Primary care for patients with respiratory tract infection before and early on in the COVID-19 pandemic: an observational study in 16 European countries

Measures during the COVID-19 pandemic in public primary health care in Greece: is there still a missing link to universal health coverage?

BACKGROUND

The PRICOV-19 study aimed to assess the organization of primary health care (PHC) during the COVID-19 pandemic in 37 European countries and Israel; and its impact on different dimensions of quality of care. In this paper, we described measures taken by public PHC centers in Greece. Additionally, we explored potential differences between rural and non-rural settings.

METHODS

The study population consisted of the 287 public PHC centers in Greece. A random sample of 100 PHC centers stratified by Health Region was created. The online questionnaire consisted of 53 items, covering six sections: general information on the PHC center, patient flow, infection prevention, information processing, communication to patients, collaboration, and collegiality.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight PHC centers (78%) - 50 rural and 28 non-rural - responded to the survey. Certain measures were reported by few PHC centers. Specifically, the use of online messages about complaints that can be solved without a visit to the PHC center (21% rural; and 31% non-rural PHC centers), the use of video consultations with patients (12% rural; and 7% non-rural PHC centers), and the use of electronic medical records (EMRs) to systematically identify the list of patients with chronic conditions (5% rural; and 10% non-rural PHC centers) were scarcely reported. Very few PHC centers reported measures to support identifying and reaching out to vulnerable population, including patients that may have experienced domestic violence (8% rural; and 7% non-rural PHC centers), or financial problems (26% rural; and 7% non-rural PHC centers). Providing administrative documents to patients through postal mail (12% rural; and 21% non-rural PHC centers), or regular e-mail (11% rural; and 36% non-rural PHC centers), or through a secured server (8% rural; and 18% non-rural PHC centers) was rarely reported. Finally, providing information in multiple languages through a PHC website (12% rural PHC centers only), or an answering machine (6% rural PHC centers only), or leaflets (3% rural PHC centers only; and for leaflets specifically on COVID-19: 6% rural; and 8% non-rural PHC centers) were lacking in most PHC centers.

CONCLUSION

Our study captured measures implemented by few PHC centers suggesting potential priority areas of future improvement.

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.

Communication training for general practitioners aimed at improving antibiotic prescribing: a controlled before-after study in multicultural Dutch cities

Introduction

Suboptimal doctor-patient communication drives inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics. We evaluated a communication intervention for general practitioners (GPs) in multicultural Dutch cities to improve antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections (RTI).

Methods

This was a non-randomized controlled before-after study. The study period was pre-intervention November 2019 – April 2020 and post-intervention November 2021 – April 2022. The intervention consisted of a live training (organized between September and November 2021), an E-learning, and patient material on antibiotics and antibiotic resistance in multiple languages. The primary outcome was the absolute number of prescribed antibiotic courses indicated for RTIs per GP; the secondary outcome was all prescribed antibiotics per GP. We compared the post-intervention differences in the mean number of prescribed antibiotics between the intervention (N = 25) and the control group (N = 110) by using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) test, while adjusting for the pre-intervention number of prescribed antibiotics. Additionally, intervention GPs rated the training and their knowledge and skills before the intervention and 3 months thereafter.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference in the mean number of prescribed antibiotics for RTI between the intervention and the control group, nor for mean number of overall prescribed antibiotics. The intervention GPs rated the usefulness of the training for daily practice a 7.3 (on a scale from 1–10) and there was a statistically significant difference between pre- and post-intervention on four out of nine items related to knowledge and skills.

Discussion

There was no change in GPs prescription behavior between the intervention and control group. However, GPs found the intervention useful and showed some improvement on self-rated knowledge and communication skills.

Clinical diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection: An observational study of respiratory tract infection in primary care in the early phase of the pandemic

BACKGROUND

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, GPs had to distinguish SARS-CoV-2 from other aetiologies in patients presenting with respiratory tract infection (RTI) symptoms on clinical grounds and adapt management accordingly.

OBJECTIVES

To test the diagnostic accuracy of GPs' clinical diagnosis of a SARS-CoV-2 infection in a period when COVID-19 was a new disease. To describe GPs' management of patients presenting with RTI for whom no confirmed diagnosis was available. To investigate associations between patient and clinical features with a SARS-CoV-2 infection.

METHODS

In April 2020-March 2021, 876 patients (9 countries) were recruited when they contacted their GP with symptoms of an RTI of unknown aetiology. A swab was taken at baseline for later analysis. Aetiology (PCR), diagnostic accuracy of GPs' clinical SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, and patient management were explored. Factors related to SARS-CoV-2 infection were determined by logistic regression modelling.

