Data analysis plan of the OECD PaRIS survey: leveraging a multi-level approach to analyse data collected from people living with chronic conditions and their primary care practices in 20 countries.

OBJECTIVE: In view of the increasing number of people with (multiple) chronic conditions, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) initiated the International Survey of People Living with Chronic Conditions (PaRIS survey), which aims to provide insight in patient-reported outcomes and experiences of chronic care provided by primary care practices to support policy development. The objective of this research note is to describe the structure of the data, collected in the PaRIS survey and how the data will be analysed in a multilevel approach for cross-country comparison. ANALYSIS PLAN: The data structure of the PaRIS survey represents three levels: countries/health systems, primary care practices and patients. Multilevel analysis is used because of its accuracy in estimating country-level outcomes, its flexibility in modelling relationships, and its opportunities in connecting to relevant policy questions. Country-level outcomes will be estimated to facilitate cross-country comparison and (future) within-country comparison over time. Characteristics of patients that potentially explain variation in patient-reported outcomes and experiences can be linked to primary care practice and country/health system characteristics. This makes it possible to address policy-relevant questions relating, e.g., to the impact of chronic care management on patients with a specific chronic condition.

Recruitment, data collection, participation rate, and representativeness of the international cross-sectional PRICOV-19 study across 38 countries.

BACKGROUND: Recruitment for surveys has been a great challenge, especially in general practice. METHODS: Here, we reported recruitment strategies, data collection, participation rates (PR) and representativeness of the PRICOV-19 study, an international comparative, cross-sectional, online survey among general practices (GP practices) in 37 European countries and Israel. RESULTS: Nine (24%) countries reported a published invitation; 19 (50%) had direct contact with all GPs/GP practices; 19 (50%) contacted a sample of GPs /GP practices; and 7 (18%) used another invitation strategy. The median participation rate was 22% (IQR = 10%, 28%). Multiple invitation strategies (P-value 0.93) and multiple strategies to increase PR (P-value 0.64) were not correlated with the PR. GP practices in (semi-) rural areas, GP practices serving more than 10,000 patients, and group practices were over-represented (P-value < 0.001). There was no significant correlation between the PR and strength of the primary care (PC) system [Spearman's r 0.13, 95% CI (-0.24, 0.46); P-value 0.49]; the COVID-19 morbidity [Spearman's r 0.19, 95% CI (-0.14, 0.49); P-value 0.24], or COVID-19 mortality [Spearman's r 0.19, 95% CI (-0.02, 0.58); P-value 0.06] during the three months before country-specific study commencement. CONCLUSION: Our main contribution here was to describe the survey recruitment and representativeness of PRICOV-19, an important and novel study.

Personal protective equipment for healthcare workers during COVID-19: Developing and applying a questionnaire and assessing associations between infection rates and shortages across 19 countries.

This study aimed to assess the preparedness of European countries regarding personal protective equipment (PPE) for health and care workers (HCWs), the COVID-19 infection rates of HCWs compared to the general working age population, and the association between these. We developed a PPE-preparedness scale based on responses to a questionnaire from experts in the Health Systems and Policy Monitor network, with a response rate of 19 out of 31 countries. COVID-19 infection data were retrieved form the European center for Disease Prevention and Control. Shortages of PPE were found in most countries, in particular in home care and long-term care. HCW infection rates, compared to the general population, varied strongly between countries, influenced by different testing regimes. We found no relationships between HCW infection rates, PPE preparedness and shortages of PPE. Improved surveillance in the population as well as for HCWS are needed to be able to better assess these relationships.

International cross-cultural development and field testing of the primary care practice questionnaire for the PaRIS survey (PaRIS-PCPQ).

BACKGROUND: The PaRIS survey, an initiative of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), aims to assess health systems performance in delivering primary care by measuring the care experiences and outcomes of people over 45 who used primary care services in the past six months. In addition, linked data from primary care practices are collected to analyse how the organisation of primary care practices and their care processes impact care experiences and outcomes. This article describes the development and validation of the primary care practice questionnaire for the PaRIS survey, the PaRIS-PCPQ. METHOD: The PaRIS-PCPQ was developed based on domains of primary care practice and professional characteristics included in the PaRIS conceptual framework. Questionnaire development was conducted in four phases: (1) a multi-step consensus-based development of the source questionnaire, (2) translation of the English source questionnaire into 17 languages, (3) cross-national cognitive testing with primary care professionals in participating countries, and (4) cross-national field-testing. RESULTS: 70 items were selected from 7 existing questionnaires on primary care characteristics, of which 49 were included in a first draft. Feedback from stakeholders resulted in a modified 34-item version (practice profile, care coordination, chronic care management, patient follow-up, and respondent characteristics) designed to be completed online by medical or non-medical staff working in a primary care practice. Cognitive testing led to changes in the source questionnaire as well as to country specific localisations. The resulting 32-item questionnaire was piloted in an online survey and field test. Data from 540 primary care practices from 17 countries were collected and analysed. Final revision resulted in a 34-item questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: The cross-national development of a primary care practice questionnaire is challenging due to the differences in care delivery systems. Rigorous translation and cognitive testing as well as stakeholder engagement helped to overcome most challenges. The PaRIS-PCPQ will be used to assess how key characteristics of primary care practices relate to the care experiences and outcomes of people living with chronic conditions. As such, policymakers and care providers will be informed about the performance of primary care from the patient's perspective.

