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.

Sustainability for Planetary Health: A Seventh Domain of Quality in Primary Care.

Climate change is one of the biggest threats to public health. Sustainability is characterized by using resources wisely in a way that protects finite resources and the environment, and takes into account the needs of our planets' inhabitants in the future. Sustainability in health care should be considered as a seventh domain of quality, as it can lead to improvement of patient outcomes, and more capacity for health care workers to engage in quality improvement and thereby improve the quality of care. The carbon footprint of primary care is high, mainly due to prescribing medication, but also due to the transport of patients to hospitals and primary care services for interventions requested by family medicine. Other causes are the transport of staff and supplies, consumables and staff involved in laboratory analysis and radiation, medical and non-medical equipment, clinical and non-clinical waste, heating and cooling systems and other activities. Small adjustments in these areas could significantly decrease the carbon footprint of primary care practices. The suggested steps for primary care to achieve a more sustainable practice are fostering research, raising awareness, reducing the burden on primary care, engaging in quality improvement, and leadership and advocacy. Each individual primary care practice has the potential to be a leader and role model for sustainable health care. With the implementation of interventions to reduce carbon footprints, primary care could set an example within the health sector and for patients. This could significantly raise the awareness of the public about the need to take actions for a greener health system.

Emotional distress, occupational stress and burnout among Family Doctors in Europe: Monitoring and testing of interventions is required.

In recent years, the medical literature from a wide range of medical specialities has exploded with publications on the theme of emotional distress, stress and burnout in the practice of medicine. Improving the work-life of health care providers is necessary to optimise health system performance. COVID-19 has caused considerable additional pressure on health services across Europe and there have been calls for interventions to address the psychological and occupational stress caused by the pandemic. Although there is an ongoing need to monitor these factors among family physicians, and other staff working in primary care across Europe, we must also identify supports and promote them. Further research is needed to explore causative factors and provide convincing evidence in relation to effective interventions.

Does education of primary care professionals promote patient self-management and improve outcomes in chronic disease? An updated systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Primary care has a vital role in supporting patient autonomy to enable people with long-term conditions to manage their own health and wellness. Evidence is needed on whether education and training of health professionals helps support patient self-management and improves outcomes. The authors' first systematic review included only two articles showing patient outcomes following health professional training for promoting patient self-management. AIM: To present an updated review undertaken from September 2013 to August 2018. DESIGN & SETTING: A systematic review was undertaken using the PRISMA guidelines, following the methodology of the first review and is outlined in the PROSPERO registered protocol. METHOD: Six databases were searched - Cochrane Library, PubMed, ERIC, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and PsycINFO - in addition to web searches, hand searches, and bibliographies for articles published from 1 September 2013 to 31 August 2018. RESULTS: The updated systematic review showed more evidence is now available with 18 articles in the 5-year period from the 4284 abstracts located. Twelve of these articles showed a difference between intervention and control groups. Of the 18 articles identified, 11 were assessed as having a low risk of bias and five overall were rated of weak quality. The educational interventions with health professionals spanned a range of techniques and modalities, and many incorporated multiple interventions including patient components. There may be a lack of adoption owing to several challenges, including that complex interventions may not be delivered as planned and are difficult to assess, and owing to patient engagement and the need for ongoing follow-up. CONCLUSION: More high-quality research is needed on what methods work best, for which patients, and for what clinical conditions in the primary care setting. The practical implications of training healthcare professionals require specific attention.

