RESUMO
Background: Intermediate care is often defined as healthcare occurring somewhere between traditional primary (community) and secondary (hospital) care settings. High quality intermediate care is important in dementia, may prevent caregiver burnout and also lead to optimal care for people with dementia. However, very little is known about the point of intermediate care for persons with dementia in Europe. Research questions: What intermediate care services exist and how are they utilized in the care of people with dementia in Europe? Objective: This study aims at describing the point of view of General Practitioners on intermediate care services for people with dementia across Europe. Methods: Key informant survey was sent to GPs via a self-developed questionnaire with space for open ended comments. 16 European countries participated to this cross-sectional mixed method study. Given the volunteer nature of the study, no minimum sample size requirements were applied to participation. Convenience sampling technique was used to address variations due to regional variations and regulations within the same country. Descriptive analyses of all intermediate care facilities groups by countries were performed. Qualitative analyses approach was used for the optional-free text to exemplify and/or complete the reasons contained in the closed response categories. Results: The questionnaire was sent to 16 European countries. 583 questionnaires were analyzed. The responding physicians were 48 (± 11) years old on average and they had been in practice for an average of 18 (+ /11) years. The types of intermediate care considered were integrated at-home services, respite and relief services, day care centers and nursing homes. Their availability was considered very inhomogeneous by the majority of respondents. The main benefits of intermediate care cited were better medical care for the patient (78%), better quality of life for the caregiver (67%), prevention of the caregiver burden (73%) and a break for the caregiver (59%). The reported difficulties were: accessing these facilities due to limited financial support (76%) and cumbersome administrative procedures (67%). Many other facets of our findings were captured in the qualitative themes that emerged. Conclusion: Intermediate care in Europe is diverse and heterogeneous. Major concerns of GPs are about the cost issues and the cumbersome administrative procedures to access them.
RESUMO
The day-to-day work of primary care (PC) was substantially changed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Teaching practices needed to adapt both clinical work and teaching in a way that enabled the teaching process to continue, while maintaining safe and high-quality care. Our study aims to investigate the effect of being a training practice on a number of different outcomes related to the safety culture of PC practices. PRICOV-19 is a multi-country cross-sectional study that researches how PC practices were organized in 38 countries during the pandemic. Data was collected from November 2020 to December 2021. We categorized practices into training and non-training and selected outcomes relating to safety culture: safe practice management, community outreach, professional well-being and adherence to protocols. Mixed-effects regression models were built to analyze the effect of being a training practice for each of the outcomes, while controlling for relevant confounders. Of the participating practices, 2886 (56%) were non-training practices and 2272 (44%) were training practices. Being a training practice was significantly associated with a lower risk for adverse mental health events (OR: 0.83; CI: 0.70-0.99), a higher number of safety measures related to patient flow (Beta: 0.17; CI: 0.07-0.28), a higher number of safety incidents reported (RR: 1.12; CI: 1.06-1.19) and more protected time for meetings (Beta: 0.08; CI: 0.01-0.15). No significant associations were found for outreach initiatives, availability of triage information, use of a phone protocol or infection prevention measures and equipment availability. Training practices were found to have a stronger safety culture than non-training practices. These results have important policy implications, since involving more PC practices in education may be an effective way to improve quality and safety in general practice.