A comparison of social prescribing approaches across twelve high-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Social prescribing connects patients with community resources to improve their health and well-being. It is gaining momentum globally due to its potential for addressing non-medical causes of illness while building on existing resources and enhancing overall health at a relatively low cost. The COVID-19 pandemic further underscored the need for policy interventions to address health-related social issues such as loneliness and isolation. AIM: This paper presents evidence of the conceptualisation and implementation of social prescribing schemes in twelve countries: Australia, Austria, Canada, England, Finland, Germany, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, the Netherlands, the United States and Wales. METHODS: Twelve countries were identified through the Health Systems and Policy Monitor (HSPM) network and the EuroHealthNet Partnership. Information was collected through a twelve open-ended question survey based on a conceptual model inspired by the WHO's Health System Framework. RESULTS: We found that social prescribing can take different forms, and the scale of implementation also varies significantly. Robust evidence on impact is scarce and highly context-specific, with some indications of cost-effectiveness and positive impact on well-being. CONCLUSIONS: This paper provides insights into social prescribing in various contexts and may guide countries interested in holistically tackling health-related social factors and strengthening community-based care. Policies can support a more seamless integration of social prescribing into existing care, improve collaboration among sectors and training programs for health and social care professionals.

Case-mix adjustments for patient reported experience and outcome measures in primary care: an empirical approach to identify patient characteristics as case-mix adjusters based on a secondary analysis of an international survey among patients and their general practitioners in 34 countries.

BACKGROUND: Case-mix adjustment of patient reported experiences (PREMs) and outcomes (PROMs) of care are meant to enable fair comparison between units (e.g. care providers or countries) and to show where improvement is possible. It is important to distinguish between fair comparison and improvement potential, as case-mix adjustment may mask improvement potential. Case-mix adjustment takes into account the effect of patient characteristics that are related to the PREMs and PROMs studied, but are outside the sphere of influence of the units being compared. We developed an approach to assess which patient characteristics would qualify as case-mix adjusters, using data from an international primary care study. RESULTS: We used multilevel analysis, with patients nested in general practices nested in countries. Case-mix adjustment is indicated under the following conditions: there is a main effect of the potential case-mix adjuster on the PREM/PROM; this effect does not vary between units; and the distribution of the potential case-mix adjuster differs between units. Random slope models were used to assess whether the impact of a potential case-mix adjuster varied between units. To assess whether a slope variance is big enough to decide that case-mix adjustment is not indicated, we compared the variances in the categories of a potential case-mix adjuster. Significance of the slope variance is not enough, because small variances may be significantly different from zero when numbers are large. We therefore need an additional criterion to consider a slope variance as important. Borrowing from the idea of a minimum clinically important difference (MCID) we proposed a difference between the variances of 0.25*variance (equivalent to a medium effect size). We applied this approach to data from the QUALICOPC (Quality and costs of primary care in Europe) study. CONCLUSIONS: Our approach provides guidance to decide whether or not patient characteristics should be considered as case-mix adjusters. The criterion of a difference between variances of 0.25*variance works well for continuous PREMs and PROMs, but seems to be too strict for binary PREMs and PROMs. Without additional information, it is not possible to decide whether important slope variation is the result of either differences in performance between general practices or countries, or cultural differences.

Quick adaptation of the organisation of general practices during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: General practices have adapted the practice organisation to the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this article we describe several adjustments in general practices in the field of patient flow management, appointments, triage, referral and infection prevention. We also examined how practices relate to the policy of the government and of the professional organisations during the pandemic. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among a sample of 893 general practitioners (GPs) during February and March 2021. The response rate was 17%. Because the questionnaire concerns practices and not individual GPs, one practice owner per practice received an invitation with a link to the online questionnaire. One reminder has been sent. RESULTS: General practices adapted their organisation during the corona pandemic, partly based on information and advice from their professional organisations. The adjustments were necessary to ensure that patient care continued as much and as safely as possible, often remotely. The use of video consultations quickly increased from 6% to 65% of the practices. The cooperation with neighbouring practices improved and practices felt supported by the professional organisations. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic itself, remote care and stricter patient flow management have put pressure on the quality of care and patient safety. The accessibility of the practices was sometimes limited. In the perception of patients, this was stronger than in reality.