Applicability of Motivational Interviewing for Chronic Disease Management in Primary Care Following a Web-Based E-Learning Course: Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Motivational interviewing (MI) is an established communication method for enhancing intrinsic motivation for changing health behavior. E-learning can reduce the cost and time involved in providing continuing education and can be easily integrated into individual working arrangements and the daily routines of medical professionals. Thus, a Web-based course was devised to familiarize health professionals with different levels of education and expertise with MI techniques for patients with chronic conditions. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to report participants' opinion on the practicality of MI (as learned in the course) in daily practice, stratified by the level of education. METHODS: Participants (N=607) of the MI Web-based training course evaluated the course over 18 months, using a self-administered questionnaire. The evaluation was analyzed descriptively and stratified for the level of education (medical students, physicians in specialist training [PSTs], and general practitioners [GPs]). RESULTS: Participants rated the applicability of the skills and knowledge gained by the course as positive (medical students: 94% [79/84] good; PSTs: 88.6% [109/123] excellent; and GPs: 51.3% [182/355] excellent). When asked whether they envisage the use of MI in the future, 79% (67/84) of the students stated to a certain extent, 88.6% (109/123) of the PSTs stated to a great extent, and 38.6% (137/355) of GPs stated to a great extent. Participants acknowledged an improvement of communication skills such as inviting (medical students: 85% [72/84]; PSTs: 90.2% [111/123]; GPs: 37.2% [132/355]) and encouraging (medical students: 81% [68/84]; PSTs: 45.5% [56/123]; GPs: 36.3% [129/355]) patients to talk about behavior change and conveying respect for patient's choices (medical students: 72% [61/84]; PSTs: 50.0% [61/123]; GPs: 23.4% [83/355]). CONCLUSIONS: Participants confirmed the practicality of MI. However, the extent to which the practicality of MI was acknowledged as well as its expected benefits depended on the individual's level of education/expertise.

Does patient self-management education of primary care professionals improve patient outcomes: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patient self-management support is recognised as a key component of chronic care. Education and training for health professionals has been shown in the literature to be associated with better uptake, implementation and effectiveness of self-management programs, however, there is no clear evidence regarding whether this training results in improved health outcomes for patients with chronic conditions. METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken using the PRISMA guidelines using the Cochrane Library, PubMEd, ERIC, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web searches, Hand searches and Bibliographies. Articles published from inception to September 1st, 2013 were included. Systematic reviews, Meta-analysis, Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), Controlled clinical trials, Interrupted time series and Controlled before and after studies, which reported on primary care health professionals' continuing education or evidence-based medicine/education on patient self-management for any chronic condition, were included. A minimum of two reviewers participated independently at each stage of review. RESULTS: From 7533 abstracts found, only two papers provided evidence on the effectiveness of self-management education for primary healthcare professionals in terms of measured outcomes in patients. These two articles show improvement in patient outcomes for chronic back pain and diabetes based on RCTs. The educational interventions with health professionals spanned a range of techniques and modalities but both RCTs included a motivational interviewing component. CONCLUSIONS: Before and up to 2 years after the incorporation of patient empowerment for self-management into the WONCA Europe definition of general practice, there was a scarcity of high quality evidence showing improved outcomes for patients as a result of educating health professionals in patient self-management of chronic conditions.

Development of a competency framework for quality improvement in family medicine: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop a comprehensive framework of quality improvement competencies for use in continuing professional development (CPD) and continuing medical education (CME) for European general practice/family medicine physicians (GPs/FDs). METHODS: The study was carried out in three phases: literature review, consensus development panels, and Delphi technique. An initial competencies framework was developed from an extensive literature review focusing on literature in English from 2000 to 2011 and addressing quality improvement competencies for general practitioners in continuous education programs. Two rounds of reviews by consensus development panels were undertaken to evaluate and make changes to the initial draft competency framework. Then two rounds of Delphi surveys were carried out in an effort to reach consensus on the domains and competencies included in the framework. Our goal was for 90% to 100% consensus. Both surveys were presented through SurveyMonkey, an online survey service, and sent by e-mail to members of the European Association for Quality and Patient Safety in General Practice/Family Medicine (EQuiP), a network organization of Wonca Europe. RESULTS: The Quality Improvement Competencies Framework was developed. It consists of a list of 35 competencies organized into the following domains: Patient Care & Safety, Effectiveness & Efficiency, Equity & Ethical Practice, Methods & Tools, Leadership & Management, and Continuing Professional Education. CONCLUSION: We believe that the framework can serve as a useful tool for identifying gaps in knowledge and skills and guiding the development of CPD and CME curricula for GPs/FDs not only in Europe but also in other regions, including the United States and Canada, on the assumption that many of the core tasks of quality improvement would be relevant across multiple contexts.