be performed, and antibiotics should not be administered. Evidence based strategies to avoid antibiotic therapy (delayed prescribing, shared decision making, point-of-care-tests) can be used. There is inadequate evidence for the efficacy of antitussive or expectorant drugs against acute cough. The state of the evidence for phytotherapeutic agents is heterogeneous; clinical importance is minimal. COVID-19 should currently be considered in cases of acute respiratory symptoms. If specific symptoms or red flags occur, further diagnoses in the context of acute cough such as community-acquired pneumonia, influenza disease and exacerbations of chronic respiratory diseases (bronchial asthma, COPD) should be taken into consideration. Conclusions: These evidence-based recommendations are intended to reduce the use of antibiotics to treat colds and acute bronchitis, for which they are not indicated. Further clinical trials of symptomatic treatments for cough should be performed in order to extend the evidence base.

[Medical care in GP practices during the Covid-19 pandemic: A questionnaire-based survey among general practitioners and medical practice assistants asking for their opinion about changes, needs and burdens]. / Die hausärztliche Versorgung während der COVID-19-Pandemie: eine Fragebogenerhebung unter Hausärzt*innen und Medizinischen Fachangestellten zu ihrer Perspektive auf Veränderungen, Bedarfe und Belastungen.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus pandemic did not only result in changes in the provision and utilization of health care services in general practice but also in an increased workload for physicians and medical practice assistants. The VeCo practice study retrospectively explores the experiences of both professional groups two years after the start of the pandemic. METHODS: In March and April 2022, general practitioners and medical practice assistants in the three German federal states of Berlin, Brandenburg and Thuringia were asked to complete a paper-based questionnaire. RESULTS: 657 general practitioners and 762 medical practice assistants completed the questionnaire. Both professional groups agreed to statements indicating a reduction in regular health care provisions. Nevertheless, 74% of the physicians and 82.9% of the medical practice assistants considered the health care provided to their patients during the pandemic as good. This was only possible through considerable additional effort and stress. While more than half of both groups reported that work was still enjoyable, three quarters of both groups stated that the challenges arising from the pandemic outstripped their capacity. Both groups would like to receive more recognition from society (medical practice assistants 93.2%, general practitioners 85.3%) and from their patients (87.7% and 69.9%, respectively). DISCUSSION: General practitioners and medical practice assistants reduced regular health care provision but were still able to maintain a good quality of care for their patients during the pandemic. It became clear that more appreciation and adequate financial compensation are necessary to ensure long-term sustainability of GP care. CONCLUSION: The subjective view of general practitioners and medical practice assistants on their health care provision shows that appreciation and adequate financial renumeration, particularly when working under most difficult conditions, are necessary to increase the attractiveness of a career in general practice, for both physicians and medical practice assistants.

Changes to utilization and provision of health care in German GP practices during the COVID 19-pandemic: Protocol for a mixed methods study on the viewpoint of GPs, medical practice assistants, and patients.

INTRODUCTION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, general practitioners (GPs) continued to be a main point of contact for patients. For GP practices, it was and still is a challenge to meet constantly changing requirements due to the various phases of the pandemic. The aim of the study is to explore retrospectively the subjective experience with supply and utilization of health care services from the perspective of general practitioners, medical practice assistants and patients, in particular regarding instances of underutilization of services for non-Covid related conditions, adjustments due to the pandemic, and the appropriateness of care. METHODS: The study is carried out within the RESPoNsE research practice network in three of Germany's federal states: Berlin, Brandenburg, and Thuringia (RESPoNsE-Research practice network east). The study follows a convergent mixed method design, and consists of the following sections: a) two anonymous paper-based questionnaires filled out by GPs and medical practice assistants (MPAs), at an interval of 12 to 18 months; b) in-depth qualitative interviews conducted among a subgroup of GPs and MPAs; c) anonymous paper-based questionnaires among patients of participating practices. The idea for the study was derived from discussions with the practice advisory board of the RESPoNsE network. The themes and issues to be explored in the surveys and interviews are developed and discussed in the practice advisory board, the patient advisory board, and with interested MPAs. The questionnaires will be analyzed descriptively, exploring the effect of demographic variables. Qualitative content analysis is used to analyze the data from the interviews and focus groups. DISCUSSION: The study focuses on the conditions of GP care during the COVID-19 pandemic. A broad insight is provided as GPs and MPAs, as well as patients, are involved. It provides the opportunity to express needs and concerns. The results can support future discussions on lessons learned from the pandemic and necessary changes in health care delivery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration at the German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00028095.

COMPASS II-Coordination of Medical Professions Aiming at Sustainable Support Protocol for a feasibility study of cooperation between general practitioner practices and community care points.

INTRODUCTION: General practitioners (GP) increasingly face the challenge of meeting the complex care needs of multi-morbid patients. Previous studies show that GP practices would like support from other institutions in advising on social aspects of care for multi-morbid patients. Already existing counselling services, like community care points, are not sufficiently known by both GPs and patients. The aim of COMPASS II is to investigate the feasibility of cooperation between GP practices and community care points. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: During the intervention, GPs send eligible multi-morbid patients with social care needs to a community care point. The community care points report the consultation results back to the GPs. In preparation for the intervention, in a moderated process, GP practices meet with the community care points to agree on information exchange. The primary outcome is the feasibility of the cooperation: Questionnaires will be sent to GPs, medical practice assistances and community care point personnel (focus: practicality, acceptability). Data will be collected on frequency and reasons for GP-initiated consultations at community care points (focus: demand). Qualitative interviews will be conducted with all participating groups (focus: acceptability, satisfaction). The secondary outcome is the assessment of changes in health-related quality of life, social support and satisfaction with care: participating patients complete a questionnaire before and three to six months after their counselling. The results of the study will be incorporated into a manual in which the experiences of the cooperation will be made available to other GP practices and community care points. DISCUSSION: In COMPASS II, GP practices establish cooperation with community care points. The latter are already existing institutions that provide independent and free advice on social matters. By using an existing institution, the established cooperation and experiences from the study can be used beyond the end of the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered with DRKS-ID: DRKS00023798, Coordination of Medical Professions Aiming at Sustainable Support II.

General practitioners' views and experiences in caring for patients after sepsis: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Patients surviving critical illnesses, such as sepsis, often suffer from long-term complications. After discharge from hospital, most patients are treated in primary care. Little is known how general practitioners (GPs) perform critical illness aftercare and how it can be improved. Within a randomised controlled trial, an outreach training programme has been developed and applied. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to describe GPs' views and experiences of caring for postsepsis patients and of participating a specific outreach training. DESIGN: Semistructured qualitative interviews. SETTING: 14 primary care practices in the metropolitan area of Berlin, Germany. PARTICIPANTS: 14 GPs who had participated in a structured sepsis aftercare programme in primary care. RESULTS: Themes identified in sepsis aftercare were: continuity of care and good relationship with patients, GP's experiences during their patient's critical illness and impact of persisting symptoms. An outreach education as part of the intervention was considered by the GPs to be acceptable, helpful to improve knowledge of the management of postintensive care complications and useful for sepsis aftercare in daily practice. CONCLUSIONS: GPs provide continuity of care to patients surviving sepsis. Better communication at the intensive care unit-GP interface and training in management of long-term complications of sepsis may be helpful to improve sepsis aftercare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN61744782.