Developing modern primary care nursing in North Macedonia.

BACKGROUND: Nurses have the potential to make a real impact on the health and well-being of people and populations and contribute to the realisation of delivery of Universal Health Coverage. However, in many parts of the world, the education and practice of nursing and nurses' position in health care and society are restricted by a range of social, cultural, economic and political factors. In North Macedonia, the Ministry of Health in partnership with the WHO Country Office launched a primary healthcare strategy supporting the development of nurses in primary care to fulfil their full scope of service. AIMS: To present information on the education, practice and position of nursing, in particular primary care nursing, in North Macedonia and to describe the ongoing initiatives to support the further development of nursing. APPROACH: Background documents reviewed, and visits to healthcare settings, organisations, interviews with individuals and groups and workshops undertaken in 2019-2020. FINDINGS: Three key areas of development were identified: education of nurses, their service delivery and practice in primary care, and their position in health care and society, all underpinned by the need for workforce planning. The findings formed the basis of a 10-year plan: Making Change Happen: The Nursing and Midwifery Development Roadmap. DEVELOPMENTS: To support the proposed primary care pilots, during the 2020/2021 COVID-19 pandemic, an on-line modular programme for primary care nurses was developed and delivered with the support of members drawn from The National Working Group for Moving Primary Care Nursing Forward in North Macedonia. Further work is planned to develop initial nurse education and to pilot changes in primary care. CONCLUSIONS: The launch of the primary healthcare strategy stimulated initiatives to improve the education, position and practice of primary care nursing. The COVID-19 pandemic required flexibility and changes to the original plans.

The Organization of Outreach Work for Vulnerable Patients in General Practice during COVID-19: Results from the Cross-Sectional PRICOV-19 Study in 38 Countries.

The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affected vulnerable populations' access to health care. By proactively reaching out to them, general practices attempted to prevent the underutilization of their services. This paper examined the association between practice and country characteristics and the organization of outreach work in general practices during COVID-19. Linear mixed model analyses with practices nested in countries were performed on the data of 4982 practices from 38 countries. A 4-item scale on outreach work was constructed as the outcome variable with a reliability of 0.77 and 0.97 at the practice and country level. The results showed that many practices set up outreach work, including extracting at least one list of patients with chronic conditions from their electronic medical record (30.1%); and performing telephone outreach to patients with chronic conditions (62.8%), a psychological vulnerability (35.6%), or possible situation of domestic violence or a child-rearing situation (17.2%). Outreach work was positively related to the availability of an administrative assistant or practice manager (p < 0.05) or paramedical support staff (p < 0.01). Other practice and country characteristics were not significantly associated with undertaking outreach work. Policy and financial interventions supporting general practices to organize outreach work should focus on the range of personnel available to support such practice activities.

Has the COVID-19 Pandemic Led to Changes in the Tasks of the Primary Care Workforce? An International Survey among General Practices in 38 Countries (PRICOV-19).

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a large and varying impact on primary care. This paper studies changes in the tasks of general practitioners (GPs) and associated staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data from the PRICOV-19 study of 5093 GPs in 38 countries were used. We constructed a scale for task changes and performed multilevel analyses. The scale was reliable at both GP and country level. Clustering of task changes at country level was considerable (25%). During the pandemic, staff members were more involved in giving information and recommendations to patients contacting the practice by phone, and they were more involved in triage. GPs took on additional responsibilities and were more involved in reaching out to patients. Problems due to staff absence, when dealt with internally, were related to more task changes. Task changes were larger in practices employing a wider range of professional groups. Whilst GPs were happy with the task changes in practices with more changes, they also felt the need for further training. A higher-than-average proportion of elderly people and people with a chronic condition in the practice were related to task changes. The number of infections in a country during the first wave of the pandemic was related to task changes. Other characteristics at country level were not associated with task changes. Future research on the sustainability of task changes after the pandemic is needed.

Comparative performance of public and private primary care service delivery in Malaysia: An analysis of findings from QUALICOPC.

