Primary health care response in the management of pandemics: Learnings from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Primary care is an essential foundation for the global response to COVID-19 pandemic. It plays a significant role in the health care response: identifying and triaging potential COVID-19 cases, making an early diagnosis, helping vulnerable people cope with their anxiety about the virus, strengthening compliance with prevention and protection measures, and reducing the demand for hospital services. Primary care teams have continued to address citizens' health problems during the pandemic, adapting to strict social control measures imposed by governments such as closing of borders, lockdowns and self-isolation of cases and contacts. We describe the COVID-19 response from primary care in Hong Kong and China, based on their recent pandemic experiences. We also present that of a European country, United Kingdom, less experienced in pandemic management, but with universal and highly developed primary care with great social recognition. Finally, we point out some crucial learning for future pandemic management, highlighting the crucial need to improve the relationship between primary care and public health to improve pandemics response.

Developing generalism in the South African context.

The largest impact on the South African burden of disease will be made in community-based and primary healthcare (PHC) settings and not in referral hospitals. Medical generalism is an approach to the delivery of healthcare that routinely applies a broad and holistic perspective to the patient's problems and is a feature of PHC. A multi-professional team of generalists, who share similar values and principles, is needed to make this a reality. Ward-based outreach teams include community health workers and nurses with essential support from doctors. Expert generalists - family physicians - are required to support PHC as well as provide care at the district hospital. All require sufficient training, at scale, with greater collaboration and integration between training programmes. District clinical specialist teams are both an opportunity and a threat. The value of medical generalism needs to be explained, advocated and communicated more actively. 

Does a summative portfolio foster the development of capabilities such as reflective practice and understanding ethics? An evaluation from two medical schools.

Portfolios need to be evaluated to determine whether they encourage students to develop in capabilities such as reflective practice and ethical judgment. The aims of this study were (i) to determine whether preparing a portfolio helps promote students' development in a range of capabilities including understanding ethical and legal principles, reflective practice and effective communication, and (ii) to determine to what extent the format of the portfolio affected the outcome by comparing the experiences of students at two different medical schools. A questionnaire was designed to evaluate undergraduate medical students' experiences of completing a portfolio at two medical schools. A total of 526 (45% response rate) students answered the on-line questionnaire. Students from both medical schools gave the highest ranking for the portfolio as a trigger for reflective practice. 63% of students agreed their portfolio helped them develop reflective practice skills (p < 0.001), whereas only 22% disagreed. 48% of students agreed portfolios helped them understand ethical and legal principles whereas 29% disagreed (p < 0.001). In contrast, only 34% of students thought the portfolio helped them to develop effective communication. Students perceive portfolio preparation as an effective learning tool for the development of capabilities such as understanding ethical and legal principles and reflective practice, whereas other capabilities such as effective communication require complementary techniques and other modes of assessment.

Questionnaire severity measures for depression: a threat to the doctor-patient relationship?

BACKGROUND: Since 2006 the Quality Outcomes Framework (QOF) has rewarded GPs for carrying out standardised assessments of the severity of symptoms of depression in newly diagnosed patients. AIM: To gain understanding of GPs' opinions and perceived impact on practice of the routine introduction of standardised questionnaire measures of severity of depression through the UK general practice contract QOF. DESIGN OF STUDY: Semi-structured qualitative interview study, with purposive sampling and constant comparative analysis. SETTING: Thirty-four GPs from among 38 study general practices in three sites in England, UK: Southampton, Liverpool, and Norfolk. METHOD: GPs were interviewed at a time convenient to them by trained interviewers. Interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim in preparation for thematic analysis, to identify key views. RESULTS: Analysis of the interviews suggested that the use of severity questionnaires posed an intrusion into the consultation. GPs discursively polarised two technologies: formal assessment versus personal enquiry, emphasising the need to ensure the scores are used sensitively and as an aid to clinical judgement rather than as a substitute. Importantly, these challenges implicitly served a function of preserving GPs' identities as professionals with expertise, constructed as integral to the process of diagnosis. CONCLUSION: GP accounts indicated concern about threats to patient care. Contention between using severity questionnaires and delivering individualised patient care is significantly motivated by GP concerns to preserve professional expertise and identity. It is important to learn from GP concerns to help establish how best to optimise the use of severity questionnaires in depression.