"I do not know the advantages of having a general practitioner" - a qualitative study exploring the views of low-acuity emergency patients without a regular general practitioner toward primary care.

BACKGROUND: Emergency departments (ED) worldwide have to cope with rising patient numbers. Low-acuity consulters who could receive a more suitable treatment in primary care (PC) increase caseloads, and lack of PC attachment has been discussed as a determinant. This qualitative study explores factors that contribute to non-utilization of general practitioner (GP) care among patients with no current attachment to a GP. METHOD: Qualitative semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 32 low-acuity ED consulters with no self-reported attachment to a GP. Participants were recruited from three EDs in the city center of Berlin, Germany. Data were analyzed by qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Interviewed patients reported heterogeneous factors contributing to their PC utilization behavior and underlying views and experiences. Participants most prominently voiced a rare need for medical services, a distinct mobility behavior, and a lack of knowledge about the role of a GP and health care options. Views about and experiences with GP care that contribute to non-utilization were predominantly related to little confidence in GP care, preference for directly consulting medical specialists, and negative experiences with GP care in the past. Contrasting their reported utilization behavior, many interviewees still recognized the advantages of GP care continuity. CONCLUSION: Understanding reasons of low-acuity ED patients for GP non-utilization can play an important role in the design and implementation of patient-centered care interventions for PC integration. Increasing GP utilization, continuity of care and health literacy might have positive effects on patient decision-making in acute situations and in turn decrease ED burden. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00023480; date: 2020/11/27.

Patient perspective on task shifting from general practitioners to medical practice assistants - a quantitative survey in Germany.

INTRODUCTION: Various developments result in increasing workloads in general practices. New models of care and a restructuring of the division of tasks could provide relief. One approach is to extend the delegation of medical tasks from general practitioners (GPs) to medical practice assistants (MPAs). So far, there has been a lack of information about specific situations in which patients are willing to be treated exclusively by MPAs. METHODS: In three German federal states, patients who visited a general practice were surveyed exploratively and cross-sectionally with a self-designed, paper-based questionnaire. The data were analysed descriptively and multivariate. A mixed binary logistic regression model was calculated to account for cluster effects at practice level (random intercept model). The dependent variable was patients' acceptance of task delegation. RESULTS: A total of 1861 questionnaires from 61 general practices were included in the analysis. Regarding the current problem/request, a total of 30% of respondents could imagine being treated only by MPAs. Regarding theoretical reasons for consultation, more than half of the patients agreed to be treated by MPAs. According to the regression model, MPAs were preferred when patients were younger (10-year OR = 0.84, 95%-CI [0.75, 0.93]) or had a less complicated issue (OR = 0.44, 95%-CI [0.26, 0.8]). For four current problems/requests ("acute complaints" OR = 0.27, 95%-CI [0.17, 0.45], "routine health check" OR = 0.48, 95%-CI [0.3, 0.79], "new problem" OR = 0.13, 95%-CI [0.06, 0.28], "known problem" OR = 0.16, 95%-CI [0.1, 0.27]) patients prefer to be treated by GPs instead of MPAs. DISCUSSION: For the first time, statements could be made on patients' acceptance of task delegation in relation to current and theoretical reasons for treatment in general practices in Germany. The discrepancy in response behaviour on a theoretical and individual level could be explained by different contexts of questions and differences at practice level. Overall, patients seem to be open to increased delegation of medical tasks, depending on the reason for treatment. Selection and response biases should be considered in the interpretation. CONCLUSION: The results are not completely opposed to an extension of task delegation. Further interventional studies could provide information on the possible effects of expansion of delegable tasks.

[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.

Exploring the views of low-acuity emergency department consulters on an educational intervention and general practitioner appointment service: a qualitative study in Berlin, Germany.