INTRODUCTION: Primary care services are essential in achieving universal health coverage and Malaysia is looking into public-private partnership to overcome resource constraints. The study aims to compare the performance of primary care service delivery dimensions between public and private sector. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used the data from the Malaysian International Quality and Costs of Primary Care (QUALICOPC) study conducted in 2015-2016. The relative performance of each sector in four dimensions was compared using multi-level linear regression by incorporating a dummy variable indicating public sector in the model. RESULTS: The public sector was shown to have higher performance in comprehensiveness and coordination, while the private sector was better in continuity. There was no significant difference in accessibility. The public primary care services were better in serving primary care sensitive conditions, better informational continuity, and with better skill-mix and inter- and intra- professional relationship. Meanwhile, the private sector was stronger in referral decision making process, specialist feedback and greater out of hours facilities access. CONCLUSIONS: The public and private sectors differ in their strengths, which the government may tap into to strengthen primary care services. Other areas for improvement include seamless care strategies that promote good referral, feedback, and information continuity.

Task shifting from general practitioners to practice assistants and nurses in primary care: a cross-sectional survey in 34 countries.

AIM: To describe variation in task shifting from GPs to practice assistants/nurses in 34 countries and to explain differences by analysing associations with characteristics of the GPs and their practices and features of the health care systems. BACKGROUND: Redistribution of tasks and responsibilities in primary care are driven by changes in demand, such as the growing number of patients with chronic conditions, and workforce developments, including staff shortage. The need to manage an expanding range of services has led to adaptations in the skill-mix of primary care teams. These developments are hampered by barriers between professional domains. METHODS: Data were collected between 2011 and 2013 through a cross-sectional survey among approximately 7,200 general practitioners (GPs) in 34 countries. Task shifting is measured through a composite score of GPs' self-reported shifting of tasks. Independent variables at GP and practice level are as follows: innovativeness; part-time working; availability of staff; location and population of the practice. Country-level independent variables are as follows: demand for and supply of care, nurse prescribing, and professionalisation of practice assistants/nurses. Multilevel analysis is used to account for clustering of GPs in countries. FINDINGS: Countries vary in the degree of task shifting. Regarding GP and practice characteristics, use of electronic health records and availability of support staff in the practice are positively associated with task shifting and GPs' working hours negatively, in line with our hypotheses. Age of the GPs is, contrary to our hypothesis, positively related to task shifting. These variables explain 11% of the variance at GP level. Two country variables are related to task shifting: a lower percentage of practices without support staff in a country and nurse prescribing rights coincide with more task shifting. The percentage of practices without support staff has the strongest relationship, explaining 73% of the country variation.

Assessing the outcomes and experiences of care from the perspective of people living with chronic conditions, to support countries in developing people-centred policies and practices: study protocol of the International Survey of People Living with Chronic Conditions (PaRIS survey).

INTRODUCTION: In view of growing populations with chronic conditions, many countries are redesigning their health systems. However, little information is available about how health systems perform from the perspective of people living with chronic conditions. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Member States therefore mandated the OECD to initiate the International Survey of People Living with Chronic Conditions (PaRIS survey), which aims to provide insight in outcomes and experiences of care as reported by people living with chronic conditions. The PaRIS-SUR consortium has been tasked by the OECD to support the development and implementation of the survey. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: As primary care services play a pivotal role in the management of chronic conditions, the PaRIS survey will be implemented in the primary care setting. Data will be collected with a survey among users of primary care services aged 45 years or older, of whom many have chronic conditions. An additional survey is conducted among their primary care providers. The nested study design will allow analysis of the patient-reported data in relation to characteristics of and care provided by primary care providers within and across countries. In 2022, the survey will be tested in a Field Trial in participating countries. Data for cross-country comparison will be collected by the Main Survey in 2023. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Informed consent will be obtained from primary care providers and service users. National Project Managers search ethical approval of the survey in their country, if required. Reporting by the OECD will focus on questions for international comparison. A secured information technology platform will be developed for participants and stakeholders in countries to receive feedback and answer their own questions. Findings will also be disseminated through an international OECD flagship report, conferences, scientific papers and policy briefs, to inform strategies to improve care for people living with chronic conditions throughout the world.

Priority setting and cross-country learning: the relevance of TO-REACH for primary care.

AIM: To inform the primary care community about priorities for research in primary care as came up from the European project TO-REACH and to discuss transferability of service and policy innovations between countries. BACKGROUND: TO-REACH stands for Transfer of Organizational innovations for Resilient, Effective, equitable, Accessible, sustainable and Comprehensive Health services and systems. This EU-funded project has put health systems and services research higher on the European agenda and has led to the current development of a European 'Partnership Transforming Health and Care Systems'. METHODS: To identify research priorities, both qualitative and quantitative approaches were used. Policy documents and strategic roadmaps were searched, and priorities were mapped. Stakeholders were involved through national roundtable consultations and online consultations. Regarding transferability, we carried out a review of the literature, guided by a conceptual framework, and using a snowballing approach. FINDINGS: Primary care emerged as an important priority from the inventory, as are areas that are conducive to strengthening primary care, such as workforce policies. The large variation in service organisation and policy around primary care in Europe is a huge potential for cross-country learning. However, the simple transfer of primary care service and policy arrangements from one health system to another has a big chance to fail, unless known conditions for successful transfer are taken into account and gaps in our knowledge about transfer are resolved.

