Effects of climate-related risks and extreme events on health outcomes and health utilization of primary care in rural and remote areas: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Rural populations are at risk of climate-related impacts due to ecological and geographical determinants, potentially leading to greater morbidity and health utilization. They are often highly dependent on primary care services. However, no rural- or primary care specific synthesis of these issues has ever been conducted. This review aimed to identify, characterize, and summarize existing research on the effects of climate-related events on utilization and health outcomes of primary care in rural and remote areas and identify related adaptation strategies used in primary care to climate-related events. METHODS: A scoping review following PRISMA-ScR guidelines was conducted, examining peer-reviewed English-language articles published up to 31 October 2022. Eligible papers were empirical studies conducted in primary care settings that involved climate-related events as exposures, and health outcomes or utilization as study outcomes. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted relevant information from selected papers. Data were analysed using content analysis and presented using a narrative approach. RESULTS: We screened 693 non-duplicate papers, of those, 60 papers were analysed. Climate-related events were categorized by type, with outcomes described in terms of primary, secondary, and tertiary effects. Disruption of primary care often resulted from shortages in health resources. Primary care may be ill-prepared for climate-related events but has an important role in supporting the development of community. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest various effects of climate-related events on primary care utilization and health outcomes in rural and remote areas. There is a need to prepare rural and remote primary care service before and after climate-related events.

Integrating General Practice Into the Australian COVID-19 Response: A Description of the General Practitioner Respiratory Clinic Program in Australia.

Integrating primary care with the health response is key to managing pandemics and other health emergencies. In recognition of this, the Australian Government established a network of respiratory clinics led by general practitioners in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic as part of broader measures aimed at supporting primary care. General practitioner (GP) respiratory clinics provide holistic face-to-face assessment and treatment to those with respiratory symptoms in an environment with strict protocols for infection prevention and control. This ensures that these patients are able to access high quality primary care while protecting the general practice workforce and other patients. The GP respiratory clinic model was developed and operationalized 10 days after the policy was announced, with the first 2 respiratory clinics opening on March 21, 2020. Subsequently a total of 150 respiratory clinics were opened and served over 800,000 patients within more than 99% of Australia's postcodes. These clinics used a standardized data collection tool that has provided the largest and most complete primary care surveillance database of respiratory illness in Australia. The success of the GP respiratory clinic model was made possible due to strong partnerships with Primary Health Networks and individual general practices that rapidly shifted operations to embrace this new approach. This article describes the development and early implementation of this model.

Lessons for the global primary care response to COVID-19: a rapid review of evidence from past epidemics.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is the fifth and most significant infectious disease epidemic this century. Primary health care providers, which include those working in primary care and public health roles, have critical responsibilities in the management of health emergencies. OBJECTIVE: To synthesize accounts of primary care lessons learnt from past epidemics and their relevance to COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a review of lessons learnt from previous infectious disease epidemics for primary care, and their relevance to COVID-19. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, PROQUEST and Google Scholar, hand-searched reference lists of included studies, and included research identified through professional contacts. RESULTS: Of 173 publications identified, 31 publications describing experiences of four epidemics in 11 countries were included. Synthesis of findings identified six key lessons: (i) improve collaboration, communication and integration between public health and primary care; (ii) strengthen the primary health care system; (iii) provide consistent, coordinated and reliable information emanating from a trusted source; (iv) define the role of primary care during pandemics; (v) protect the primary care workforce and the community and (vi) evaluate the effectiveness of interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence highlights distinct challenges to integrating and supporting primary care in response to infectious disease epidemics that have persisted over time, emerging again during COVID-19. These insights provide an opportunity for strengthening, and improved preparedness, that cannot be ignored in a world where the frequency, virility and global reach of infectious disease outbreaks are increasing. It is not too soon to plan for the next pandemic, which may already be on the horizon.

Infectious disease epidemics are increasing in frequency and spread. Primary health care providers are at the forefront of community health care, and have an important role in managing health emergencies such as infectious disease epidemics. It is important to use lessons learnt from past epidemics to inform current health system responses. We examined evidence from past epidemics and identified six key lessons that have emerged in 11 countries during four previous epidemics and again during the COVID-19 pandemic. These lessons highlight the importance of integrating pandemic responses across health care disciplines, strengthening the primary health care system, defining the role of primary care during epidemics, protecting the health care workforce and the community, providing clear and consistent information and evaluating the effectiveness of health care responses. Health system weaknesses are exposed to health emergencies. Identification of these recurring lessons for primary health care provides an opportunity to definitively prepare for future infectious disease epidemics.

