KEY MESSAGESCOVID-19 has substantially impacted primary care throughout Europe and globally, and various strategies have been implemented to address this crisis. Going forward, primary care must adopt a united, resilient, and adaptive pandemic response. This response must be aided by requisite standards of evidence, financial, and regulatory supports.

BackgroundLong COVID is a multifaceted condition, and it has impacted a considerable proportion of those with acute-COVID-19. Affected patients often have complex care needs requiring holistic and multidisciplinary care, the kind routinely provided in general practice. However, there is limited evidence regarding GP interventions.AimThis study aimed to address this issue by conducting a scoping review of literature on GP management of Long COVID.Design & settingArksey and O’Malley’s six-stage scoping review framework with recommendations by Levac et al. was used.MethodPubMed, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, and Google searches were conducted to identify relevant peer-reviewed/grey literature, and study selection process was conducted according to the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Braun and Clarke’s ‘Thematic Analysis’ approach was used to interpret data.ResultsNineteen of 972 identified papers were selected for review. These included peer-reviewed articles and grey literature spanning a wide range of countries. Six themes were identified regarding GP management of Long COVID, these being: (i) GP uncertainty, (ii) Listening and empathy, (iii) Assessment and monitoring of symptoms, (iv) Coordinating access to appropriate services, (v) Facilitating provision of continual and integrated multi-disciplinary care and (vi) Need to facilitate psychological support.ConclusionThe findings show that GPs can and have played a key role in the management of Long COVID, and that patient care can be improved through better understanding of patient experiences, standardised approaches for symptom identification/treatment, and facilitation of access to multidisciplinary specialist services when needed. Future research evaluating focused GP interventions is needed.

Background: In Ireland, as in many healthcare systems, health policy has committed to delivering an integrated model of care to address the increasing burden of chronic disease. Integrated care is an approach to healthcare systems delivery that aims to minimise fragmentation of patient services and improve care continuity. To this end, how best to integrate primary and secondary care is a challenge. This paper aims to undertake a scoping review of empirical work on the integration of primary and secondary care in relation to chronic disease management. Methods: A search was conducted of ‘PubMed’, ‘Cochrane Library’ and ‘Google Scholar’ for papers published between 2009–2019 using Arksey and O’Malley’s framework for conducing scoping reviews. Results: Twenty-two studies were included. These reported research from a wide range of healthcare systems (most commonly UK, Australia, the Netherlands), adopted a range of methodologies (most commonly randomised/non-randomised controlled trials, case studies, qualitative studies) and among patients with a range of chronic conditions (most commonly diabetes, COPD, Parkinson’s disease). No studies reported on interventions to address the needs of whole populations. Interventions to enhance integration included multidisciplinary teams, education of healthcare professionals, and e-health interventions. Among the effectiveness measures reported were improved disease specific outcomes, and cost effectiveness. Conclusion: With healthcare systems increasingly recognising that integrated approaches to patient care can enhance chronic disease management, considerable literature now informs how this can be done. However, most of the research published has focussed on specific diseases and their clinical outcomes. Future research should focus on how such approaches may improve health outcomes for populations as a whole.

Purpose“Integrated care” (IC) is an approach to health and social care delivery that aims to prevent problems arising from fragmented care systems. The collective content of the IC literature, whilst valuable, has become extensive and wide-ranging to such a degree that knowing what is most important in IC is a challenge. This study aims to address this issue.Design/methodology/approachA scoping review was conducted using Arksey and O'Malley's framework to determine IC priority areas.FindingsTwenty-one papers relevant to the research question were identified. These included studies from many geographical regions, encompassing several study designs and a range of populations and sample sizes. The findings identified four priority areas that should be considered when designing and implementing IC models: (1) communication, (2) coordination, collaboration and cooperation (CCC), (3) responsibility and accountability and (4) a population approach. Multiple elements were identified within these priorities, all of which are important to ensuring successful and sustained integration of care. These included education, efficiency, patient centredness, safety, trust and time.Originality/valueThe study's findings bring clarity and definition to what has become an increasingly extensive and wide-ranging body of work on the topic of IC. Future research should evaluate the implementation of these priorities in care settings.

PurposeIn many healthcare systems, health policy has committed to delivering an integrated model of care to address the increasing burden of disease. The interface between primary and secondary care has been identified as a problem area. This paper aims to undertake a scoping review to gain a deeper understanding of the markers of integration across the primary–secondary interface.Design/methodology/approachA search was conducted of PubMed, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library and the grey literature for papers published in English using the framework described by Arksey and O'Malley. The search process was guided by the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses” (PRISMA).FindingsThe initial database search identified 112 articles, which were screened by title and abstract. A total of 26 articles were selected for full-text review, after which nine articles were excluded as they were not relevant to the research question or the full text was not available. In total, 17 studies were included in the review. A range of study designs were identified including a systematic review (n = 3), mixed methods study (n = 5), qualitative (n = 6) and quantitative (n = 3). The included studies documented integration across the primary–secondary interface; integration measurement and factors affecting care coordination.Originality/valueMany studies examine individual aspects of integration. However, this study is unique as it provides a comprehensive overview of the many perspectives and methodological approaches involved with evaluating integration within the primary–secondary care interface and primary care itself. Further research is required to establish valid reliable tools for measurement and implementation.