Resilience of the primary health care system - German primary care practitioners' perspectives during the early COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Primary care is a relevant pillar in managing not only individual, but also societal medical crises. The COVID-19 pandemic has demanded a rapid response from primary care with interventions in the health care system. The aim of this paper was to explore the responses of primary care practitioners (PCP) during the early COVID-19 pandemic and to analyze these with a view on the resilience of the primary health care system from the PCPs perspective. METHODS: Shortly after the first COVID-19 wave (July-October 2020) n = 39, semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with PCP in practices and at Corona contact points (CCP) in Baden-Wuerttemberg (Germany). Qualitative content analysis was applied, and the evolved categories were related to in a framework for resilience. RESULTS: Primary care had an overall strong ability to adapt and show resilience, albeit with wide variance in speed and scope of the responses. When coping with uncertainty, the reasons given by PCPs in favor of opening a CCP mainly involved intrinsic motivation and self-initiative; the reasons against doing so were i.e. the lack of personal protective equipment, problems with space, and worries about organizational burden. A strong association existed between the establishment of a CCP and the use of resources (i.e. existing networks, personal protective equipment, exercising an office of professional political function). Our study predominantly found adaptive aspects for measures taken at medical practices and transformative aspects for setting up outpatient infection centers. PCPs played an important role in the coordination process (i.e. actively transferring knowledge, integration in crisis management teams, inclusion in regional strategic efforts) reaching a high level in the dimensions knowledge and legitimacy. The dimension interdependence repeatedly came into focus (i.e. working with stakeholders to open CCP, interacting among different types of primary care facilities, intersectoral interfaces). A need for regional capacity planning was visible at the time of the interviews. CONCLUSIONS: The results can be used for practical and research-based institutional and capacity planning, for developing resilience in primary care and for augmentation by perspectives from other stakeholders in the primary health care system.

[Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on outpatient physical therapy in Germany]. / Einfluss der COVID-19 Pandemie auf die ambulante Physiotherapie.

INTRODUCTION: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the German health system has faced major challenges since spring 2020. In addition to restrictions in the inpatient health care sector, the maintenance of outpatient care by health care providers has also been affected by the pandemic-related restrictions. Both a decline in treatment frequencies and temporary practice closures have been observed. The aim of the study was to survey the work and care situation in outpatient physiotherapy practices during the first wave of the pandemic. METHODS: An anonymous online survey including quantitative and qualitative items was conducted among physiotherapists in the outpatient sector in Germany between June 1 and August 31, 2020. The survey is part of the mixed-methods study "ArTheCo", which was conducted throughout Germany including outpatient therapists and patients in physiotherapy, speech therapy and occupational therapy. RESULTS: In total, 577 physiotherapists from all over Germany took part in the survey. During the first wave of the pandemic, the occupancy rate fell below 50% at 45% of the facilities. 15% of the facilities had to close temporarily. Short-time work was announced at 58% of the respondents' practices. This and the implementation of hygiene measures restricted the provision of physiotherapy. This mainly affected patients with a higher risk of a severe clinical course of disease, such as nursing home patients. Due to complex changes in practice organisation and patient care, many of the interviewees felt that their economic existence was threatened and also described a large physical and psychological burden. Existing dissatisfaction seemed to have increased by the pandemic. DISCUSSION: To maintain continuous physical therapy, a reorganisation of the reimbursement system as well as easily accessible, consistent and feasible action plans for practices are needed. In combination with threats to existence due to the pandemic and increasing skill shortage, the outpatient physiotherapeutic care also appears to be threatened beyond the pandemic. CONCLUSION: The current pandemic has highlighted long-standing challenges causing dissatisfaction and making the profession increasingly unattractive for some of the respondents. Political action to support physiotherapists needs to be initiated. This study indicates potential starting points.

[Scoping review of the effectiveness of screen-to-screen-therapy compared to face-to-face-therapy on naming performance for patients with aphasia]. / Scoping Review über die Wirksamkeit einer Screen-to-Screen-Therapie im Vergleich zu einer Face-to-Face-Therapie bei Patient*innen mit Aphasie auf die Benennleistungen.

INTRODUCTION: About 35,000 people in Germany suffered from stroke-related aphasia in 2019. One of the most frequent manifestations of aphasia are word finding disorders. In times of the COVID-19 pandemic, the temporary approval of video therapy enables the maintenance of speech therapy treatment. This leads to the necessity to investigate the effectiveness of screen-to-screen therapy via a video conferencing system compared to conventional face-to-face therapy of adult aphasia patients. METHODS: For this scoping review, a literature search in the databases Cochrane, Pubmed and Web of Science was conducted for the period February 2010 to 2020. We included German- and English-language studies comparing the effectiveness of a classic face-to-face therapy with a screen-to-screen therapy of adults with aphasia. The studies were selected using the PRISMA flowchart. RESULTS: A total of five studies were identified. Both face-to-face therapy and screen-to-screen therapy showed significant improvements in naming performance in an Italian crossover study, a Canadian randomized study and a quasi-randomized study conducted in the UK. No improvements were found for both forms of intervention in an Israeli crossover study. In a German comparative study, significant improvements in naming performance were found for face-to-face therapy, but the results did not differ significantly from the screen-to-screen therapy intervention group. DISCUSSION: In all included studies, screen-to-screen therapy and face-to-face therapy had a comparable effectiveness on naming performance. The results demonstrate the feasibility of a screen-to-screen therapy under everyday conditions. However, it is possible that this form of therapy cannot always be implemented. Barriers to screen-to-screen therapy can be the use of technologies and restrictions in the visual field due to a neglect. One limitation of the scoping review was that only the naming performance was considered as an outcome, another was the small number of studies included. CONCLUSION: For many patients screen-to-screen therapy is currently the only possibility to receive speech therapy treatment. Therefore it is a positive aspect that screen-to-screen therapy is as effective as face-to-face therapy. Screen-to-screen therapy can provide expanded access to health care and professional expertise in health services. In this way, speech therapy care during the COVID-19 pandemic can be largely maintained. Further research is needed on evidence-based treatment methods and user-oriented apps for video therapy.