OBJECTIVES: Low-acuity patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs) frequently have unmet ambulatory care needs. This qualitative study explores the patients' views of an intervention aimed at education about care options and promoting primary care (PC) attachment. DESIGN: Qualitative telephone interviews were conducted with a subsample of participants of an interventional pilot study, based on a semi-structured interview guide. The data were analysed through qualitative content analysis. SETTING: The study was carried out in three EDs in the city centre of Berlin, Germany. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-two low-acuity ED consulters with no connection to a general practitioner (GP) who had participated in the pilot study were interviewed; (f/m: 15/17; mean age: 32.9 years). INTERVENTION: In the pilot intervention, ED patients with low-acuity complaints were provided with an information leaflet on appropriate ED usage and alternative care paths and they were offered an optional GP appointment scheduling service. Qualitative interviews explored the views of a subsample of the participants on the intervention. RESULTS: Interviewees perceived both parts of the intervention as valuable. Receiving a leaflet about appropriate ED use and alternatives to the ED was viewed as helpful, with participants expressing the desire for additional online information and a wider distribution of the content. The GP appointment service was positively assessed by the participants who had made use of this offer and seen as potentially helpful in establishing a long-term connection to GP care. The majority of patients declining a scheduled GP appointment expected no personal need for further medical care in the near future or preferred to choose a GP independently. CONCLUSIONS: Low-acuity ED patients seem receptive to information on alternative acute care options and prevailingly appreciate measures to encourage and facilitate attachment to a GP. Promoting PC integration could contribute to a change in future usage behaviour. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00023480.

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.

Redirecting emergency medical services patients with unmet primary care needs: the perspective of paramedics on feasibility and acceptance of an alternative care path in a qualitative investigation from Berlin, Germany.

BACKGROUND: Against the backdrop of emergency department (ED) overcrowding, patients' potential redirection to outpatient care structures is a subject of current political debate in Germany. It was suggested in this context that suitable lower-urgency cases could be transported directly to primary care practices by emergency medical services (EMS), thus bypassing the ED. However, practicality is discussed controversially. This qualitative study aimed to capture the perspective of EMS personnel on potential patient redirection concepts. METHODS: We conducted qualitative, semi-structured phone interviews with 24 paramedics. Interviews were concluded after attainment of thematic saturation. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and qualitative content analysis was performed. RESULTS: Technical and organizational feasibility of patients' redirection was predominantly seen as limited (theme: "feasible, but only under certain conditions") or even impossible (theme: "actually not feasible"), based on a wide spectrum of potential barriers. Prominently voiced reasons were restrictions in personnel resources in both EMS and ambulatory care, as well as concerns for patient safety ascribed to a restricted diagnostic scope. Concerning logistics, alternative transport options were assessed as preferable. Regarding acceptance by stakeholders, the potential for releasing ED caseload was described as a factor potentially promoting adoption, while doubt was raised regarding acceptance by EMS personnel, as their workload was expected to conversely increase. Paramedics predominantly did not consider transporting lower-urgency cases as their responsibility, or even as necessary. Participants were markedly concerned of EMS being misused for taxi services in this context and worried about negative impact for critically ill patients, as to vehicles and personnel being potentially tied up in unnecessary transports. As to acceptance on the patients' side, interview participants surmised a potential openness to redirection if this would be associated with benefits like shorter wait times and accompanied by proper explanation. CONCLUSIONS: Interviews with EMS staff highlighted considerable doubts about the general possibility of a direct redirection to primary care as to considerable logistic challenges in a situation of strained EMS resources, as well as patient safety concerns. Plans for redirection schemes should consider paramedics' perspective and ensure a provision of EMS with the resources required to function in a changing care environment.

Emergency department consultations for respiratory symptoms revisited: exploratory investigation of longitudinal trends in patients' perspective on care, health care utilization, and general and mental health, from a multicenter study in Berlin, Germany.