The health of detainees and the role of primary care: Position paper of the European Forum for Primary Care.

This position paper aims to increase awareness among primary care practitioners and policymakers about the specific and complex health needs of people who experience incarceration. We focus on the importance of primary care and of continuity of care between prison and community. We highlight what is known from the literature on the health of people who experience incarceration, on the organisation of prison health care, and on the role of primary care both during and after detention. We present three case descriptions of detainees' encounters with the organisation of prison health care in three European countries. Finally, we describe the position that the European Forum for Primary Care takes. Prisoners and ex-prisoners have a worse physical and mental health compared with a cross-section of the population. However, access to good quality treatment and care is often worse than in the outside situation. In particular, well-organised primary care in the prison context could benefit prisoners and, indirectly, society at large. Moreover, continuity of care between the community and the prison situation needs improvement.

Migrant GPs and patients: a cross-sectional study of practice characteristics, patient experiences and migration concordance.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate practice type and location of native and immigrant general practitioners (GPs); effects of migration status concordance between GPs and patients on experiences of patients in key areas of primary care quality and discrimination. DESIGN AND SETTING: Secondary analysis of GP and patient survey data from QUALICOPC (Quality and Costs of Primary Care), a cross-sectional study of GPs and their patients in 34 countries, performed between 2011 and 2013. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We explored practice type and location of native and immigrant GPs and the experiences of native patients and patients with a migration background of communication, continuity, comprehensiveness, accessibility, and discrimination, using multilevel analysis. Concordance was modelled as a cross-level interaction between migration status of GPs and patients. RESULTS: Percentages of immigrant GPs varied widely. In Europe, this was highest in England and Luxemburg (40% of GPs born abroad) and lowest in Bulgaria and Romania (1%). The practice population of immigrant GPs more often included an above average proportion of people from ethnic minorities. There were no differences in main effects of patient experiences following a visit to an immigrant or native GP, in four core areas of primary care or in discrimination. However, people from first-generation migrant background more often experienced discrimination, in particular when visiting a native GP. CONCLUSION: Patient experiences did not vary with GPs' migration status. Although experience of discrimination was uncommon, first-generation migrant patients experienced more discrimination. Primary care should provide non-discriminatory care, through GP awareness of unconscious bias and training to address this. Key messagesThere were large differences in percentage of migrant GPs between countries.Migrant GPs' practices had an above average proportion of people from ethnic minorities.In general, patients' experienced discrimination from GPs and practice staff was low, but first-generation migrant patients more often experienced discrimination.First-generation migrant patients more often experienced discrimination when they visited a native GP.

Exploring crucial programme characteristics and group mechanisms of an empowerment programme for certified nursing assistants-A qualitative study.

AIMS: To identify crucial programme characteristics and group mechanisms of, and lessons learned from hindrances in an empowerment programme for certified nursing assistants and contribute to the development of similar programmes in other care settings. DESIGN: Exploratory qualitative study. METHODS: Between May 2017 and September 2020, we used in-depth interviews and participant observations to study four groups participating in an empowerment programme for certified nursing assistants (N = 44). RESULTS: We identified three crucial empowerment-enhancing programme characteristics: (1) inviting participants to move outside their comfort zone of caregiving; (2) stimulating the use of untapped talents, competencies and interests; (3) supporting the rediscovery of participants' occupational role and worth. Crucial group mechanisms encompassed learning from and with each other, as well as mechanisms of self-correction and self-motivation. Hindrances included a perceived lack of direction, and a lack of organizational support and facilitation. CONCLUSION: We showed the significance of creating an inviting and stimulating environment in which participants can explore and function in ways they otherwise would not. Likewise, we identified how this can help participants learn from, critically correct and motivate one another. IMPACT: The programme under study was uniquely aimed to empower certified nursing assistants. Our insights on crucial programme characteristics and group mechanisms may benefit those who develop empowerment programmes, but also policymakers and managers in supporting certified nursing assistants and other nursing professions in empowerment endeavours. Such empowerment may enhance employee retention and make occupational members more likely to address challenges affecting their occupational group and the long-term care sector.