Identifying barriers and facilitators to primary care practitioners implementing health assessments for people with intellectual disability: a Theoretical Domains Framework-informed scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: People with intellectual disability experience poorer health outcomes compared with the general population, partly due to the difficulties of accessing preventive care in primary care settings. There is good evidence that structured annual health assessments can enhance quality of care for people with intellectual disability, and their use has become recommended policy in several high-income countries. However, uptake remains low. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) offers a conceptual structure for understanding barriers to implementation and has been usefully applied to inform implementation of health assessments for other high-need groups, but not for people with intellectual disability. We conducted a scoping review of the literature, using the TDF, to identify barriers and facilitators influencing primary care practitioners' implementation of annual health assessments for people with intellectual disability as part of routine primary care practice. METHODS: This study was conducted according to the JBI methodological approach for scoping reviews. Searches were conducted in Medline (OVID-SP), Embase (OVID-SP), PsycINFO (OVID-SP), CINHAL (EBSCO), Scopus (Elsevier) and Web of Science (Clarivate) for relevant peer-reviewed publications up to May 2023. Screening, full-text review and data extraction were completed by two independent reviewers. Data were extracted and mapped to the TDF to identify relevant barriers and facilitators. RESULTS: The search yielded 1057 publications, with 21 meeting the inclusion criteria. Mapping data to the TDF, the most frequently identified domains were (a) environmental context and resources, (b) skills, (c) knowledge and (d) emotion. Predominant factors impacting on implementation included practitioners' lack of awareness about health assessments and their identified benefits; inadequate training and experience by practitioners in the delivery of health assessments for people with intellectual disability; insufficient time to provide health assessments; and practitioner burnout. CONCLUSION: Using a theory-informed behavioural framework, our review aids understanding of the barriers and facilitators to improving the implementation of health assessments as part of routine care for people with intellectual disability. However, there is a clear need for further qualitative research to examine the perceptions of primary care practitioners regarding implementation barriers and facilitators to health assessments in general, including views from practitioners who are not currently undertaking health assessments.

Access to general practice for people with intellectual disability in Australia: a systematic scoping review.

BACKGROUND: People with intellectual disability experience inadequate access to general practice and poorer health outcomes than the general population. While some access barriers have been identified for this population, these studies have often used narrow definitions of access, which may not encompass the multiple dimensions that influence access to general practice. To address this gap, we conducted a scoping review to identify factors impacting access to general practice for people with intellectual disability in Australia, using a holistic framework of access conceptualised by Levesque and colleagues. METHODS: This scoping review followed Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. Medline (Ovid), Scopus, CINAHL, Informit and PsycINFO databases were searched. Screening, full-text review and data extraction were completed by two independent reviewers, with consensus reached at each stage of the study. Data were extracted, coded and synthesised through deductive qualitative analysis - using the five corresponding conceptual dimensions within Levesque and colleagues' theoretical framework of access, which incorporate both supply-side features of health systems and services, and demand-side characteristics of consumers and populations. RESULTS: The search identified 1364 publications. After duplicate removal, title and abstract screening and full-text review, 44 publications were included. Supply-side factors were more commonly reported than demand-side factors, with the following issues frequently identified as impacting access to general practice: limited general practitioner education about, and/or experience of, people with intellectual disability; communication difficulties; and inadequate continuity of care. Less frequently included were factors such as the health literacy levels, promotion of general practice services and availability of complete medical records. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first scoping review to assess access barriers for people with intellectual disability using a comprehensive conceptualisation of access. The findings highlight the need for increased efforts to address demand-side dimensions of access to general practice and offer a basis for a balanced portfolio of strategies that can support recent policy initiatives to enhance access to care for people with intellectual disability.

Protecting Nursing Homes and Long-Term Care Facilities From COVID-19: A Rapid Review of International Evidence.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the extreme vulnerability of older people and other individuals who reside in long-term care, creating an urgent need for evidence-based policy that can adequately protect these community members. This study aimed to provide synthesized evidence to support policy decision making. DESIGN: Rapid narrative review investigating strategies that have prevented or mitigated SARS-CoV-2 transmission in long-term care. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Residents and staff in care settings such as nursing homes and long-term care facilities. METHODS: PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were systematically searched, with studies describing potentially effective strategies included. Studies were excluded if they did not report empirical evidence (eg, commentaries and consensus guidelines). Study quality was appraised on the basis of study design; data were extracted from published reports and synthesized narratively using tabulated data extracts and summary tables. RESULTS: Searches yielded 713 articles; 80 papers describing 77 studies were included. Most studies were observational, with no randomized controlled trials identified. Intervention studies provided strong support for widespread surveillance, early identification and response, and rigorous infection prevention and control measures. Symptom- or temperature-based screening and single point-prevalence testing were found to be ineffective, and serial universal testing of residents and staff was considered crucial. Attention to ventilation and environmental management, digital health applications, and acute sector support were also considered beneficial although evidence for effectiveness was lacking. In observational studies, staff represented substantial transmission risk and workforce management strategies were important components of pandemic response. Higher-performing facilities with less crowding and higher nurse staffing ratios had reduced transmission rates. Outbreak investigations suggested that facility-level leadership, intersectoral collaboration, and policy that facilitated access to critical resources were all significant enablers of success. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: High-quality evidence of effectiveness in protecting LTCFs from COVID-19 was limited at the time of this study, though it continues to emerge. Despite widespread COVID-19 vaccination programs in many countries, continuing prevention and mitigation measures may be required to protect vulnerable long-term care residents from COVID-19 and other infectious diseases. This rapid review summarizes current evidence regarding strategies that may be effective.