A qualitative study of high-performing primary care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic

How CPC+ supported patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons for alternative payment models

BACKGROUND

A growing literature documents how primary care practices adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic. We examine a topic that has received less attention-how participants in an advanced alternative payment model perceive the model influenced their ability to meet patients' care needs during the pandemic.

METHODS

Analysis of closed- and open-ended questions from a 2021 survey of 2496 practices participating in the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) model (92% response rate) and a 2021 survey of 993 randomly selected primary care physicians from these practices (55% response rate). Both surveys asked whether respondents agreed or disagreed that they or their practice was "better positioned to meet patients' care needs during the coronavirus pandemic" because of participation in CPC+. Both also included an open-ended question about CPC+'s effects.

RESULTS

Half of practices and one-third of physicians agreed or strongly agreed that participating in CPC+ better positioned them to meet patients' care needs during the pandemic. One in 10 practices and 2 in 10 physicians, disagreed or strongly disagreed, while 4 in 10 practices and slightly more than half of physicians neither agreed nor disagreed (or, for physicians, didn't know). The most commonly identified CPC+ activities that facilitated meeting patient care needs related to practices' work on care management (e.g., risk stratification), access (e.g., telehealth), payment outside of fee-for-service (FFS), and staffing (e.g., supporting care managers).

CONCLUSIONS

Most CPC+ practices and physicians were positive or neutral about participating in CPC+ in the context of COVID-19, indicating more benefit than risk to payment alternatives to FFS.

Determinants and effectiveness of annual wellness visits among Medicare beneficiaries in 2020

BACKGROUND

Annual wellness visits (AWVs) have the potential to improve general health and well-being, but little is known about the role of AWVs during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE

We examined the determinants and effectiveness of having an AWV among Medicare beneficiaries in 2020.

METHODS

We employed a cross-sectional study design using data from the 2020 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. Our outcomes included AWV utilization, preventive care utilization, health status, and care satisfaction. To examine the determinants for having an AWV, we performed a linear regression model and explored the associations with other individual-level variables (demographic, socioeconomic, and health characteristics). To examine the effectiveness of having an AWV, we performed a linear regression model on each outcome measure while adjusting for individual-level variables.

RESULTS

We found that there were several determinants of having an AWV. The four most notable determinants were having a usual source of care, enrolling in Medicare Advantage, being non-Hispanic Black, and being Hispanic. We also found that having an AWV was associated with increases in preventive care use (COVID vaccine, flu shot, pneumonia shot, and blood pressure measurement), but was limited in improving health status and care satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

Our finding raises critical concerns about inequitable access to health care services for disease prevention and health promotion during the pandemic. Furthermore, the effectiveness of AWVs was mostly in increased preventive care use, suggesting a limited role in meeting the wellness needs of a diverse population of older adults.

Quality of care in Belgian general practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: results of the cross-sectional PRICOV-19 study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic immensely impacted care provision, including quality of care in general practice. This paper aimed: (1) to assess how Belgian general practices acted upon the six dimensions of quality of care during COVID-19; (2) to study differences between the three Belgian regions; and (3) to benchmark the performance of the Belgian practices against the performance in other European countries.

METHODS

The data collected from 479 Belgian practices during 2020-2021 using an online survey as part of the international cross-sectional PRICOV-19 study were analyzed.  Hereby, descriptive statistics, chi-squared tests, and binary logistic regression analyses were performed. Thirty-four survey questions related to the six dimensions of quality of care were selected as outcome variables. The adjusted regression models included four practice characteristics as covariates: practice type, being a teaching practice for GP trainees, multidisciplinarity of the team, and payment system.

