[Organization and practice in family medicine. What's new in the 2024 literature?] / Organisation des soins en médecine de famille. Quoi de neuf dans la littérature scientifique en 2024 ?

This is a selection of some important studies recently published and dealing with several key organization and functioning features of family medicine. This year, the articles focus on organizational responses to emergencies in family medicine. In this field, the use of primary care professionals other than physicians is an interesting solution. One article examines direct access to a physiotherapist, with very positive results, while a second explores the wide-ranging skills of advanced practice nurses in the emergency field. In some countries, such as Belgium, the use of teleconsultation in primary care is also being considered to avoid inappropriate use of hospital emergencies. Finally, more macroscopic organizational aspects of the healthcare system and the role of primary care in health emergencies will be considered in the last article.

Cet article présente une sélection d'études récemment publiées et explorant différents aspects du fonctionnement de la médecine de famille (MF). Elles sont centrées sur les réponses organisationnelles face à l'urgence en MF. Dans ce domaine, le recours à d'autres professionnels de soins primaires que les médecins est une approche intéressante. Ainsi un premier article porte sur l'accès direct au physiothérapeute et montre des résultats très positifs ; un second décrit les compétences des infirmières de pratique avancée mobilisables dans l'urgence. Le recours à la téléconsultation est aussi envisagé pour une utilisation plus appropriée des urgences hospitalières dans certains pays. Enfin, les aspects organisationnels plus macroscopiques sur la place des soins primaires dans l'urgence sanitaire sont réfléchis dans un dernier article.

Factors for the integration of prevention in primary care: an overview of reviews.

BACKGROUND: The global burden of non-communicable diseases is increasing and the need for prevention is huge. Policies have yet to produce results and prevention indicators remain low. Primary care (PC) represents an opportunity to optimise the practice of prevention, but GPs are coming up against barriers that are holding back their prevention practices. AIM: The aim of this overview of reviews is to identify the barriers and facilitators for the implementation of routine prevention practices in PC. DESIGN AND SETTING: This study is an international overview of reviews focusing on the integration of prevention in PC settings. METHOD: The search was conducted on July 2022 in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Included reviews are: systematic reviews or scoping reviews adopting a systematic approach. RESULTS: The 35 reviews included identify multiple barriers and facilitators related to the integration of prevention in PC. These factors are very heterogeneous as regards their source (the patient, the professional and the health system) and their level of action (individual, organisational or contextual). The results show the need to organise PC at the professional level (e.g. in training), at the local level (e.g. partnerships) and at the political level (e.g. funding model). CONCLUSION: The factors influencing the integration of prevention in PC are multiple and act at different levels (individual, organisational and health system level). Organisation factors play a major role and seem to be a means of overcoming the difficulties encountered by healthcare professionals in developing preventive practices.

General Practitioner's Experience of Public-Private Partnerships to Develop Team-Based Care: A Qualitative Study.

Objectives: A tripartite public-private partnership was established between GPs' practices, public health authorities and a university department of family medicine, to develop multidisciplinary teams and integrate nurses into GPs' practices. The present paper describes the points of view of the GPs involved in this collaboration. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study, with data coming from eight interviews with GPs, one from each practice. We also used the facilitator's project diary to complete the discussion. Results: The principal issue discussed was the financial aspects of the collaboration. GPs are generally satisfied, but time spent coordinating with nurses and transferring activities made them fear financial losses. Secondly, the partnership with public health authorities was well appreciated, but not clear enough. Some aspects of the partnership, such as referring patient to the nurse should have been better defined et controlled. The last aspect was the academic support. It allowed reducing GPs' workload in training nurses and supporting the project implementation within the GPs' practice. Conclusion: GPs have a positive point of view of such public-private partnership and saw an opportunity to be involved in developing public health policies.

[New models of care in family medicine]. / Nouveaux modèles de soins en médecine de famille.

The future of primary care structures will be interprofessional or it will not be! Beyond this somewhat provocative statement, this is, in fact, a transformation that is already on the way in Western countries. This article describes developments in different countries, such as the United States, where Patient-Centered Medical Homes, based on multi-professional teams, have been developing since the 2000s, and Canada, where the evolution of financial models is accompanying that of organizational models. In Europe, two examples of integration of the health and social domains highlight the relevance of such an approach in primary care.

