Primary care indicators for disease burden, monitoring and surveillance of COVID-19 in 31 European countries: Eurodata Study.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the majority of patients received ambulatory treatment, highlighting the importance of primary health care (PHC). However, there is limited knowledge regarding PHC workload in Europe during this period. The utilization of COVID-19 PHC indicators could facilitate the efficient monitoring and coordination of the pandemic response. The objective of this study is to describe PHC indicators for disease surveillance and monitoring of COVID-19's impact in Europe. METHODS: Descriptive, cross-sectional study employing data obtained through a semi-structured ad hoc questionnaire, which was collectively agreed upon by all participants. The study encompasses PHC settings in 31 European countries from March 2020 to August 2021. Key-informants from each country answered the questionnaire. Main outcome: the identification of any indicator used to describe PHC COVID-19 activity. RESULTS: Out of the 31 countries surveyed, data on PHC information were obtained from 14. The principal indicators were: total number of cases within PHC (Belarus, Cyprus, Italy, Romania and Spain), number of follow-up cases (Croatia, Cyprus, Finland, Spain and Turkey), GP's COVID-19 tests referrals (Poland), proportion of COVID-19 cases among respiratory illnesses consultations (Norway and France), sick leaves issued by GPs (Romania and Spain) and examination and complementary tests (Cyprus). All COVID-19 cases were attended in PHC in Belarus and Italy. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic exposes a crucial deficiency in preparedness for infectious diseases in European health systems highlighting the inconsistent recording of indicators within PHC organizations. PHC standardized indicators and public data accessibility are urgently needed, conforming the foundation for an effective European-level health services response framework against future pandemics.

The role of primary health care in long-term care facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic in 30 European countries: a retrospective descriptive study (Eurodata study).

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Primary health care (PHC) supported long-term care facilities (LTCFs) in attending COVID-19 patients. The aim of this study is to describe the role of PHC in LTCFs in Europe during the early phase of the pandemic. METHODS: Retrospective descriptive study from 30 European countries using data from September 2020 collected with an ad hoc semi-structured questionnaire. Related variables are SARS-CoV-2 testing, contact tracing, follow-up, additional testing, and patient care. RESULTS: Twenty-six out of the 30 European countries had PHC involvement in LTCFs during the COVID-19 pandemic. PHC participated in initial medical care in 22 countries, while, in 15, PHC was responsible for SARS-CoV-2 test along with other institutions. Supervision of individuals in isolation was carried out mostly by LTCF staff, but physical examination or symptom's follow-up was performed mainly by PHC. CONCLUSION: PHC has participated in COVID-19 pandemic assistance in LTCFs in coordination with LTCF staff, public health officers, and hospitals.

Addressing health inequity during the COVID-19 pandemic through primary health care and public health collaboration: a multiple case study analysis in eight high-income countries.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic substantially magnified the inequity gaps among vulnerable populations. Both public health (PH) and primary health care (PHC) have been crucial in addressing the challenges posed by the pandemic, especially in the area of vulnerable populations. However, little is known about the intersection between PH and PHC as a strategy to mitigate the inequity gap. This study aims to assess the collaboration between PHC and PH with a focus on addressing the health needs of vulnerable populations during the COVID-19 pandemic across jurisdictions. METHODS: We analyzed and compared data from jurisdictional reports of COVID-19 pandemic responses in PHC and PH in Belgium, Canada (Ontario), Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, and Spain from 2020 to 2021. RESULTS: Four themes emerge from the analysis: (1) the majority of the countries implemented outreach strategies targeting vulnerable groups as a means to ensure continued access to PHC; (2) digital assessment in PHC was found to be present across all the countries; (3) PHC was insufficiently represented at the decision-making level; (4) there is a lack of clear communication channels between PH and PHC in all the countries. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified opportunities for collaboration between PHC and PH to reduce inequity gaps and to improve population health, focusing on vulnerable populations. The COVID-19 response in these eight countries has demonstrated the importance of an integrated PHC system. Consequently, the development of effective strategies for responding to and planning for pandemics should take into account the social determinants of health in order to mitigate the unequal impact of COVID-19. Careful, intentional coordination between PH and PHC should be established in normal times as a basis for effective response during future public health emergencies. The pandemic has provided significant insights on how to strengthen health systems and provide universal access to healthcare by fostering stronger connections between PH and PHC.

European Perspective on How Social Prescribing Can Facilitate Health and Social Integrated Care in the Community.