RESULTS

Belgian practices made important organizational changes to deliver high-quality care during COVID-19. Most practices (n = 259; 56.1%) actively reached out to vulnerable patients. Limitations to the practice building or infrastructure threatened high-quality care in 266 practices (55.5%). Infection prevention measures could not always be implemented during COVID-19, such as using a cleaning protocol (n = 265; 57.2%) and providing a separate doctor bag for infection-related home visits (n = 130; 27.9%). Three hundred and sixty practices (82.0%) reported at least one safety incident related to a delayed care process in patients with an urgent condition. The adjusted regression analysis showed limited significant differences between the Belgian regions regarding the quality of care delivered. Belgian practices demonstrated varied performance compared to other European countries. For example, they excelled in always checking the feasibility of isolation at home but reported more patient safety incidents related to timely care than at least three-quarters of the other European countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Future studies using different design methods are crucial to investigate which country and practice characteristics are associated with delivering high-quality care.

A resilience perspective on healthcare personnels' experiences of managing the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study in Norwegian nursing homes and come care services

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic led to new and unfamiliar changes in healthcare services globally. Most COVID-19 patients were cared for in primary healthcare services, demanding major adjustments and adaptations in care delivery. Research addressing how rural primary healthcare services coped during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the possible learning potential originating from the pandemic is limited. The aim of this study was to assess how primary healthcare personnel (PHCP) working in rural areas experienced the work situation during the COVID-19 outbreak, and how adaptations to changes induced by the pandemic were handled in nursing homes and home care services.

METHOD

This study was conducted as an explorative qualitative study. Four municipalities with affiliated nursing homes and homecare services were included in the study. We conducted focus group interviews with primary healthcare personnel working in rural nursing homes and homecare services in western Norway. The included PHCP were 16 nurses, 7 assistant nurses and 2 assistants. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The analysis resulted in three main themes and 16 subthemes describing PHCP experience of the work situation during the COVID-19 pandemic, and how they adapted to the changes and challenges induced by the pandemic. The main themes were: "PHCP demonstrated high adaptive capacity while being put to the test", "Adapting to organizational measures, with varying degree of success" and "Safeguarding the patient's safety and quality of care, but at certain costs".

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated PHCPs major adaptive capacity in response to the challenges and changes induced by the covid-19 pandemic, while working under varying organizational conditions. Many adaptations where long-term solutions improving healthcare delivery, others where short-term solutions forced by inadequate management, governance, or a lack of leadership. Overall, the findings demonstrated the need for all parts of the system to engage in building resilient healthcare services. More research investigating this learning potential, particularly in primary healthcare services, is needed.

Delivering Primary Health Care (PHC) Services for Controlling NCDs During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Scoping Review

Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are the leading cause of death worldwide. NCDs also increase mortality from COVID-19 and primary health care (PHC) services are an important component in the prevention and control of long-term NCDs. The main goal of the present study was to review primary healthcare services for the NCDs patients via primary healthcare network during COVID-19 pandemic. In this scoping review, Search engines including PubMed, Scopus, and Science-direct up to 1st February 2022 were searched to identify studies regarding primary care services for NCDs patients via primary health care during COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 42 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in our analysis. 24 studies were about the status and changes of primary health services for NCDs patients in PHC settings, while 18 studies focused on adaptive strategies used during COVID-19 in different countries including United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Portugal, Georgia, South Africa, Thailand, Mexico, India, Kenya, Guatemala and Saudi Arabia. These strategies included remote monitoring, follow up, consultation, empowerment and educational services as well as home visiting Disruption of NCDs services in PHC during the COVID-19 pandemic was observed in different countries, which highlights the urgency of attention of researchers and policy-makers to development of appropriate and adaptive policies to improve PHC service coverage and its quality during the pandemics.

Policy and practices in primary care that supported the provision and receipt of care for older persons during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative case study in three Canadian provinces

BACKGROUND

The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on older adults were felt throughout the health care system, from intensive care units through to long-term care homes. Although much attention has been paid to hospitals and long-term care homes throughout the pandemic, less attention has been paid to the impact on primary care clinics, which had to rapidly change their approach to deliver timely and effective care to older adult patients. This study examines how primary care clinics, in three Canadian provinces, cared for their older adult patients during the pandemic, while also navigating the rapidly changing health policy landscape.

