Cross Infection Concerns, and the Economic Impact on German Dentists During COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: During the COVID-19 pandemic, dental appointments were cancelled or postponed by both patients and dentists. This study investigated the associations between German dentists' concerns on cross infection and their emotional burden due to personal economic impact on dentist-initiated appointment cancellations. METHODS: Data were collected using an anonymous cross-sectional online survey of outpatient physicians in Germany from March through April 2020. Dental treatments were divided into 3 treatment categories (plannable treatments, acute treatments without COVID-19-like symptoms, and acute treatments with COVID-19-like symptoms). Descriptive analyses and multivariate logistic regression models were performed. RESULTS: A sample of 269 self-employed dentists was considered. Cancellations of prophylaxis appointments were reported by 82% of dentists, whilst 49% reported cancellations of appointments for acute complaints with simultaneous patient-side COVID-19-like symptoms. Further, 58% of respondents stated high or very high concerns about COVID-19 self-infection; 81% stated to be emotionally burdened by the personal economic impact. Dentists' concern of infecting themselves significantly decreased the likelihood of maintaining appointments, with odds ratios of 0.635 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.426 to 0.932) for plannable treatments and 0.587 (95% CI, 0.367 to 0.916) for treatments of patients with acute complaints and simultaneous COVID-19-like symptoms. In addition, there was a significant negative association between dentists who reported emotional distress due to personal economic impact and the likelihood to maintain appointments, with odds ratios of 0.291 (95% CI, 0.123 to 0.695) for plannable treatments and 0.231 (95% CI, 0.053; 0.706) for treatments of patients without acute complaints and simultaneous COVID-19-like symptoms. CONCLUSION: Dentists' fear of infecting themselves with COVID-19 played a role in terms of practice-related appointment cancellations. Dentists differentiated their appointment cancellations according to different treatment categories and patient needs. If dental care is to be maintained in pandemic times, physicians' personal factors such as concerns about infection and perceived pandemic-related personal economic impact need to be considered.

What organisational and regional factors influence the outpatient provision of curettages in Germany? A longitudinal secondary data analysis using hospital quality reports data from 2013 to 2019.

OBJECTIVES: The rate of outpatient therapeutic curettage is lower in Germany than in other countries, although there are no differences in patient safety between outpatient and inpatient management. In this context, outpatient surgery is economically advantageous and efficient. This study aims to identify organisational and regional factors that determine the rate of outpatient curettage in German hospitals. METHODS: We analysed the hospital quality reports for 2013-2019, which include data from all German hospitals with gynaecology departments (n=709). These organisational data (teaching status, size, ownership, department type and hospital group) are enhanced by contextual data (degree of urbanisation, market concentration and population income). We calculated a zero-one inflated beta regression model to identify factors that influence the rate of outpatient curettages in 2019. RESULTS: Increasing numbers of curettages are provided on an outpatient basis; accordingly, the number of inpatient curettages declined during the analysis period. In 2019, 69.6% of in-hospital curettages were performed as outpatient surgery. Hospital size is significantly negative and outpatient physician department type is significantly positively associated with outpatient curettage rates. We found no effects of hospital ownership type, degree of urbanisation or market concentration. A high income in the surgical district's population is also associated with a higher rate of outpatient curettages. CONCLUSIONS: The analyses demonstrate that organisational factors are associated with the outpatient curettage rate. This indicates that external elements, such as reimbursements and regulations, influence outpatient surgical events in Germany, and current regulations do not incentivise hospitals to significantly increase their rate of outpatient curettages.

Gynaecologists' perceptions of outpatient gynaecologic and obstetric care in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The measures taken to contain the COVID-19 pandemic had a major impact on society, affecting medical care as well as the utilization of medical services. We aimed to identify pandemic-related changes in gynaecologic/obstetric care through the personal experience of practitioners in the outpatient sector in Germany. Three consecutive anonymous online surveys of practising gynaecologists were conducted during the pandemic (07-09/2020, 11-12/2020 and 09-11/2021). Appointment management, medical supply and patients' demand as well as concomitant circumstances were queried. Data from 860 (393, 262 and 205 from the first, second and third surveys, respectively) respondents were analysed. At the peak of the first COVID-19 wave, more than 50% of the gynaecologists surveyed had cancelled cancer screening appointments. There was a significant association between fear of self-infection and cancellation of cancer screening appointments (p = 0.006). An increase in domestic violence was reported by 13%, an increase in obesity by 67% and more advanced tumours due to delayed screening by 24% of respondents. Primary gynaecological oncological prevention was reduced in supply and demand during the COVID-19 pandemic, and this shortfall should be addressed in future similar situations. Prenatal care has been offered continuously since the start of the pandemic in Germany.

What impact does the attitude toward COVID-19 vaccination have on physicians as vaccine providers? A cross sectional study from the German outpatient sector.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccination is recognized as a key component in addressing the COVID-19 pandemic. Physicians' attitudes toward vaccination are known to play a defining role in the management and dissemination of medical advice to patients. In Germany, outpatient practitioners are predominantly responsible for the dissemination of vaccines. METHOD: Using a cross-sectional online survey, 932 outpatient general practitioners, gynecologists, and pediatricians in Germany were asked in fall, 2021, about their attitude toward COVID-19 vaccination and - among others - their communication in vaccine discussions, their assessment of vaccine safety, and reporting of suspected adverse events. Physicians were divided into two groups along their attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination. In addition, multivariate linear regression models were constructed to assess differences in communication strategies. RESULTS: 92 % of physicians had a positive or very positive attitude toward COVID-19 vaccination. Own vaccination status, practice-based vaccination delivery, and estimated vaccination coverage among patients were significantly associated with the attitude toward vaccination. Confidence in vaccine safety was significantly lower among physicians with negative attitudes. There were no differences between the two groups in self-assessment of the ability to detect suspected adverse events, but there were differences in the observing and reporting of adverse events. For the linear regression models, we found that a more negative attitude toward COVID-19 vaccination was significantly associated with increased acceptance of patient refusal of COVID-19 vaccination and empathic behavior for patient concerns. In contrast, willingness to engage in a detailed persuasion consultation was significantly lower. Pediatricians showed significantly higher empathy for patient-side concerns compared to general practitioners, whereas gynecologists showed less empathy than general practitioners. DISCUSSION: The physician's attitude toward COVID-19 vaccination influences the physician's practices as a vaccine provider. However, when providing medical advice and healthcare, the physician should focus on the actual needs of the patient.