BACKGROUND: Only few studies of emergency department (ED) consulters include a longitudinal investigation. The EMACROSS study had surveyed 472 respiratory patients in eight inner-city EDs in Berlin in 2017/2018 for demographic, medical and consultation-related characteristics. This paper presents the results of a follow-up survey at a median of 95 days post-discharge. We aimed to explore the post hoc assessment of ED care and identify potential longitudinal trends. METHODS: The follow-up survey included items on satisfaction with care received, benefit from the ED visit, potential alternative care, health care utilization, mental and general health, and general life satisfaction. Univariable between-subject and within-subject statistical comparisons were conducted. Logistic regression was performed for multivariable investigations of determinants of dropout and of retrospectively rating the ED visit as beneficial. RESULTS: Follow-up data was available for 329 patients. Participants of lower education status, migrants, and tourists were more likely to drop out. Having a general practitioner (GP), multimorbidity, and higher general life satisfaction were determinants of response. Retrospective satisfaction ratings were high with no marked longitudinal changes and waiting times as the most frequent reason for dissatisfaction. Retrospective assessment of the visit as beneficial was positively associated with male sex, diagnoses of pneumonia and respiratory failure, and self-referral. Concerning primary care as a viable alternative, judgment at the time of the ED visit and at follow-up did not differ significantly. Health care utilization post-discharge increased for GPs and pulmonologists. Self-reported general health and PHQ-4 anxiety scores were significantly improved at follow-up, while general life satisfaction for the overall sample was unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients retrospectively assess the ED visit as satisfactory and beneficial. Possible sex differences in perception of care and its outcomes should be further investigated. Conceivable efforts at diversion of ED utilizers to primary care should consider patients' views regarding acceptable alternatives, which appear relatively independent of situational factors. Representativeness of results is restricted by the study focus on respiratory symptoms, the limited sample size, and the attrition rate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register ( DRKS00011930 ); date: 2017/04/25.

[Am I an emergency patient? Emergency perception and decision-making competence in acute situations: a qualitative study of ED patients]. / Bin ich ein Notfall? Notfallempfinden und Entscheidungskompetenz in akuten Situationen: eine qualitative Erhebung bei Notaufnahmepatient*innen.

BACKGROUND: The number of patients visiting emergency departments (ED) due to acute but less than urgent treatment needs is increasing. A deeper understanding of emergency perception and decision-making competencies of patients is fundamentally important for developing strategies to reduce ED utilization. The aim of this study was to assess ED patients' subjective understanding of an emergency in general as well as relating to their own specific consultation. Additionally, the patients' perspective on the ability to make appropriate decisions in acute situations should be explored. METHODS: Seventeen qualitative semi-structured patient interviews were conducted and analyzed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: The majority of participants attributed their ED consultation to a subjectively perceived emergency situation. Interviewees mostly understood an emergency as a serious or life-threatening constellation associated with impending long-term health damage. They believed that uncertainty concerning the interpretation of their symptoms and associated anxiety may particularly promote situations in which referring to an ED appears to be the only alternative. Patients' health competencies were assessed negatively by a majority of interviewees with regard to assessment of complaints and decision-making in acute situations ("insecure patients"). In contrast, few patients, including those with chronic disease and experience in dealing with health problems, were considered to have a high level of competence ("confident patients"). CONCLUSION: Improving patients' health literacy skills to strengthen their assessment of acute situations and their decision-making is important in order to promote appropriate ED utilization.

[Non-medical aspects in the care for multimorbid patients in general practice. What kind of support and cooperation is desired? Focus groups with general practitioners in Berlin]. / Nichtmedizinische Aspekte der Versorgung multimorbider Patient*innen in der Hausarztpraxis. Welche Unterstützung und Kooperationen werden gewünscht? Fokusgruppen mit Berliner Hausärzt*innen.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) are the first point of contact and they coordinate the care for multimorbid patients. This article discusses possible solutions for GPs' needs and wishes regarding the support for non-medical issues, in particular social and legal tasks as well as the cooperation with already existing institutions. METHODS: In the third study phase of a mixed-methods approach, two focus groups with eleven GPs from Berlin were carried out. The project is part of the NAVICARE project, funded by the federal Ministry of Education and Research. The focus groups were analyzed using the framework analysis. RESULTS: GPs caring for multimorbid patients are often faced with non-medical patient needs and social consultation issues. They would like to receive support in these areas and want more cooperative care structures. They are largely unaware of existing offers by social institutions in their city districts. The designation of a fixed contact person in social institutions could improve communication and thus enable low-threshold access. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The GPs agree that there is a need for support with social and legal matters in general practice. The focus groups discussed already existing offers that GPs could use more frequently and how a cooperation with providers of social care could succeed. GPs in Berlin think that support and relief measures, in particular in the form of cooperation with institutions in the district that provide social and legal support, are both desirable and conceivable.