METHODS

A qualitative case study approach was used to gather information from nine primary care clinics, across three Canadian provinces. Interviews were conducted with primary care providers (n = 17) and older adult patients (n = 47) from October 2020 to September 2021. Analyses of the interviews were completed in the language of data collection (English or French), and then summarized in English using a coding framework. All responses that related to COVID-19 policies at any level were also examined.

RESULTS

Two main themes emerged from the data: (1) navigating the noise: understanding and responding to public health orders and policies affecting health and health care, and (2) receiving and delivering care to older persons during the pandemic: policy-driven challenges & responses. Providers discussed their experiences wading through the health policy directives, while trying to provide good quality care. Older adults found the public health information overwhelming, but appreciated the approaches adapted by primary care clinics to continue providing care, even if it looked different.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 policy and guideline complexities obliged primary care providers to take an important role in understanding, implementing and adapting to them, and in explaining them, especially to older adults and their care partners.

A Quality Improvement Innovation for Reproductive Health Planning in the Time of COVID

OBJECTIVES

To see if an outreach approach with telehealth is feasible and acceptable to patients to talk about their reproductive health; and as a secondary outcome, capture data on time spent on the visit and what kind of information was discussed.

METHODS

A registry was created from three family physicians' panels of all adult patients with anticipated ability to become pregnant ages 18-45 who had not had a documented reproductive health discussion in the previous 6 months. Using that registry, outreach was performed to schedule a telehealth visit to discuss their reproductive health with their primary care provider. The visit was standardized using the One Key Question approach. For patients who agreed to participate in the research, the patient completed a survey about their experience. The provider also completed a survey on the time spent and the issues addressed.

RESULTS

Two hundred and six patients were called. Ninety patients (44%) could not be reached. Of the remaining patients, 34 scheduled either a telehealth or in-person visit and 7 also agreed to participate in the survey. New information was uncovered in the visit in 86% of participants. The most common need uncovered during the visit was unrelated medical needs (71%), followed by preconception health education/advice (43%) and contraception needs/counseling (29%). Most participants found the telehealth visit valuable.

CONCLUSIONS

An outreach methodology can uncover unmet health needs, both reproductive and otherwise. We found that people who had the visit often needed something, but a majority of patients declined the visit saying that they did not think they needed it. It is possible that patients are not aware of the value of reproductive health discussions, and therefore clinicians need to take every opportunity to have these discussions whenever possible, whether through outreach or inreach (during already scheduled visits).

Access to General Practitioners during the COVID-19 pandemic in Portugal-A survey study of patient experiences in an urban setting

BACKGROUND

In 2020, Portugal had high levels of unmet health care needs. Primary Care was reported as the main source of unmet needs.

OBJECTIVES

To describe face-to-face and remote access to GPs in Portugal during the COVID-19 pandemic. To discover patient experiences and attitudes to access to care. To identify determinants of access to care.

METHODS

A survey of a random sample of 4,286 adults registered in a group of Family Practices was conducted in 2021. Paper questionnaires were sent by post to patients who had no e-mail address registered with the practice. Patients with an e-mail address were sent a link to an online questionnaire. Outcomes were reported waiting times for face-to-face and remote contacts with GPs, dichotomized to ascertain compliance with standards. Associations between participant characteristics and outcome variables were tested using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Waiting times for face-to-face consultations with GPs during the pandemic often exceeded the maximum waiting times (MWT) set by the National Health Service. Remote contacts were mostly conducted within acceptable standards. Waiting times for speaking with the GP over the phone were rated as 'poor' by 40% and 27% reported requests for these calls as unmet. The odds of getting care over MWT increased for participants who reported poorer digital skills. Participants were less likely to get non-urgent consultations over MWT if they found it easy to use the online patient portal to book appointments (odds ratio 0.24; 99% confidence intervals 0.09-0.61), request prescriptions (0.18; 0.04-0.74) or insert personal data (0.18; 0.04-0.95).