RESULTS

GPs suspected SARS-CoV-2 in 53% of patients whereas 27% of patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. True-positive patients (23%) were more intensively managed for follow-up, antiviral prescribing and advice than true-negatives (42%). False negatives (5%) were under-advised, particularly for social distancing and isolation. Older age (OR: 1.02 (1.01-1.03)), male sex (OR: 1.68 (1.16-2.41)), loss of taste/smell (OR: 5.8 (3.7-9)), fever (OR: 1.9 (1.3-2.8)), muscle aches (OR: 2.1 (1.5-3)), and a known risk factor for COVID-19 (travel, health care worker, contact with proven case; OR: 2.7 (1.8-4)) were predictive of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Absence of loss of taste/smell, fever, muscle aches and a known risk factor for COVID-19 correctly excluded SARS-CoV-2 in 92.3% of patients, whereas presence of 3, or 4 of these variables correctly classified SARS-CoV-2 in 57.7% and 87.1%.

CONCLUSION

Correct clinical diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, without POC-testing available, appeared to be complicated.

Practice- and System-Based Interventions to Reduce COVID-19 Transmission in Primary Care Settings: A Qualitative Study

Using qualitative interviews with 68 family physicians (FPs) in Canada, we describe practice- and system-based approaches that were used to mitigate COVID-19 exposure in primary care settings across Canada to ensure the continuation of primary care delivery. Participants described how they applied infection prevention and control procedures (risk assessment, hand hygiene, control of environment, administrative control, personal protective equipment) and relied on centralized services that directed patients with COVID-19 to settings outside of primary care, such as testing centres. The multi-layered approach mitigated the risk of COVID-19 exposure while also conserving resources, preserving capacity and supporting supply chains.

Disease-Specific Quality Indicators for Outpatient Antibiotic Prescribing for Respiratory Infections (ESAC Quality Indicators) Applied to Point Prevalence Audit Surveys in General Practices in 13 European Countries

Up to 80% of antibiotics are prescribed in the community. An assessment of prescribing by indication will help to identify areas where improvement can be made. A point prevalence audit study (PPAS) of consecutive respiratory tract infection (RTI) consultations in general practices in 13 European countries was conducted in January–February 2020 (PPAS-1) and again in 2022 (PPAS-4). The European Surveillance of Antibiotic Consumption quality indicators (ESAC-QI) were calculated to identify where improvements can be made. A total of 3618 consultations were recorded for PPAS-1 and 2655 in PPAS-4. Bacterial aetiology was suspected in 26% (PPAS-1) and 12% (PPAS-4), and an antibiotic was prescribed in 30% (PPAS-1) and 16% (PPAS-4) of consultations. The percentage of adult patients with bronchitis who receive an antibiotic should, according to the ESAC-QI, not exceed 30%, which was not met by participating practices in any country except Denmark and Spain. For patients (≥1) with acute upper RTI, less than 20% should be prescribed an antibiotic, which was achieved by general practices in most countries, except Ireland (both PPAS), Croatia (PPAS-1), and Greece (PPAS-4) where prescribing for acute or chronic sinusitis (0–20%) was also exceeded. For pneumonia in adults, prescribing is acceptable for 90–100%, and this is lower in most countries. Prescribing for tonsillitis (≥1) exceeded the ESAC-QI (0–20%) in all countries and was 69% (PPAS-1) and 75% (PPAS-4). In conclusion, ESAC-QI applied to PPAS outcomes allows us to evaluate appropriate antibiotic prescribing by indication and benchmark general practices and countries.

Pandemic preparedness and management in European out-of-hours primary care services - a descriptive study

BACKGROUND

Primary care is the first point of contact for all acute health problems. As such, primary care was at the frontline in the COVID-19 pandemic, playing a significant role in clinical responses and information to the public. This study aimed to describe the variations in patient management strategies used in the out-of-hours services in different European countries during the first phase of the pandemic.

METHOD

We conducted a cross-sectional web-based survey in August 2020, selecting key informants from European countries using European networks. The questionnaire was developed in collaboration with researchers in the field of out-of-hours primary care. We performed descriptive analyses per region, structuring results into themes.

RESULTS

Key informants from 38 regions in 20 European countries responded. Seven regions reported that their out-of-hours services had a pandemic preparedness plan, three had trained on the plan, and two had stockpiles of personal protection equipment before the outbreak. Extension of telephone triage lines and establishment of local infection-control teams and clinics were the main patient management strategies. Other strategies for patient contacts were also used in the regions, such as video-consultations (13 regions), electronic consultations (21 regions), patient's car as alternative waiting room (19 regions), outside tents for testing (24 regions), "drive-through" testing (26 regions), and separate departments for infected patients (14 regions).

