COVID-19 fosters social accountability in medical education.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted embedded inequities and fragmentation in our health systems. Traditionally, structural issues with health professional education perpetuate these. COVID-19 has highlighted inequities, but may also be a disruptor, allowing positive responses and system redesign. Examples from health professional schools in high and low- and middle-income countries illustrate pro-equity interventions of current relevance. We recommend that health professional schools and planners consider educational redesign to produce a health workforce well equipped to respond to pandemics and meet future need.

Chronic Disease Management Programmes: an adequate response to patients' needs?

BACKGROUND: Inspired by American examples, several European countries are now developing disease management programmes (DMPs) to improve the quality of care for patients with chronic diseases. Recently, questions have been raised whether the disease management approach is appropriate to respond to patient-defined needs. OBJECTIVE: In this article we consider the responsiveness of current European DMPs to patients' needs defined in terms of multimorbidity, functional and participation problems, and self-management. METHOD: Information about existing DMPs was derived from a survey among country-experts. In addition, we made use of international scientific literature. RESULTS: Most European DMPs do not have a solid answer yet to the problem of multimorbidity. Methods of linking DMPs, building extra modules to deal with the most prevalent comorbidities and integration of case management principles are introduced. Rehabilitation, psychosocial and reintegration support are not included in all DMPs, and the involvement of the social environment of the patient is uncommon. Interventions tailored to the needs of specific social or cultural patient groups are mostly not available. Few DMPs provide access to individualized patient information to strengthen self-management, including active engagement in decision making. CONCLUSION: To further improve the responsiveness of DMPs to patients' needs, we suggest to monitor 'patient relevant outcomes' that might be based on the ICF-model. To address the needs of patients with multimorbidity, we propose a generic comprehensive model, embedded in primary care. A goal-oriented approach provides the opportunity to prioritize goals that really matter to patients.

Quality of care: the need for medical, contextual and policy evidence in primary care.

The increasing availability of medical evidence in clinical practice was expected to improve the quality of care. However, this has not been realized. A possible explanation is that quality of care is a complex concept and needs a wider scope. Starting from the Donabedian triangle of structure, process and outcome, a framework for the analysis of quality of care is presented. The need for three types of evidence is identified and discussed: medical, contextual and policy evidence. Although the body of medical evidence is increasing, it has major flaws and gaps hampering its applicability in primary care. There is also a need to focus on the context of the medical encounter, which has been shown to influence outcome, but is still not well researched. Finally, evidence on costs, cost utility and equity needs to be considered. Taking these different aspects of evidence into account, an agenda for research in primary care is set. The analytical framework may provide new insights in the quest for improving quality of health care.

The GP's perception of poverty: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Health differences between people from lower and higher social classes increase. The accessibility of the health care system is one of the multiple and complex causes. The Physician's perceptions, beliefs and attitudes towards the patient are in this context important determinants. OBJECTIVES: To explore the general practitioners' definition of poverty and their perception of the deprived patients' attitude towards health and health care, to get insight into the ways general practitioners deal with the problem of poverty and to present the proposals general practitioners make to improve health care for the deprived. METHOD: The study involved qualitative methodology using 21 semi-structured interviews. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were coded using Framework Analysis techniques. Interviews were undertaken with general practitioners in primary care, working in a deprived area in the city of Ghent. RESULTS: In the definition of poverty, three concepts can be identified: socioeconomic aspects, psychological and individual characteristics, and socio-cultural concepts. General practitioners adopt different types of approaches to deal with deprived patients in practice: adaptation of the doctor-patient communication, lowering of the financial threshold, referral to specialists and other health care professionals. CONCLUSION: Including the issue of poverty and poverty in the curriculum of the medical students and in the in-service training for practicing doctors could have a positive impact on their attitude towards this patient group. Further research is needed into the barriers in the accessibility of the health care system for the deprived, exploring qualitatively and quantitatively the experiences and the living conditions of deprived patients and the perceptions of health care providers.

[Primary health care and responsibilities of public health in 6 countries of Europe and North America: a pilot study]. / Atencion primaria y responsabilidades de salud pública en seis países de Europa y América del Norte: un estudio piloto.

BACKGROUND: Rapidly occurring changes within the health care systems are creating an opportunity to re-orient the relationships between their different sectors. In order to know the locus of responsibility for various types of preventive activities, we undertook an inquiry on eight areas in six countries from Europe and North America. METHODS: An inquiry among experts based on a matrix which arrayed the type of preventive health services against the target population. Eight clinical conditions were identified (childhood immunizations; adult influenza vaccination; mammography screening, tuberculosis screening, hypertension screening. PKU screening, HIV screening, and osteoporosis testing) trying to know their target population and the locus of responsibility for setting of policy, level to contact individuals for testing, follow-up of people with abnormal tests and maintenance of their medical records. RESULTS: This pilot study showed very little results coincidence either within the eight surveyed areas or across them. There was no regular pattern for the preventive activities studied among the different countries, neither according to the type of health system, nor to the primary health care orientation of the different systems. CONCLUSIONS: There was a limited consensus in the activities studied concerning the best mode of doing public health interventions for personal health services.