CONCLUSION

Patient reported access to GPs during the pandemic was uneven in Portugal. Obtaining non-urgent consultations and remote contacts over MWT affected mainly those patients with poor digital skills. Telephone access to GPs received the worse ratings. Access through traditional pathways must remain available, to prevent the widening of inequities.

Access to General Practitioners during the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Portugal: a nationwide survey of doctors

BACKGROUND

The Portuguese National Health System (NHS) provides universal coverage and near-free health care, but the population has high out-of-pocket expenses and unmet care needs. This suggests impaired accessibility, a key dimension of primary care. The COVID-19 pandemic has further affected access to health care. Understanding General Practitioners' (GP) experiences during the pandemic is necessary to reconfigure post-pandemic service delivery and to plan for future emergencies. This study aimed to assess accessibility to GPs, from their perspective, evaluating determinants of accessibility during the second pandemic year in Portugal.

METHODS

All GPs working in NHS Family Practices in continental Portugal were invited to participate in a survey in 2021. A structured online self-administered anonymous questionnaire was used. Accessibility was assessed through waiting times for consultations and remote contacts and provision of remote access. NHS standards were used to assess waiting times. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the study sample. Associations between categorical variables were tested using the χ2 statistic and the Student t-test was used to compare means of continuous variables.

RESULTS

A total of 420 GPs were included (7% of the target population). Median weekly working hours was 49.0 h (interquartile range 42.0-56.8), although only 14% reported a contracted weekly schedule over 40 h. Access to in-person consultations and remote contacts was reported by most GPs to occur within NHS time standards. Younger GPs more often reported waiting times over these standards. Most GPs considered that they do not have enough time for non-urgent consultations or for remote contacts with patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Most GPs reported compliance with standards for waiting times for most in-person consultations and remote contacts, but they do so at the expense of work overload. A persistent excess of regular and unpaid working hours by GPs needs confirmation. If unpaid overtime is necessary to meet the regular demands of work, then workload and specific allocated tasks warrant review. Future research should focus on younger GPs, as they seem vulnerable to restricted accessibility. GPs' preferences for more in-person care than was feasible during the pandemic must be considered when planning for the post-pandemic reconfiguration of service delivery.

Crisis management: the perspectives of physicians working in family physician teams in Lithuania

AIM

To assess the opinions of physicians working in family physician teams regarding COVID-19 (threat perception, overall work satisfaction, patient satisfaction with services provided, patient access to services, and the need for new tools for service provision).

METHODS

An anonymous survey of physicians (N = 191) working in family physician teams. Questionnaires were distributed among family physicians with the permission of the managers of their institutions and were collected by the lead researcher within 1-8 weeks. The quantitative study was conducted from 21 June 2021 to 17 September 2021. In total, 398 questionnaires were distributed, yielding a response rate of 48%, or 9% of the total population. Thirty-nine primary health care institutions (PHCIs) were randomly selected for the study: 11 public and 28 private.

FINDINGS

Older respondents and those with more years of work experience strongly agreed that the COVID-19 pandemic threatened their lives and safety, as well as that of their colleagues. Work satisfaction decreased during the pandemic among older respondents, those with more years of work experience, and those who had been employed at their current institution for longer. Respondents with more work experience believed that patient satisfaction with the services provided by their family medical institution decreased. Older respondents with more work experience asserted that patient access to services decreased during the pandemic. Physicians working further away from urban centers indicated a greater need for new tools in the effort to provide consultations compared to city-based physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

The current health care crisis prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic is defined by the perception of threats to life and safety among physicians, an overall drop in their work satisfaction, decreased patient satisfaction with services provided, reduced patient access to services, and a greater need for new tools for providing consultations.

Experiences and management strategies of Norwegian GPs during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal interview study

OBJECTIVE

When the COVID-19 pandemic reached Norway, primary health care had to reorganize to ensure safe patient treatment and maintain infection control. General practitioners (GPs) are key health care providers in the municipalities. Our aim was to explore the experiences and management strategies of Norwegian GPs during the COVID-19 pandemic - over time, and in the context of a sudden organizational change.