Le futur des structures de première ligne sera interprofessionnel ou ne sera pas ! Au-delà de cette affirmation un peu provocatrice, il s'agit, de fait, d'une transformation déjà bien en marche dans les pays occidentaux. Cet article décrit les évolutions dans différents pays comme aux États-Unis, où les Patient-Centered Medical Home, basées sur des équipes pluriprofessionnelles, se développent depuis les années 2000, et au Canada où l'évolution des modèles financiers accompagne celle des modèles organisationnels. En Europe, deux exemples d'intégration des domaines sanitaire et social soulignent la pertinence d'une telle démarche dans les soins de première ligne.

[Which professionals work in general practices ?. Overview in different countries]. / Quels professionnels travaillent dans les cabinets de médecine de famille ?. Panorama dans différents pays.

The development of multi-professional teamwork in primary care is one solution adopted to meet the needs of care coordination and comprehensive patient management. This article describes the composition of primary care practices in terms of professionals other than general practitioners. It highlights the fact that Western countries are at quite different stages of development in this field.

Le développement du travail en équipe pluriprofessionnelle dans les soins de premier recours est une solution adoptée pour répondre aux besoins de coordination des soins et de prise en charge globale de la patientèle. Cet article décrit la composition des structures de première ligne en termes de professionnels autres que les médecins généralistes. Il met en lumière le constat que les pays occidentaux présentent des états d'avancement assez différents dans le domaine.

Diagnostic Performance of Individual Symptoms to Predict SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR Positivity and Symptom Persistence among Suspects Presenting in Primary Care during the First Wave of COVID-19.

This study aimed to estimate the diagnostic performance of patient symptoms and to describe the clinical course of RT-PCR-positive compared with RT-PCR-negative patients in primary care. Symptomatic COVID-19 suspects were assessed clinically at the initial consultation in primary care between March and May 2020, followed by phone consultations over a span of at least 28 days. Sensitivity and specificity were estimated for each symptom using the initial RT-PCR result as a reference standard. The proportions of symptomatic patients according to the RT-PCR test results were compared over time, and time to recovery was estimated. Out of 883 patients, 13.9% had a positive RT-PCR test, and 17.4% were not tested. Most sensitive symptoms were cough, myalgia, and a history of fever, while most specific symptoms were fever for ≥4 days, hypo/anosmia, and hypo/ageusia. At the final follow up (median time 55 days, range 28-105 days), 44.7% of patients still reported symptoms in the RT-PCR-positive group, compared with 18.3% in the negative group (p < 0.001), mostly with hypo/anosmia (16.3%), dyspnea (12.2%), and fatigue (10.6%). The discriminative value of individual symptoms for diagnosing COVID-19 was limited. Almost half of the SARS-CoV-2-positive patients still reported symptoms at least 28 days after the initial consultation.

Consultation frequency and general practitioners' and practices' characteristics.

BACKGROUND: High workloads generated by a few patients who consult very frequently can become huge burdens for general practitioners (GPs). Patient-related factors have been repeatedly associated with frequent consultations, but there is evidence that GPs can also influence that frequency. We investigated how patients, GPs and their practices' organisational characteristics were associated with consultation frequency. METHODS: Data came from the SPAM Prev (Swiss Primary Health Care Active Monitoring, Prevention in primary care) national, cross-sectional survey conducted in 2015-16, including 167 GPs and 1105 patients. GPs completed an online questionnaire focused on practice organisation. Patients randomly recruited in general practices completed a questionnaire with fieldworkers. Factors predicting consultation frequency were investigated using multilevel Poisson regression models. RESULTS: Negative associations with consultation frequency were found for females (Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR) 0.94, 95%CI [0.88-1.01]), less compliant patients (IRR 0.91, 95%CI [0.84-0.98]), high self-perceived health status (IRR 0.8, 95%CI [0.75-0.84]) and physical exercise (IRR 0.87, 95%CI [0.81-0.94]). Consultation frequencies were higher among patients with sleeping problems (IRR 1.08, 95%CI [0.96-1.23]), psychological distress (IRR 1.66, 95%CI [1.49-1.86]), chronic diseases (IRR 1.27, 95%CI [1.18-1.37]) and treatment with medication (IRR 1.24, 95%CI [1.12-1.37]). Positive associations with consultation frequency were found among GPs working longer hours (IRR 1.21, 95%CI [1.01-1.46]). Using shared medical records (IRR 0.79, 95%CI [0.67-0.92]) were negatively associated with consultation frequency. CONCLUSION: GPs' practices' characteristics, like patients', are predictive of patients' consultation frequency, but those associations' underlying mechanisms require further qualitative investigation. These new findings could help optimise intervention strategies and reduce healthcare costs.