Use of telemedicine in the outpatient sector during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional survey of German physicians.

BACKGROUND: In the wake of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, administrative barriers to the use of telemedicine have been reduced in Germany. The study focused on the analysis of use and assessment of telemedicine by physicians working in the outpatient sector, considering the perspective of different disciplines during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. METHODS: The anonymous cross-sectional online survey within the study COVID-GAMS was conducted from 16 November 2020 to 1 January 2021. General practitioners; cardiologists; gastroenterologists; paediatricians; gynaecologists; ear, nose, and throat (ENT) specialists were randomly selected and invited to participate in the survey. At the same time, open recruitment to the online survey was conducted via the professional societies. Descriptive and regression analyses were performed based on the data of 1521 outpatient responding physicians. RESULTS: The use of telephone and video consultation increased during the pandemic. Regarding the frequency of use, physicians already using telephone/video consultations in March/April 2020 report an increase in such services. General medicine was associated with an increased use of telephone and video consultations than cardiology, gynaecology or ENT, and in the case of telephone consultations also compared to paediatrics. General practitioners assessed the subjective usefulness higher than gynaecology and ENT. And the self-reported proportion of patients receiving telemedical care was higher correlated with general medicine than all other disciplines. The location of the practice (rural vs. urban), type of practice (individual vs. group) and gender (male vs. female) were also shown to be significant influencing factors on the variables mentioned above. Barriers reported by physicians not using telemedicine were the lack of equivalence to face-to-face contact and perceived low demand from patients. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a significant increase in the use of telemedicine, to varying degrees in the different specialities. Individual and structural factors lead to a reduced use of telemedicine and there are physician's and patient's barriers that have prevented telephone and video consultations from gaining acceptance by physicians. All these factors must be addressed if telemedicine procedures are to be implemented widely.

Work climate in pandemic times: which burdens do German physicians in primary care report?

BACKGROUND: In Germany, general practitioners (GPs) provide basic and primary care in the ambulatory sector and refer patients to other specialists when necessary. Often, GPs present the first point of contact for patients in the German healthcare system. During the COVID-19 pandemic, GPs and other medical specialists in the ambulatory setting suddenly were confronted with unprecedented challenges. OBJECTIVE: To answer the following research questions: How did COVID-19-related challenges affect the work climate? Do physicians with deteriorated work climate simultaneously report a worsened provision of patient care? Which challenges were the most burdening? METHODS: In the course of the project COVID-GAMS more than 18 000 physicians of various specialties had been invited to a quantitative cross-sectional online survey (in Summer 2020). Analyses were conducted separately for the groups of GPs and other medical specialists. Group differences were analysed statistically and burdening factors were identified. RESULTS: 1703 participants were included in the analysis. 22.2% of GPs (other medical specialists: 19.9%) stated, their work climate had deteriorated. Physicians with a deteriorated work climate showed a tendency towards poorer personal provision of patient care (M = 3.75, SD = 0.98 versus M = 3.93, SD = 0.99) compared to unchanged or improved work climate. The lack of protective material in March/April 2020, changes in practice management and possible economic impacts on the practice were the most burdening factors reported by GPs. CONCLUSION: GPs who reported a negative impact on the work climate in the course of the first pandemic lockdown also tend to see own deficits in the provision of patient care.

Stockpiled personal protective equipment and knowledge of pandemic plans as predictors of perceived pandemic preparedness among German general practitioners.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly changed the work of general practitioners (GPs). At the onset of the pandemic in March 2020, German outpatient practices had to adapt quickly. Pandemic preparedness (PP) of GPs may play a vital role in their management of a pandemic. OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to examine the association in the stock of seven personal protective equipment (PPE) items and knowledge of pandemic plans on perceived PP among GPs. METHODS: Three multivariable linear regression models were developed based on an online cross-sectional survey for the period March-April 2020 (the onset of the pandemic in Germany). Data were collected using self-developed items on self-assessed PP and knowledge of a pandemic plan and its utility. The stock of seven PPE items was queried. For PPE items, three different PPE scores were compared. Control variables for all models were gender and age. RESULTS: In total, 508 GPs were included in the study; 65.16% believed that they were very poorly or poorly prepared. Furthermore, 13.83% of GPs were aware of a pandemic plan; 40% rated those plans as beneficial. The stock of FFP-2/3 masks, protective suits, face shields, safety glasses, and medical face masks were mostly considered completely insufficient or insufficient, whereas disposable gloves and disinfectants were considered sufficient or completely sufficient. The stock of PPE was significantly positively associated with PP and had the largest effect on PP; the association of the knowledge of a pandemic plan was significant but small. PPE scores did not vary considerably in their explanatory power. The assessment of a pandemic plan as beneficial did not significantly affect PP. CONCLUSION: The stock of PPE seems to be the determining factor for PP among German GPs; for COVID-19, sufficient masks are the determining factor. Knowledge of a pandemic plans play a secondary role in PP.