Social Prescribing is a mechanism by which primary care team members can refer patients to community groups to improve their health and well-being. It integrates health, social care, and community, allowing patients to actively improve their health and well-being by participating in community initiatives and activities. These activities have traditionally been part of community life in European countries, and the benefits need to be consistently recognized.

Clinical pathway of COVID-19 patients in primary health care in 30 European countries: Eurodata study.

BACKGROUND: Most COVID-19 patients were treated in primary health care (PHC) in Europe. OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate the scope of PHC workflow during the COVID-19 pandemic emphasising similarities and differences of patient's clinical pathways in Europe. METHODS: Descriptive, cross-sectional study with data acquired through a semi-structured questionnaire in PHC in 30 European countries, created ad hoc and agreed upon among all researchers who participated in the study. GPs from each country answered the approved questionnaire. Main variable: PHC COVID-19 acute clinical pathway. All variables were collected from each country as of September 2020. RESULTS: COVID-19 clinics in PHC facilities were organised in 8/30. Case detection and testing were performed in PHC in 27/30 countries. RT-PCR and lateral flow tests were performed in PHC in 23/30, free of charge with a medical prescription. Contact tracing was performed mainly by public health authorities. Mandatory isolation ranged from 5 to 14 days. Sick leave certification was given exclusively by GPs in 21/30 countries. Patient hotels or other resources to isolate patients were available in 12/30. Follow-up to monitor the symptoms and/or new complementary tests was made mainly by phone call (27/30). Chest X-ray and phlebotomy were performed in PHC in 18/30 and 23/30 countries, respectively. Oxygen and low-molecular-weight heparin were available in PHC (21/30). CONCLUSION: In Europe PHC participated in many steps to diagnose, treat and monitor COVID-19 patients. Differences among countries might be addressed at European level for the management of future pandemics.

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.

The Limerick Declaration on Rural Health Care 2022.

The 19th World Rural Health Conference, hosted in rural Ireland and the University of Limerick, with over 650 participants coming from 40 countries and an additional 1600 engaging online, has carefully considered how best rural communities can be empowered to improve their own health and the health of those around them. The conference also considered the role of national health systems and all stakeholders, in keeping with the commitments made through the Sustainable Development Goals and the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health as one of the fundamental rights of every human being. This conference declaration, the Limerick Declaration on Rural Healthcare, is designed to inform rural communities, academics and policymakers about how to achieve the goal of delivering high quality health care in rural and remote areas most effectively, with a particular focus on the Irish healthcare system. Congruent with current evidence and best international practice, the participants of the conference endorsed a series of recommendations for the creation of high quality, sustainable and cost-effective healthcare delivery for rural communities in Ireland and globally. The recommendations focused on four major themes: rural healthcare needs and delivery, rural workforce, advocacy and policy, and research for rural health care. Equal access to health care is a crucial marker of democracy. Hence, we call on all governments, policymakers, academic institutions and communities globally to commit to providing their rural dwellers with equitable access to health care that is properly resourced and fundamentally patient-centred in its design.

Understanding older patients' willingness to have medications deprescribed in primary care: a protocol for a cross-sectional survey study in nine European countries.

INTRODUCTION: To reduce inappropriate polypharmacy, deprescribing should be part of patients' regular care. Yet deprescribing is difficult to implement, as shown in several studies. Understanding patients' attitudes towards deprescribing at the individual and country level may reveal effective ways to involve older adults in decisions about medications and help to implement deprescribing in primary care settings. In this study we aim to investigate older adults' perceptions and views on deprescribing in different European countries. Specific objectives are to investigate the patients' willingness to have medications deprescribed by medication type and to have herbal or dietary supplements reduced or stopped, the role of the Patient Typology (on medication perspectives), and the impact of the patient-GP relationship in these decisions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This cross-sectional survey study has two parts: Part A and Part B. Data collection for Part A will take place in nine countries, in which per country 10 GPs will recruit 10 older patients (≥65 years old) each (n = 900). Part B will be conducted in Switzerland only, in which an additional 35 GPs will recruit five patients each and respond to a questionnaire themselves, with questions about the patients' medications, their willingness to deprescribe those, and their patient-provider relationship. For both Part A and part B, a questionnaire will be used to assess the willingness of older patients with polypharmacy to have medications deprescribed and other relevant information. For Part B, this same questionnaire will have additional questions on the use of herbal and dietary supplements. DISCUSSION: The international study design will allow comparisons of patient perspectives on deprescribing from different countries. We will collect information about willingness to have medications deprescribed by medication type and regarding herbal and dietary supplements, which adds important information to the literature on patients' preferences. In addition, GPs in Switzerland will also be surveyed, allowing us to compare GPs' and patients' views and preferences on stopping or reducing specific medications. Our findings will help to understand patients' attitudes towards deprescribing, contributing to improvements in the design and implementation of deprescribing interventions that are better tailored to patients' preferences.

