Changes in primary care visits for respiratory illness during the COVID-19 pandemic: a multinational study by the International Consortium of Primary Care Big Data Researchers (INTRePID).

Objectives: The majority of patients with respiratory illness are seen in primary care settings. Given COVID-19 is predominantly a respiratory illness, the INTernational ConsoRtium of Primary Care BIg Data Researchers (INTRePID), assessed the pandemic impact on primary care visits for respiratory illnesses. Design: Definitions for respiratory illness types were agreed on collectively. Monthly visit counts with diagnosis were shared centrally for analysis. Setting: Primary care settings in Argentina, Australia, Canada, China, Norway, Peru, Singapore, Sweden and the United States. Participants: Over 38 million patients seen in primary care settings in INTRePID countries before and during the pandemic, from January 1st, 2018, to December 31st, 2021. Main outcome measures: Relative change in the monthly mean number of visits before and after the onset of the pandemic for acute infectious respiratory disease visits including influenza, upper and lower respiratory tract infections and chronic respiratory disease visits including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, respiratory allergies, and other respiratory diseases. Results: INTRePID countries reported a marked decrease in the average monthly visits for respiratory illness. Changes in visits varied from -10.9% [95% confidence interval (CI): -33.1 to +11.3%] in Norway to -79.9% (95% CI: -86.4% to -73.4%) in China for acute infectious respiratory disease visits and - 2.1% (95% CI: -12.1 to +7.8%) in Peru to -59.9% (95% CI: -68.6% to -51.3%) in China for chronic respiratory illness visits. While seasonal variation in allergic respiratory illness continued during the pandemic, there was essentially no spike in influenza illness during the first 2 years of the pandemic. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic had a major impact on primary care visits for respiratory presentations. Primary care continued to provide services for respiratory illness, although there was a decrease in infectious illness during the COVID pandemic. Understanding the role of primary care may provide valuable information for COVID-19 recovery efforts and planning for future global emergencies.

Assessing Primary Care Blood Pressure Documentation for Hypertension Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic by Patient and Provider Groups.

Background: Primary care electronic medical record (EMR) data can be used to identify, manage, and screen hypertension cases. However, this approach relies on completeness and accessibility of documented blood pressure (BP) values. With the large switch to virtual care due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we assessed BP documentation in primary care EMRs during the pandemic, across patient and physician groups. Methods: Hypertension-related visits were identified during the pre-pandemic (January 2017 to February 2020) and pandemic (March 2020 to December 2021) periods from a primary care EMR database in Ontario, Canada. Clustered logistic regression models were used to analyze the relationship of physician and patient characteristics with an outcome variable of documented BP. A chart review of 3200 hypertension visits without a BP recorded in structured data fields was conducted to determine if BP was recorded in progress notes. Results: Pre-pandemic, 75.7% of hypertension-related visits (113,966 of 150,511) had a BP recorded in structured documentation, but this significantly decreased to 36.4% (26,660 of 73,239) during the pandemic (odds ratio [OR] = 0.18, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.18-0.19). For virtual visits, 14.3% (6357 of 44,572) had a documented BP, vs 74.0% (20,056 of 27,089) for in-person visits. Chart review found that 55.9% of hypertension visits had no associated BP in structured documentation, but did have a BP recorded in the progress note. Male providers, compared to female providers, were less likely to record BPs pre-pandemic (OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.32-0.63) and during the pandemic, for both virtual visits (OR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.32-0.71) and in-person visits (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.33-0.64). Conclusions: BP documented in primary care EMRs declined during the pandemic, most likely due to high rates of virtual visits impacting hypertension detection and management.

Contexte: Les données des dossiers médicaux électroniques (DME) provenant des soins primaires peuvent être utilisées pour détecter, prendre en charge et dépister les cas d'hypertension. Cependant, cette approche dépend de l'accessibilité et de l'exhaustivité des valeurs de pression artérielle (PA) consignées aux dossiers. Étant donné l'important passage aux soins virtuels attribuable à la pandémie de COVID-19, nous avons évalué la façon dont la PA avait été consignée dans les DME de soins primaires pendant la pandémie, parmi des groupes de patients et de médecins. Méthodologie: Les consultations liées à l'hypertension pendant les périodes pré-pandémique (de janvier 2017 à février 2020) et pandémique (de mars 2020 à décembre 2021) ont été recueillies d'une banque de données de DME de soins primaires en Ontario (Canada). Des modèles de régression logistique regroupée ont été utilisés pour analyser le lien entre les caractéristiques des médecins et de patients et une variable de résultats des PA consignées. Une revue des dossiers portant sur 3200 consultations pour hypertension sans consignation de la PA dans les champs de données structurés a été effectuée afin de déterminer si la PA avait été notée dans les notes d'évolution. Résultats: Avant la pandémie, la PA avait été consignée dans une documentation structurée pour 75,7 % (113 966 sur 150 511) des consultations pour hypertension, mais cette proportion a chuté considérablement à 36,4 % (26 660 sur 73 239) pendant la pandémie (rapport des cotes [RC] = 0,18; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 % : 0,18-0,19). Pour ce qui est des consultations virtuelles, la PA a été consignée dans 14,3 % (6357 sur 44 572) des cas, comparativement à 74,0 % (20 056 sur 27 089) pour les consultations en personne. Une analyse des dossiers a révélé que pour 55,9 % des consultations pour hypertension, aucune mesure de PA ne figurait dans la documentation structurée, mais qu'une valeur de PA avait toutefois été consignée dans les notes d'évolution. Les professionnels de la santé masculins, comparativement aux femmes, ont été moins susceptibles de consigner les valeurs de PA avant la pandémie (RC = 0,45; IC à 95 % : 0,32-0,63) et pendant la pandémie, tant lors des consultations virtuelles (RC = 0,48; IC à 95 % : 0,32-0,71) que des consultations en personne (RC = 0,46; IC à 95 % : 0,33-0,64). Conclusions: L'inscription des valeurs de PA dans les DME de soins primaires a décliné pendant la pandémie, fort probablement en raison de la proportion élevée de consultations virtuelles, ce qui a eu une incidence sur la détection et la prise en charge de l'hypertension.