A Cross-Sectional Study of the Prevalence and Determinants of Common Mental Health Problems in Primary Care in Switzerland.

Objective: This study investigated the prevalence of the most common mental health symptoms in a large primary care patient population and characterized their determinants. Methods: Data came from a 2015-16 cross-sectional study of a primary care population in Switzerland. An investigator presented the study to patients in waiting rooms, and 1,103 completed a tablet-based questionnaire measuring stress in daily life, sleep disorders and anxiety and depressive symptoms. Diagnoses and treatments were recorded. Results: Moderate-to-high anxiety and depressive symptoms concerned 7.7% of patients; 27.6% felt stressed at least once a week; 17.2% had severe sleep disorders. Sociodemographic determinants were associated with psychiatric symptoms: female sex, young age, and frequency of consultations with a GP. Participants taking psychotropics had high levels of mental distress. Conclusion: Even though most patients were regularly monitored by their GP, a significant number of mental health problems were found. GPs should be provided with concrete tools to manage these patients better. Collaboration with mental health specialists should be encouraged in primary care settings.

How to Better Integrate Social Determinants of Health into Primary Healthcare: Various Stakeholders' Perspectives.

This paper aims to identify challenges and opportunities related to the integration of social determinants of health (SDH) into primary healthcare at an international symposium in Orford, Quebec, Canada. A descriptive qualitative approach was conducted. Three focus groups on different topics were led by international facilitators. Two research team members took notes during the focus groups. All the material was analyzed using a thematic analysis according to an inductive method. Many challenges were identified, leading to the identification of potential opportunities: integrate the concept of SDH in all phases of the training curriculum for health professionals to foster interprofessional and intersectoral collaboration and sociocultural skills; organize healthcare for better outreach to vulnerable populations; organize local and regional committees to develop management frameworks to produce and use territory-specific data; develop dashboards for primary healthcare providers describing the composition of their territory's population; work collaboratively, rallying primary healthcare providers, community organization delegates, patient partners, citizens, and municipality representatives around common projects. Discussions prompted new directions for further primary healthcare research, among which are building on best practices in the literature and in the field, and engaging various stakeholders in research, including vulnerable populations, while focusing on patient experience.

L'interprofessionnalité face à la pandémie.

Les situations de crise comme booster des pratiques de collaboration interprofessionnelle dans les soins de première ligne.

Identifying complex patients in family medicine for potential benefit from a case manager: a short questionnaire derived from the INTERMED Self-Assessment (IMSA) questionnaire.

PURPOSE: To investigate how useful the Intermed-Self Assessment (IMSA) questionnaire and its components were for identifying which patient candidates would benefit most from case management (CM) in general practice. METHODS: The study was carried out in a group family medicine practice in Lausanne comprising seven GPs and four medical assistants, from February to April 2019. All the patients attending the practice between February and April 2019 were invited to complete the IMSA questionnaire. Additionally, their GPs were asked for their opinions on the potential benefits of each patient being assigned a case manager. Each IMSA item's value has been assessed as a predictor of GPs' opinions by using multivariate logistic models. A score including items retained as predictor was built. RESULTS: Three hundred and thirty one patients participated in the study (participation rate: 62%). Three items from the 20 item IMSA were sufficient to predict GPs' opinions about whether their patients could be expected to benefit if assigned a case manager. Those items addressed the patient's existing chronic diseases (item1), quality of life in relation to existing diseases (item 3), and their social situation (item 9). Using these three items as a score, a cut-off at 4 gave a sensitivity of 70% (ability to correctly identify patients who could benefit from a CM) and specificity of 73% (ability to correctly identify patients who should not benefit from a CM) and concerned about one patient in two. CONCLUSION: Identifying complex patients suitable for case management remains a challenge for primary care professionals. This paper describes a novel approach using a structured process of combining the results of standardized tools such as the one defined in this study, and the experience of the primary care team.