Intermediate care in caring for dementia, the point of view of general practitioners: A key informant survey across Europe.

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.

Patient consultations during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: a mixed-method cross-sectional study in 16 European countries.

INTRODUCTION: Remote consultations help reduce contact between people and prevent cross-contamination. Little is known about the changes in consultation in European rural primary care during the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic. The purpose of this mixed-methods cross-sectional study was to find out more about the effects of the pandemic on changes in patient consultations in European rural primary care. METHODS: A key informant survey from 16 member countries of the European Rural and Isolated Practitioners Association (EURIPA) was undertaken using a self-developed questionnaire. The steering committee of this project, called EURIPA Covid-19 study, developed a semi-structured questionnaire with 68 questions, 21 of which included free-text comments. Proportions were calculated for dichotomized or categorized data, and means were calculated for continuous data. Multivariate analysis by logistic regression model was used to assess the association of multiple variables. RESULTS: A total of 406 questionnaires from primary care providers (PCPs) in 16 European countries were collected; 245 respondents (60.5%) were females, 152 PCPs were rural (37.5%), 124 semi-rural (30.5%). Mean age of the respondents was 45.9 years (standard deviation (SD) 11.30) while mean seniority (length of experience) was 18.2 years (SD 11.6). A total of 381 (93.8%) respondents were medical doctors. Significant differences were found between countries in adopting alternative arrangements to face-to-face consultation: remote teleconsultation is well appreciated by both healthcare professionals and patients, but the most common way of remote consultation remains telephone consultation. A factor significantly inversely associated with the adoption of video consultation was the seniority of the PCP (odds ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.40, p=0.03). CONCLUSION: Telephone consultation is the most common form of remote consultation. The adoption of video-consultation is inversely related to the seniority of the informants.

COVID-19 pandemic and the great impulse to telemedicine: the basis of the WONCA Europe Statement on Telemedicine at the WHO Europe 70th Regional Meeting September 2020.

Telemedicine is the use of telecommunication and information technologies to support the delivery of healthcare at a distance, guaranteeing patients healthcare by facilitating access where barriers exist; the COVID-19 pandemic has attracted worldwide interest in this field.The purpose of this paper is to highlight the main pros and cons of telemedicine, which serve as the basis of the WONCA Europe Statement at the WHO Europe 70th Regional Meeting on 14 September 2020.Pros of telemedicine include virtual healthcare at home, where patients receive support in certain conditions without leaving their houses. During a pandemic, it can be adopted to limit physical human interaction. Unfortunately, it can negatively affect the quality of the doctor-patient relationship, the quality of the physical examination, and the quality of care. Telemedicine requires effective infrastructure and robust investments to be feasible and effective.

Social Prescribing and Lifestyle Medicine-A Remedy to Chronic Health Problems?

Social prescribing has been identified as a chance to take a holistic approach to people's health and wellbeing, especially for people with one or more long-term conditions. Its systemic implementation was a part of the recent United Kingdom National Health Service Long Term Plan. With a lifestyle medicine focus on equipping patients in tools necessary for self-care and self-management of their lifestyle-related health problems that coexists with the need for creating an environment supporting healthy choices, a social prescribing model seems to offer a promising strategy for advancing lifestyle medicine. This idea was discussed during a meeting hosted by the Polish Society of Lifestyle Medicine in collaboration with European Rural and Isolated Practitioners Association, Polish Society of Young Family Doctors ("Mlodzi Lekarze Rodzinni"), British Society of Lifestyle Medicine and European Lifestyle Medicine Council in June 2020. The aftermath-this position statement is an Authors' attempt at summarizing the common ground for social prescribing and lifestyle medicine. It collects experiences of practitioners and researchers from five European countries as well as making recommendations for applying this model in Poland. Despite referring to local conditions, it might provide universal takeaway messages for any healthcare providers interested in combining social prescribing with lifestyle medicine practice.