Why research in family medicine? A superfluous question.

The ultimate answer to the question, "Why research in family medicine?" is to provide better care for our patients. Through research we want to improve quality of primary care by improving our understanding and practice of it. This research will inevitably be specific for family medicine as family medicine is a specific discipline. In this article we first explore what makes family medicine a specific discipline. In a second part we present a framework to grasp the various research questions that must be answered to achieve the complex and multifaceted goal of improving quality of care. Family medicine is a specific discipline for 3 reasons: it has a unique epidemiology, the context of care is important, and it has a strong link and responsibility to the community. Quality of care is a complex and multidimensional concept that raises diverse research questions. We propose to map these questions within a framework defined by the 3 dimensions of the Donabedian triangle--structure, process, and outcome-and within each of these dimensions by 5 foci-basic knowledge, diagnostic and therapeutic problem solving, practice implementation, policy context, and education. This framework may help to make the various research questions operational and to point out the gaps in our research. The questions and answers should be relevant to daily practice and comprise all domains of family medicine so that eventually most of our daily actions in practice will be underpinned with medical, contextual, and policy evidence and contribute to the improvement of the quality of care.

The need for research in primary care.

Making evidence from scientific studies available to clinical practice has been expected to directly improve quality of care, but this expectation has not been realised. The notion of quality of care is complex, and quality improvement needs medical, contextual, and policy evidence. In primary care, research is needed that takes into account the specific characteristics of its population and the presentation and prevalence of illness and disease. The context of the doctor-patient encounter plays a major part, and needs better understanding. At the policy level, issues of equity must be addressed. The knowledge base for family practice must be expanded by integration of multiple methods of comprehension, so we can bridge the gap between evidence and practice.

Provider continuity in family medicine: does it make a difference for total health care costs?

BACKGROUND: International comparisons of health care systems have shown a relationship at the macro level between a well-structured primary health care plan and lower total health care costs. The objective of this study was to assess whether provider continuity with a family physician is related to lower health care costs using the individual patient as the unit of analysis. METHODS: We undertook a study of a stratified sample of patients (age, sex, region, insurance company) for which 2 cohorts were constructed based on the patients' utilization pattern of family medicine (provider continuity or not). Patient utilization patterns were observed for 2 years. The setting was the Belgian health care system. The participants were 4,134 members of the 2 largest health insurance companies in 2 regions (Aalst and Liège). The main outcome measures were the total health care costs of patients with and without provider continuity with a family physician, controlling for variables known to influence health care utilization (need factors, predisposing factors, enabling factors). RESULTS: Bivariate analyses showed that patients who were visiting the same family physician had a lower total cost for medical care. A multivariate linear regression showed that provider continuity with a family physician was one of the most important explanatory variables related to the total health care cost. CONCLUSIONS: Provider continuity with a family physician is related to lower total health care costs. This finding brings evidence to the debate on the importance of structured primary health care (with high continuity for family practice) for a cost-effective health policy.

Does amoxicillin improve outcomes in patients with purulent rhinorrhea? A pragmatic randomized double-blind controlled trial in family practice.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of amoxicillin vs placebo in patients with an acute upper respiratory tract infection and purulent rhinorrhea. STUDY DESIGN: Double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial. POPULATION: The 416 patients included from 69 family practices were 12 years or older, presenting with acute upper respiratory complaints, and having a history of purulent rhinorrhea and no signs of complications of sinusitis. OUTCOMES MEASURED: Therapy success (disappearance of symptoms that most greatly affected the patient's health) at day 10 and duration of general illness, pain, and purulent rhinorrhea. RESULTS: Therapy was successful in 35% of patients with amoxicillin and in 29% of patients with placebo (relative risk [RR] 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-1.42). There was no effect on duration of general illness or pain. Duration of purulent rhinorrhea was shortened by amoxicillin (9 days vs 14 for clearing of purulent rhinorrhea in 75% of patients; P =.007). Diarrhea was more frequent with amoxicillin (29% vs 19%, RR 1.28, 95% CI, 1.05-1.57). No complications were reported. One patient (0.5%) receiving amoxicillin and 7 (3.4%) receiving placebo discontinued trial therapy because of exacerbation of symptoms (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.04-1.56, P =.07). All 8 patients recovered with antibiotic therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Amoxicillin has a beneficial effect on purulent rhinorrhea caused by an acute infection of the nose or sinuses but not on general recovery. The practical implication is that all such patients, whatever the suspected diagnosis, can be safely treated with symptomatic therapy and instructed to return if symptoms worsen.