Les soins primaires face à la COVID-19 : une comparaison Belgique, France, Québec et Suisse.

INTRODUCTION: Facing COVID-19, most of health care system first responded with the confinement of the population and an increase of intensive care resources. Primary care was then mobilized variably and more or less coordinated. PURPOSE OF RESEARCH: Comparing the involvement of primary care in four francophone regions with similar primary care to draw lessons for reforms directions in light of the COVID experience. RESULTS: Mobilization of primary care actors was important, heterogeneous and linked to local context and previous dynamics at the territorial level or the practice level except in Quebec where primary care is governed by health authorities. The creation of COVID centers was systematic as "warm practices" in Quebec or left to the initiative of local stakeholders more or less supported by health authorities. Teleconsultation, largely dominated by the use of the telephone, was implemented everywhere, generally supported by flexible and adapted pricing. The performance of diagnostic tests such as vaccination by new professionals within a legal, financial and simple training framework is a major area for improvement. Information systems to assess local needs were insufficient everywhere. CONCLUSION: The definition of primary care governance methods and, in particular, the link between professionals and public health operators in the four areas studied is a priority area for improvement at both local and national levels.

[Occupational cancers: essentials for the general practioners]. / Cancers professionnels : l'essentiel pour le médecin au cabinet.

Given the frequency of cancers, prevention is based on knowledge of the causes. Experts estimate the proportion of cancers attributable to work at around 5 %. If it is shown that exposure at work is involved, the patient can claim compensation for an occupational disease. In order for the occupational origin to be identified, it is important to know which jobs/sectors of activity are possibly at risk. The aim of this article is to present the six main cancer sites for which a link with occupational exposure has been documented, to specify the causes of the under-reporting of occupational cancers, the role of the treating physician working in a multidisciplinary network, and the tools and practical advice for optimizing the support to patients/their relatives.

Face à la fréquence des cancers, la prévention repose sur la connaissance des étiologies. Des experts estiment la part des cancers attribuables au travail autour de 5 %. Si l'on démontre qu'une exposition au travail est en cause, le patient peut prétendre à une indemnisation en maladie professionnelle. Pour que l'origine professionnelle puisse être identifiée, il est important de savoir quels métiers/secteurs d'activité sont possiblement à risque. L'objectif de cet article est de présenter les 6 principaux sites de cancers pour lesquels un lien avec des expositions professionnelles est documenté, de préciser les causes de la sous-déclaration des cancers professionnels, le rôle du médecin traitant travaillant en réseau pluridisciplinaire, ainsi que les outils et les conseils pratiques pour optimiser l'accompagnement des patients/leurs proches.

Risk of COVID-19 and Psychological Impact of the Pandemic in Swiss Primary Care Physicians.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is limited data on primary care physicians (PCPs) who suffered from COVID-19. We aimed to assess the proportion of PCPs with COVID-19, the proportion hospitalized with COVID-19, and the number of days off work. We also explored their psychological suffering due to the pandemic. METHODS: We selected a random sample of 1,000 PCPs practicing in the seven cantons of Western Switzerland (November/December 2020). PCPs were invited by mail to complete a questionnaire. RESULTS: The participation rate was 51% (N=506). The burden of disease was high among PCPs: 13% suffered from COVID-19, 0.4% needed hospitalization, and 10 days off work were required on average. In addition, many PCPs reported experiencing heightened psychological symptoms, mainly fatigue (53%) and stress/anxiety (48%). CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the urgent need to implement preventive measures to reduce the risk of COVID-19 and psychological illness in PCPs.