CONCLUSION

Few out-of-hours services were well prepared for a pandemic, but all expanded and reorganized rapidly, adopting new strategies for patient management and treatment. The results could be useful for planning of organization preparedness of out-of-hours primary care service for future pandemics.

Comparing antibiotic prescriptions in primary care between SARS-CoV-2 and influenza: a retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Antibiotics are frequently prescribed during viral respiratory infection episodes in primary care. There is limited information about antibiotic prescription during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic in primary care and its association with risk factors for an adverse course.

AIM

To compare the proportion of antibiotic prescriptions between patients with COVID-19 and influenza or influenza-like symptoms, and to assess the association between antibiotic prescriptions and risk factors for an adverse course of COVID-19.

DESIGN & SETTING

An observational cohort study using pseudonymised and coded routine healthcare data extracted from 85 primary care practices in the Netherlands.

METHOD

Adult patients with influenza and influenza-like symptoms were included from the 2017 influenza season to the 2020 season. Adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were included from the first (15 February 2020-1 August 2020) and second (1 August 2020-1 January 2021) SARS-CoV-2 waves. Proportions of antibiotic prescriptions were calculated for influenza and COVID-19 patients. Odds ratios (ORs) were used to compare the associations of antibiotic prescriptions in COVID-19 patients with risk factors, hospital admission, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and mortality.

RESULTS

The proportion of antibiotic prescriptions during the first SARS-CoV-2 wave was lower than during the 2020 influenza season (9.6% versus 20.7%), difference 11.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 8.7 to 13.5). During the second SARS-CoV-2 wave, antibiotic prescriptions were associated with being aged ≥70 years (OR 2.05; 95% CI = 1.43 to 2.93), the number of comorbidities (OR 1.46; 95% CI = 1.18 to 1.82), and admission to hospital (OR 3.19; 95% CI = 2.02 to 5.03) or ICU (OR 4.64; 95% CI = 2.02 to 10.62).

CONCLUSION

Antibiotic prescription was less common during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic than during influenza seasons, and was associated with an adverse course and its risk factors. The findings suggest a relatively targeted prescription policy of antibiotics in primary care during COVID-19.

Challenges and experiences of general practitioners during the course of the Covid-19 pandemic: a northern Italian observational study-cross-sectional analysis and comparison of a two-time survey in primary care

BACKGROUND

General practitioners (GPs) have been among the frontline workers since the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic. Reflecting and analyzing the ongoing pandemic response of general practice provides essential information and serves as a precondition for outlining future health policy strategies.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects of the pandemic on GPs' daily work and well-being and to describe needs for improvement in primary care highlighted by the pandemic.

METHODS

A 2-time cross-sectional online survey involving GPs in a northern Italian region was conducted in September 2020 and March/April 2021.

RESULTS

Eighty-four GPs (29.6% of invited GPs) participated in the first survey, and 41 GPs (14.4%) in the second survey. Most GPs experienced a notable workload increase which was tendentially higher during the advanced stages of the pandemic. A notable increase between the first and the second survey was noted regarding the frequency of Covid-related patient contacts and phone calls. Communication with health authorities and hospitals was rated as improvable. Psychological distress among GPs tended to increase over time; female GPs were more affected in the first survey. Most practices introduced major changes in their workflow, mainly appointment-based visits and separating Covid-19-suspected patients. Availability of protective equipment considerably increased over time. In the second survey, the GPs felt more prepared to self-protection and outpatient treatment of Covid-affected patients.

CONCLUSION

The work of GPs has been substantially impacted by the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. Efforts should be undertaken to efficiently strengthen primary care which plays an important role in pandemic events.

Point of care testing, antibiotic prescribing and prescribing confidence for respiratory tract infections in primary care: Prospective audit in 18 European countries

BACKGROUND

Between-country differences have been described in antibiotic prescribing for RTI in primary care, but not yet for diagnostic testing procedures and prescribing confidence.

AIM

To describe between-country differences in RTI management, particularly diagnostic testing and antibiotic prescribing, and investigate which factors relate to antibiotic prescribing and GPs' prescribing confidence.

DESIGN & SETTING

Prospective audit in 18 European countries.

METHOD

GPs registered patient-, clinical- and management characteristics, and confidence in their antibiotic prescribing decision for patients presenting with sore throat and/or lower RTI (n=4,982). Factors related to antibiotic prescribing and confidence were analysed using multi-level logistic regression.