The pros and cons of the implementation of a chronic care model in European rural primary care: the points of view of European rural general practitioners.

INTRODUCTION: This article describes the views of European rural general practitioners regarding the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) of the implementation of a chronic care model (CCM) in European rural primary care. METHODS: This was a mixed-methods online survey. Data were collected from 227 general practitioners between May and December 2017. Categorical data were analysed using descriptive methods while free-text responses were analysed using qualitative methods. The setting was rural primary care in nine European countries (including Central and Eastern Europe). Main outcomes measures were respondents' evaluations of a chronic care model in their rural healthcare settings in terms of SWOT. RESULTS: The SWOT analysis showed that the expertise of healthcare professionals and the strength of relationships and communications between professionals, caregivers and patients are positive components of the CCM system. However, ensuring adequate staffing levels and staff competency are issues that would need to be addressed. Opportunities included the need to enable patients to participate in decision making by ensuring adequate health literacy. CONCLUSION: The CCM could certainly have benefits for health care in rural settings but staffing levels and staff competency would need to be addressed before implementation of CCM in such settings. Improving health literacy among patients and their carers will be essential to ensure their full participation in the implementation of a successful CCM.

How are reasons for encounter associated with influenza-like illness and acute respiratory infection diagnoses and interventions? A cohort study in eight Italian general practice populations.

BACKGROUND: Influenza-like illness (ILI) and Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) are a considerable health problem in Europe. Most diagnoses are made by family physicians (FPs) and based on symptoms and clinical signs rather than on diagnostic testing. The International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC) advocates that FPs record patients' 'Reasons for Encounters' (RfEs) as they are presented to them. This study analyses the association of patients' RfEs with FPs' diagnoses of ILI and ARI diagnoses and FPs' management of those patients. METHODS: Cohort study of practice populations. Over a 4-month period during the winter season 2013-14, eight FPs recorded ILI and ARI patients' RfEs and how they were managed. FPs recorded details of their patients using the ICPC format, collecting data in an Episode of Care (EoC) structure. RESULTS: There were 688 patients diagnosed as having ILI; between them they presented with a total of 2,153 RfEs, most commonly fever (79.7%), cough (59.7%) and pain (33.0%). The 848 patients with ARI presented with a total of 1,647 RfEs, most commonly cough (50.4%), throat symptoms (25.9%) and fever (19.9%). For patients with ILI, 37.0% of actions were related to medication for respiratory symptoms; this figure was 38.4% for patients with ARI. FPs referred six patients to specialists or hospitals (0.39% of all patients diagnosed with ILI and ARI). CONCLUSIONS: In this study of patients with ILI and ARI, less than half received a prescription from their FPs, and the illnesses were mainly managed in primary care, with few patients' needing referral. The ICPC classification allowed a standardised data collection system, providing documentary evidence of the management of those diseases.

General practitioners' deprescribing decisions in older adults with polypharmacy: a case vignette study in 31 countries.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) should regularly review patients' medications and, if necessary, deprescribe, as inappropriate polypharmacy may harm patients' health. However, deprescribing can be challenging for physicians. This study investigates GPs' deprescribing decisions in 31 countries. METHODS: In this case vignette study, GPs were invited to participate in an online survey containing three clinical cases of oldest-old multimorbid patients with potentially inappropriate polypharmacy. Patients differed in terms of dependency in activities of daily living (ADL) and were presented with and without history of cardiovascular disease (CVD). For each case, we asked GPs if they would deprescribe in their usual practice. We calculated proportions of GPs who reported they would deprescribe and performed a multilevel logistic regression to examine the association between history of CVD and level of dependency on GPs' deprescribing decisions. RESULTS: Of 3,175 invited GPs, 54% responded (N = 1,706). The mean age was 50 years and 60% of respondents were female. Despite differences across GP characteristics, such as age (with older GPs being more likely to take deprescribing decisions), and across countries, overall more than 80% of GPs reported they would deprescribe the dosage of at least one medication in oldest-old patients (> 80 years) with polypharmacy irrespective of history of CVD. The odds of deprescribing was higher in patients with a higher level of dependency in ADL (OR =1.5, 95%CI 1.25 to 1.80) and absence of CVD (OR =3.04, 95%CI 2.58 to 3.57). INTERPRETATION: The majority of GPs in this study were willing to deprescribe one or more medications in oldest-old multimorbid patients with polypharmacy. Willingness was higher in patients with increased dependency in ADL and lower in patients with CVD.