DESIGN

Longitudinal qualitative interview study with two interview rounds. The first round of interviews was conducted from September-December 2020, the second round from January-April 2021. In the first interview round, we performed eight semi-structured interviews with GPs from eight municipalities in Norway. In the second round, five of the GPs were re-interviewed. Consecutive interviews were performed 2-4 months apart. To analyze the data, we used thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The COVID-19 pandemic required GPs to balance several concerns, such as continuity of care and their own professional efforts. Several GPs experienced challenges in the collaboration with the municipality and in relation to defining their own professional position. Guided by The Norwegian Association of General practitioners, The Norwegian College of General Practice and collegial support, they found viable solutions and ended up with a feeling of having adapted to a new normal.

CONCLUSIONS

Although our study demonstrates that the GPs adapted to the changing conditions, the current municipal health care models are not ideal. There is a need for clarification of responsibilities between GPs and the municipality to facilitate a more coordinated future pandemic response.Key PointsFacing the COVID-19 pandemic, the primary health care service in Norway had to reorganize to ensure safe patient treatment and maintain infection control.Several GPs experienced challenges in collaboration with the municipalities.There is a need for clarification of responsibilities between GPs and the municipality.

Evaluating the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Monthly Trends in Primary Care

Introduction

As the COVID-19 pandemic progressed, multiple barriers arose for patients and providers in the primary care setting. Despite the attempt to utilize telemedicine to overcome barriers, visits remained lower than pre-pandemic levels. This raises concern for preventative medicine and chronic disease management.

Methods

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the pandemic in primary care by utilizing two years of data from a family medicine clinic. Data obtained from the electronic medical record for March 2019 through February 2020 and March 2020 through February 2021 were used to evaluate monthly trends from the year before the pandemic and the first year of the pandemic in the following six categories: hypertension control, diabetes control, lipid profile screening, breast cancer screening, colorectal cancer screening, and cervical cancer screening.

Results

The paired t-tests found a significant difference in the averages between the two years for all categories except hypertension control. The results for chi-square demonstrated a significant difference in four months for cervical cancer screening, five months for hypertension control and colorectal cancer screening, nine months for diabetes control and lipid profile screening, and 10 months for breast cancer screening.

Conclusion

These results show a profound impact of the pandemic on both preventative medicine and chronic disease management. This study had a large sample size but is not generalizable to the entire population. These results can help guide quality improvement measures going forward. However, further research is necessary to better understand the full extent of COVID-19’s impact on primary care.

The role of primary care in informing and supporting people with limited health literacy in the Netherlands during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, people have been confronted with a large amount of information about the virus and the governmental measures against its spreading. However, more than a quarter of individuals have limited health literacy (HL), meaning that they have difficulty finding, understanding, and applying health information. The purpose of this interview study was to investigate how individuals with limited HL acquire information about COVID-19 and governmental measures, what difficulties they experience in understanding and applying it, and what may be needed to overcome these difficulties. We also addressed other problems that they might face as a result of the pandemic. Using our findings, we aimed to make recommendations on the possible role of primary care in informing and supporting patients with limited HL during the pandemic.

METHODS

Between June and October 2020, 28 individuals with limited HL were interviewed by phone (age range 20-84). The interviews were semi-structured and focused on the first months of the pandemic in the Netherlands (March/April/May 2020).

RESULTS

The participants generally found COVID-19-related information abundant and complicated, and sometimes contradictory. Information provision by their own health care professionals was highly appreciated, especially in the context of chronic illnesses. General health care problems resulting from COVID-19 measures were postponement of regular care and difficulty with digital contacts.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals with limited HL may benefit from provision of COVID-19-related information and support by their own health care providers. This applies in particular to patients with chronic illnesses. Primary care professionals are in the ideal position to take this role.