RESULTS

Antibiotic prescribing proportions varied considerably:<20% in four countries, and >40% in six countries. There was also considerable variation in POC testing (0% in Croatia, Moldova, Romania, and >65% in Denmark, Norway, mainly CRP and Strep A), and in lab/hospital-based testing (<3% in Hungary, Netherlands, Spain, and >30% in Croatia, Georgia, Greece, Moldova, mainly chest X-ray and white blood cell counting). Antibiotic prescribing was related to illness severity, comorbidity, age, fever and 'country', but not to having performed a POC test. In nearly 90% of consultations, GPs were confident in their antibiotic prescribing decision.

CONCLUSION

Despite high confidence in decisions about antibiotic prescribing, there is considerable variation in the primary care of RTI in European countries, with GPs prescribing antibiotics overall more often than is considered appropriate. POC testing may enhance the quality of antibiotic prescribing decisions if it can safely reverse decisions confidently made on clinical grounds alone to prescribe antibiotics.

Common Infections and Antibiotic Prescribing during the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Primary Care-Based Observational Cohort Study

Presentation and antibiotic prescribing for common infectious disease episodes decreased substantially during the first COVID-19 pandemic wave in Dutch general practice. We set out to determine the course of these variables during the first pandemic year. We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study using routine health care data from the Julius General Practitioners’ Network. All patients registered in the pre-pandemic year (n = 425,129) and/or during the first pandemic year (n = 432,122) were included. Relative risks for the number of infectious disease episodes (respiratory tract/ear, urinary tract, gastrointestinal, and skin), in total and those treated with antibiotics, and proportions of episodes treated with antibiotics (prescription rates) were calculated. Compared to the pre-pandemic year, primary care presentation for common infections remained lower during the full first pandemic year (RR, 0.77; CI, 0.76–0.78), mainly attributed to a sustained decline in respiratory tract/ear and gastrointestinal infection episodes. Presentation for urinary tract and skin infection episodes declined during the first wave, but returned to pre-pandemic levels during the second and start of the third wave. Antibiotic prescription rates were lower during the full first pandemic year (24%) as compared to the pre-pandemic year (28%), mainly attributed to a 10% lower prescription rate for respiratory tract/ear infections; the latter was not accompanied by an increase in complications. The decline in primary care presentation for common infections during the full first COVID-19 pandemic year, together with lower prescription rates for respiratory tract/ear infections, resulted in a substantial reduction in antibiotic prescribing in Dutch primary care.

Antibiotic Prescribing Trends in Belgian Out-of-Hours Primary Care during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Observational Study Using Routinely Collected Health Data

Antibiotic overprescribing is one of the main drivers of the global and growing problem of antibiotic resistance, especially in primary care and for respiratory tract infections (RTIs). RTIs are the most common reason for patients to consult out-of-hours (OOH) primary care. The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way general practitioners (GPs) work, both during office hours and OOH. In Belgian OOH primary care, remote consultations with the possibility of issuing prescriptions and telephone triage were implemented. We aimed to describe the impact of COVID-19 on GPs’ antibiotic prescribing during OOH primary care. In an observational study, using routinely collected health data from GP cooperatives (GPCs) in Flanders, we analyzed GPs’ antibiotic prescriptions in 2019 (10 GPCs) and 2020 (20 GPCs) during OOH consultations (telephone and face-to-face). We used autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) modeling to identify any changes after lockdowns were implemented. In total, 388,293 contacts and 268,430 prescriptions were analyzed in detail. The number of antibiotic prescriptions per weekend, per 100,000 population was 11.47 (95% CI: 9.08–13.87) or 42.9% lower after compared to before the implementation of lockdown among all contacts. For antibiotic prescribing per contact, we found a decrease of 12.2 percentage points (95% CI: 10.6–13.7) or 56.5% among all contacts and of 5.3 percentage points (95% CI: 3.7–6.9) or 23.2% for face-to-face contacts only. The decrease in the number of prescriptions was more pronounced for cases with respiratory symptoms that corresponded with symptoms of COVID-19 and for antibiotics that are frequently prescribed for RTIs, such as amoxicillin (a decrease of 64.9%) and amoxicillin/clavulanate (a decrease of 38.1%) but did not appear for others such as nitrofurantoin. The implementation of COVID-19 lockdown measures coincided with an unprecedented drop in the number of antibiotic prescriptions, which can be explained by a decrease in face-to-face patient contacts, as well as a lower number of antibiotics prescriptions per face-to-face patient contact. The decrease was seen for antibiotics used for RTIs but not for nitrofurantoin, the first-choice antibiotic for urinary tract infections.