[Physician selfcare or the cobblers of Montaigne]. / Selfcare des médecins ou les cordonniers de Montaigne.

A recent survey conducted in the French-speaking part of Switzerland ("Romandie") showed that only about half of the primary care physicians (PCP) in Romandie had a personal doctor. Moreover, 37 % of the PCP declared they had foregone consulting a doctor for a health problem or a check-up during the past year. Finally, 29 % of them had chosen to continue working despite being ill. The literature describes multiple origins for these behaviors, both systemic (especially workload) and individual (denial, fear of social and peer judgment, culture of invincibility…). There is room for improvement for this still too often overlooked problem, in order to enhance the PCP's health (or well-being), and consequently the quality of care.

Une récente enquête menée en Suisse romande a montré qu'environ la moitié seulement des médecins de premier recours (MPR) romands avaient un médecin traitant. De plus, 37 % des MPR ont déclaré avoir renoncé à consulter un médecin pour un problème de santé durant l'année écoulée. Enfin, ils étaient aussi 29 % à avoir choisi de continuer à travailler tout en étant malades. La littérature évoque divers facteurs pouvant expliquer ou du moins contribuer à ces comportements, qu'il s'agisse de facteurs systémiques (principalement la charge de travail) ou individuels (déni, peur du jugement de la société et des pairs ou culture de la toute-puissance). Des voies d'amélioration, pour traiter cette problématique souvent méconnue, sont non seulement possibles, mais certainement nécessaires pour le bien de nos médecins et la qualité des soins délivrés aux patients.

[Organization and practice in family medicine: What's new in the 2021 literature?] / Organisation des soins en médecine de famille - Quoi de neuf dans la littérature scientifique en 2021 ?

This is a selection of some important studies recently published and dealing with several key organization and functioning features of family medicine. This year, three of the four articles focus on teamwork in primary care. They show the value of such a practice, both for the well-being of professionals and for the efficiency of the healthcare system. The last article highlights the value of adopting healthy behaviors at age 50 to reduce the risk of frailty associated with older age.

Cet article présente une sélection d'études marquantes récemment publiées et qui explorent différents aspects du fonctionnement et de l'organisation de la médecine de famille dans le monde. Cette année, trois des quatre articles portent sur le fonctionnement en équipe en soins primaires. Ils démontrent l'intérêt d'une telle pratique, aussi bien sur le bien-être des professionnels que pour l'efficience du système de santé. Le dernier article souligne l'intérêt de l'adoption de comportements de santé dès l'âge de 50 ans pour réduire le risque de fragilité lié au grand âge.

The prevalence of five lifestyle risk factors in primary care physicians: A cross-sectional study in Switzerland.

Having a healthy lifestyle is important not only for the health of physicians, but also for the realisation and effectiveness of counselling on patients. Information on lifestyle habits and the presence of health-related behaviours in primary care physicians (PCPs) is lacking. Using a cross-sectional study design, an anonymous questionnaire was sent to a random sample of 1'000 PCPs practicing in the seven Western cantons of Switzerland. In our sample, we assessed the presence of five lifestyle risk factors, namely current smoking, at risk alcohol consumption, insufficient physical activity, being overweight and insufficient hours of sleep. 510 physicians participated in our study (51% participation rate). Respondents were 51% women, with a majority of general practitioners (67%), followed by paediatricians (19%) and gynaecologists (14%). 57% of PCPs had no or one lifestyle risk factor, 40% had two or three and 3% had four or all five. The average number of lifestyle risk factors was 1.39. Insufficient physical activity was the most prevalent lifestyle risk factor (40%), followed by excess weight and insufficient hours of sleep (32%), at risk drinking (25%) and current smoking (9%). Having ≥2 lifestyle risk factors was associated to being a man, working in a solo practice and for ≥7 half-days per week. Overall, a majority of Swiss PCPs have no or one lifestyle risk factor, but certain unfavourable health-related behaviours are present, notably insufficient physical activity. Developing strategies and courses to improve physicians' lifestyles should be proposed early on in the medical curriculum.