With the onset of COVID-19, general practitioners (GPs) and patients worldwide swiftly transitioned from face-to-face to digital remote consultations. There is a need to evaluate how this global shift has impacted patient care, healthcare providers, patient and carer experience, and health systems. We explored GPs’ perspectives on the main benefits and challenges of using digital virtual care. GPs across 20 countries completed an online questionnaire between June–September 2020. GPs’ perceptions of main barriers and challenges were explored using free-text questions. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. A total of 1,605 respondents participated in our survey. The benefits identified included reducing COVID-19 transmission risks, guaranteeing access and continuity of care, improved efficiency, faster access to care, improved convenience and communication with patients, greater work flexibility for providers, and hastening the digital transformation of primary care and accompanying legal frameworks. Main challenges included patients’ preference for face-to-face consultations, digital exclusion, lack of physical examinations, clinical uncertainty, delays in diagnosis and treatment, overuse and misuse of digital virtual care, and unsuitability for certain types of consultations. Other challenges include the lack of formal guidance, higher workloads, remuneration issues, organisational culture, technical difficulties, implementation and financial issues, and regulatory weaknesses. At the frontline of care delivery, GPs can provide important insights on what worked well, why, and how during the pandemic. Lessons learned can be used to inform the adoption of improved virtual care solutions and support the long-term development of platforms that are more technologically robust and secure.

(1) Background: Brazil has a universal public healthcare system, but individuals can still opt to buy private health insurance and/or pay out-of-pocket for healthcare. Past research suggests that Brazilians make combined use of public and private services, possibly causing double costs. This study aims to describe this dual use and assess its relationship with socioeconomic status (SES). (2) Methods: We calculated survey-weighted population estimates and descriptive statistics, and built a survey-weighted logistic regression model to explore the effect of SES on dual use of healthcare, including demographic characteristics and other variables related to healthcare need and use as additional explanatory variables using data from the 2019 Brazilian National Health Survey. (3) Results: An estimated 39,039,016 (n = 46,914; 18.6%) persons sought care in the two weeks before the survey, of which 5,576,216 were dual users (n = 6484; 14.7%). Dual use happened both in the direction of public to private (n = 4628; 67.3%), and of private to public (n = 1855; 32.7%). Higher income had a significant effect on dual use (p < 0.0001), suggesting a dose–response relationship, even after controlling for confounders. Significant effects were also found for region (p < 0.0001) and usual source of care (USC) (p < 0.0001). (3) Conclusion: A large number of Brazilians are seeking care from a source different than their regular system. Higher SES, region, and USC are associated factors, possibly leading to more health inequity. Due to its high prevalence and important implications, more research is warranted to illuminate the main causes of dual use.

Background: With the onset of COVID-19, general practitioners (GPs) and patients worldwide swiftly transitioned from face-to-face to digital remote consultations. There is a need to evaluate how this global shift has impacted patient care, healthcare providers, patient and carer experience, and health systems. Objective: We explored GPs' perspectives on the main benefits and challenges of using digital remote care. Methods: GPs across 20 countries completed an online questionnaire between June - September 2020. GPs' perceptions on main barriers and challenges were explored using free-text questions. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Results: 1,605 respondents participated in our survey. The benefits identified included reducing COVID-19 transmission risks, guaranteeing access and continuity of care, improved efficiency, faster access to care, improved convenience and communication with patients, greater work flexibility for providers, and hastening the digital transformation of primary care and the accompanying legal frameworks. Main challenges included patient's preference for face-to-face consultations, digital exclusion, lack of physical examinations, clinical uncertainty, delays in diagnosis and treatment, overuse and misuse of digital remote care, and unsuitability for certain types of consultations. Other challenges include the lack of formal guidance, higher workloads, remuneration issues, organisational culture, technical difficulties, implementation and financial issues, and regulatory weaknesses. Conclusion: At the frontline of care delivery, GPs can provide important insights on what worked well, why, and how. Lessons learned during the emergency phase can be used to inform the stable adoption of virtual care solutions, and co-design processes and platforms that are technologically robust, secure, and supported by a strategic long-term plan.

Resumo A Classificação Internacional de Atenção Primária-2 (CIAP-2) é fruto de quarenta anos de desenvolvimento contínuo. Tem origem na segunda metade do século XX, a partir da inquietação de médicos gerais com a necessidade de se registrar e codificar dados especificamente relacionados à atenção primária, tanto nos motivos de consulta quanto nos procedimentos e nas condições ou diagnósticos. A Organização Mundial de Saúde chancelou a classificação bem como o seu comitê desenvolvedor após o encontro de Alma-Ata, pois também identificou necessidades específicas. Hoje há essencialmente duas formas de uso na coleta de informações: por encontro ou por episódio de cuidado. A segunda forma é mais complexa e controversa. Recentemente foi lançada a décima primeira versão da Classificação Internacional de Doenças, enquanto que a CIAP-3 esta sendo desenvolvida. Não há como prever como vão interagir com as novas tecnologias, as classificações e os organismos internacionais. O protagonismo dos profissionais da ponta e dos pacientes tem potencial de definir a direção.

Este artigo apresenta a História do Grupo de Trabalho em Medicina Rural da SBMFC, um dos mais ativos grupos de trabalho da SBMFC. São revisados os primeiros passos desde a sua criação e posteriores desenvolvimentos. Um dos principais resultados identificados foi o de ajudar a consolidar a identidade do “MFC rural” e trazer a discussão da saúde das populações rurais para a agenda da saúde, da atenção primária e da medicina de família. Este relato tem também como objetivo auxiliar outros grupos em criação ou já estabelecidos a criar estratégias de fortalecimento de seus trabalhos.