Making sense of and working with COVID-19 related guidelines and information in Danish general practice-A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Attempts to manage the COVID-19 pandemic have involved a massive flow of guidelines and information to health professionals on how to reorganize clinical work and handle patients with COVID-19. The aim of this paper is to investigate how Danish general practitioners (GPs) made sense of and worked with guidelines and associated information on COVID-19 in the first months of the pandemic. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with 13 GPs in the beginning of the pandemic and again approximately three months later. Between the two interviews, they wrote daily notes for 20 days. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed, and the material was analyzed using thematic network analysis. RESULTS: The interviewed GPs found the situation urgent and serious, and they spent a lot of time reading and working with COVID-19 related guidelines and associated information. Keeping up-to-date with and implementing guidelines was challenging due to the many sources of information and the constant guideline revisions. The GPs were able to assess patients' risk status but were challenged by the changing guidelines regarding this. The GPs found that deciding whether a COVID-19 patient needed to be admitted to hospital was relatively straightforward. An important final challenge was discrepancies between the government's public announcements regarding which patients could be tested for COVID-19, the guidelines provided to GPs, and the local testing capacities, which gave GPs extra work. CONCLUSION: In an urgent situation like the COVID-19 pandemic it is crucial to secure good communication between the government, health authorities, professional medical societies, and health professionals. Improved practices of collaboration between health authorities and professional societies could improve communication in future health crises and relieve GPs of some of the work involved in keeping up-to-date with information flows, constantly reviewing new guidelines, and dealing with communicative inconsistencies.

Management of symptomatic patients with suspected mild-moderate COVID-19 in general practice. What was published within the first year of the pandemic? A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Most COVID-19 patients experience a mild course of the disease and can be managed in general practice. However, in the early pandemic, most research was conducted in secondary care. OBJECTIVES: This scoping review aimed to identify original research published within the first year of the pandemic relevant to general practice regarding symptomatic, non-hospitalised patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 disease to provide an overview of published research. METHODS: PubMed was searched for studies written in English, Swedish, Danish, or Norwegian published before 1 April 2021. Two authors screened all titles and abstracts and identified full texts. RESULTS: We screened 1303 titles and abstracts and retrieved 128 full texts. An additional 44 full-texts were obtained from references. After full-text reading, 79 articles were included, six of which were conducted in general practice, 20 in the community, 42 in hospitals, and 11 in other settings. Therapy and harm were investigated in randomised controlled trials in 11 out of 17 studies; the diagnosis was investigated using a diagnostic accuracy design in four out of 26 studies and prognosis in prospective studies in 10 out of 21 studies. The remaining 15 studies had other research questions. CONCLUSION: Although general practitioners in most countries must have been involved in managing patients with COVID-19, little research has been published from general practice during the first year of the pandemic. General practice research environments must be able to respond quickly in case of future pandemics.