No abstract

Background General practitioners (GPs) play a key role in managing the COVID-19 outbreak. However, they may encounter difficulties adapting their practices to the pandemic. We provide here an analysis of guidelines for the reorganisation of GP surgeries during the beginning of the pandemic from 15 countries. Methods A network of GPs collaborated together in a three-step process: (i) identification of key recommendations of GP surgery reorganisation, according to WHO, CDC and health professional resources from health care facilities; (ii) collection of key recommendations included in the guidelines published in 15 countries; (iii) analysis, comparison and synthesis of the results. Results Recommendations for the reorganisation of GP surgeries of four types were identified: (i) reorganisation of GP consultations (cancelation of non-urgent consultations, follow-up via e-consultations), (ii) reorganisation of GP surgeries (area partitioning, visual alerts and signs, strict hygiene measures), (iii) reorganisation of medical examinations by GPs (equipment, hygiene, partial clinical examinations, patient education), (iv) reorganisation of GP staff (equipment, management, meetings, collaboration with the local community). Conclusions We provide here an analysis of guidelines for the reorganisation of GP surgeries during the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak from 15 countries. These guidelines focus principally on clinical care, with less attention paid to staff management, and the area of epidemiological surveillance and research is largely neglected. The differences of guidelines between countries and the difficulty to apply them in routine care, highlight the need of advanced research in primary care. Thereby, primary care would be able to provide recommendations adapted to the real-world settings and with stronger evidence, which is especially necessary during pandemics.

ObjectivesThis study aims to assess the implementation of the Family Medicine Programme (FMP), which has taken place in Turkey from 2005 to 2010 as a set of comprehensive primary health care (PHC) reforms and involved changes in professional organisation (eg, family medicine specialisation) and service provision (eg, patients’ registration list). Our particular interest is to identify the challenges and limitations that PHC physicians and academicians have encountered in the implementation of the FMP which could have influenced the delivery of care and utilisation of services.DesignWe applied the framework method to analyse data obtained through semi-structured interviews conducted in the field. This qualitative approach involved the categorisation of raw data into a predefined framework, which comprised challenges and limitations identified in the literature, and the emergence of a new framework, whose categories corresponded to challenges and limitations identified through thematic analysis of our data.SettingPHC centres and academic departments from five Turkish provinces.ParticipantsPHC physicians and academicians involved in training and/or research were invited to participate. 20 participants agreed to take part and, due to schedule limitations, 15 participants (seven PHC physicians and eight academicians) completed the interviews.ResultsShortcomings in the planning of the reforms, inadequate commitment to integration of PHC in the system and collateral effects of a market model in healthcare emerged as limitations to successful FMP implementation. Uncertainty about care quality and physicians’ ethical values as well as perceptions of organisational injustice among healthcare workers were contributing challenges.ConclusionsA systems thinking approach in the FMP design and implementation could help foresee and address these limitations. In decentralisation processes, such as FMP, shared governance by including PHC stakeholders in policy-making and planning could alleviate misalignment of interests and positively affect PHC performance, for example, by removing barriers to gatekeeping implementation.

Background Enhancing primary health care (PHC) is considered a policy priority for health systems strengthening due to PHC’s ability to provide accessible and continuous care and manage multimorbidity. Research in PHC often focuses on the effects of specific interventions (e.g. physicians’ contracts) in health care outcomes. This informs narrowly designed policies that disregard the interactions between the health functions (e.g. financing and regulation) and actors involved (i.e. public, professional, private), and their impact in care delivery and outcomes. The purpose of this study is to analyse the interactions between PHC functions and their impact in PHC delivery, particularly in providers’ behaviour and practice organisation. Methods Following a systems thinking approach with data obtained through a three-round European Delphi process, we developed a framework that captures (1) the interactions between PHC functions by analysing correlations between PHC characteristics of participating countries, (2) how actors involved shaped these interactions by identifying the actor and level of devolution (or fragmentation) in the analysis, and (3) their potential effect on care delivery by exploring panellists’ opinions. Results A total of 59 panellists from 24 countries participated in the first round and 76% of the initial panellists (22 countries) completed the last round. Findings show correlations between governance, financing and regulation based on their degree of decentralisation. This is supported by panellists, who agreed that the actors involved in health system governance determine the type of PHC financing (e.g. ownership or payment mechanisms) and regulation (e.g. competences or gatekeeping), and this may impact care delivery and outcomes. Governance in our framework is an overarching function whose impact in PHC delivery is mediated through the degree of decentralisation (both delegation and devolution) of PHC financing and regulation. Conclusions The application of this approach in policy implementation assessment intends to uncover limitations due to poor accountability and commitment to shared objectives. Its application in the design of health strategies helps foresee (and prevent) undesired or unexpected effects of narrow interventions. This approach will assist in the development of the realistic and long-term policies required for health systems strengthening. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-019-0456-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background During the pandemic, remote consultations have become the norm for assessing patients with signs and symptoms of COVID-19 to decrease the risk of transmission. This has intensified the clinical uncertainty already experienced by primary care clinicians when assessing patients with suspected COVID-19 and has prompted the use of risk prediction scores, such as the National Early Warning Score (NEWS2), to assess severity and guide treatment. However, the risk prediction tools available have not been validated in a community setting and are not designed to capture the idiosyncrasies of COVID-19 infection. Objective The objective of this study is to produce a multivariate risk prediction tool, RECAP-V1 (Remote COVID-19 Assessment in Primary Care), to support primary care clinicians in the identification of those patients with COVID-19 that are at higher risk of deterioration and facilitate the early escalation of their treatment with the aim of improving patient outcomes. Methods The study follows a prospective cohort observational design, whereby patients presenting in primary care with signs and symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 will be followed and their data linked to hospital outcomes (hospital admission and death). Data collection will be carried out by primary care clinicians in four arms: North West London Clinical Commissioning Groups (NWL CCGs), Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC), Covid Clinical Assessment Service (CCAS), and South East London CCGs (Doctaly platform). The study involves the use of an electronic template that incorporates a list of items (known as RECAP-V0) thought to be associated with disease outcome according to previous qualitative work. Data collected will be linked to patient outcomes in highly secure environments. We will then use multivariate logistic regression analyses for model development and validation. Results Recruitment of participants started in October 2020. Initially, only the NWL CCGs and RCGP RSC arms were active. As of March 24, 2021, we have recruited a combined sample of 3827 participants in these two arms. CCAS and Doctaly joined the study in February 2021, with CCAS starting the recruitment process on March 15, 2021. The first part of the analysis (RECAP-V1 model development) is planned to start in April 2021 using the first half of the NWL CCGs and RCGP RSC combined data set. Posteriorly, the model will be validated with the rest of the NWL CCGs and RCGP RSC data as well as the CCAS and Doctaly data sets. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee on May 27, 2020 (Integrated Research Application System number: 283024, Research Ethics Committee reference number: 20/NW/0266) and badged as National Institute of Health Research Urgent Public Health Study on October 14, 2020. Conclusions We believe the validated RECAP-V1 early warning score will be a valuable tool for the assessment of severity in patients with suspected COVID-19 in the community, either in face-to-face or remote consultations, and will facilitate the timely escalation of treatment with the potential to improve patient outcomes. Trial Registration ISRCTN registry ISRCTN13953727; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN13953727 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/29072