BACKGROUND: Recruitment for surveys has been a great challenge, especially in general practice.
METHODS: Here, we reported recruitment strategies, data collection, participation rates (PR) and representativeness of the PRICOV-19 study, an international comparative, cross-sectional, online survey among general practices (GP practices) in 37 European countries and Israel.
RESULTS: Nine (24%) countries reported a published invitation; 19 (50%) had direct contact with all GPs/GP practices; 19 (50%) contacted a sample of GPs /GP practices; and 7 (18%) used another invitation strategy. The median participation rate was 22% (IQR = 10%, 28%). Multiple invitation strategies (P-value 0.93) and multiple strategies to increase PR (P-value 0.64) were not correlated with the PR. GP practices in (semi-) rural areas, GP practices serving more than 10,000 patients, and group practices were over-represented (P-value < 0.001). There was no significant correlation between the PR and strength of the primary care (PC) system [Spearman\'s r 0.13, 95% CI (-0.24, 0.46); P-value 0.49]; the COVID-19 morbidity [Spearman\'s r 0.19, 95% CI (-0.14, 0.49); P-value 0.24], or COVID-19 mortality [Spearman\'s r 0.19, 95% CI (-0.02, 0.58); P-value 0.06] during the three months before country-specific study commencement.
CONCLUSIONS: Our main contribution here was to describe the survey recruitment and representativeness of PRICOV-19, an important and novel study.

BACKGROUND: The unprecedented increase in telehealth use due to COVID-19 has changed general practitioners\' (GP) and patients\' engagement in healthcare. There is limited specific advice for effective communication when using telehealth. Examining telehealth use in practice in conjunction with perspectives on telehealth as they relate to communication allows opportunities to produce evidence-based guidance for optimal use of telehealth, while also offering practitioners the opportunity to reflect on elements of their communicative practice common to both styles of consultation. The objective of this research was to develop evidence-based resources to support effective, person-centred communication when GPs and patients use telehealth. This included examination of interactional practices of recorded telehealth consultations, exploration of GP and patient perspectives relating to telehealth, and identifying priorities for guidance informed by these analyses as well as participant co-design.
METHODS: This study involved recording telehealth consultations (n = 42), conducting patient surveys (n = 153), and interviewing patients (n = 9) and GPs (n = 15). These were examined using interaction analytic methods, quantitative analysis, and thematic analyses, to create a robust, integrated picture of telehealth practice and perspectives. The process of research translation involved a co-design approach, engaging with providers, patients, and policy makers to facilitate development of evidence-based principles that focus on supporting effective communication when using telehealth.
RESULTS: Three key themes relating to communication in telehealth were identified across the different analyses. These were relationship building, conversational flow, and safety netting. The draft best practice principles drawn from these themes were modified based on co-design feedback into five Best Practice Principles for Communication between GPs and Patients using Telehealth.
CONCLUSIONS: Effective communication is supported through relationship building and attention to conversational flow in telehealth consultations, which in turn allows for safety netting to occur. In telehealth, GPs and patients recognise that not being co-present changes the consultation and use both intuitive and strategic interactional adjustments to support their exchange. The mixed-method examination of experiences through both a detailed analysis of telehealth consultations in practice and comparative exploration of GP and patient perspectives enabled the identification of principles that can support effective communication when using telehealth. Co-design helped ensure these principles are ready for implementation into practice.

BACKGROUND: Identifying patients with undiagnosed advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD) is a public health challenge. Patients with advanced fibrosis or compensated cirrhosis have much better outcomes than those with decompensated disease and may be eligible for interventions to prevent disease progression.
METHODS: A cloud-based software solution (\"the Liver Toolkit\") was developed to access primary care practice software to identify patients at risk of ACLD. Clinical history and laboratory results were extracted to calculate aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index and fibrosis 4 scores. Patients identified were recalled for assessment, including Liver Stiffness Measurement (LSM) via transient elastography. Those with an existing diagnosis of cirrhosis were excluded.
RESULTS: Existing laboratory results of more than 32,000 adults across nine general practices were assessed to identify 703 patients at increased risk of ACLD (2.2% of the cohort). One hundred seventy-nine patients (26%) were successfully recalled, and 23/179 (13%) were identified to have ACLD (LSM ≥10.0 kPa) (10% found at indeterminate risk [LSM 8.0-9.9 kPa] and 77% low risk of fibrosis [LSM <8.0 kPa]). In most cases, the diagnosis of liver disease was new, with the most common etiology being metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (n=20, 83%). Aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index ≥1.0 and fibrosis 4 ≥3.25 had a positive predictive value for detecting ACLD of 19% and 24%, respectively. Patients who did not attend recall had markers of more severe disease with a higher median aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index score (0.57 vs. 0.46, p=0.041).
CONCLUSIONS: This novel information technology system successfully screened a large primary care cohort using existing laboratory results to identify patients at increased risk ACLD. More than 1 in 5 patients recalled were found to have liver disease requiring specialist follow-up.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19) pandemic brought substantial changes in the way doctors used to interact with patients. In the general practice, consultation over the phone has become a norm now. However, it is not well known how this new mode of consultation affected clinicians\' practices. Objective of this study was to find out if doctors working in the general practices were trained enough for telephonic consultation and how this new mode of consultation affected their clinical practice in general. It was an online survey. Information was gathered by using an online questionnaire which was sent electronically to general practitioners (GPs) and general practitioner speciality trainees (GPSTs) working in the general practices based in Leicestershire. Data were analyzed by using software SPSS. Descriptive characteristics of participants were reported in terms of numbers and percentages, whereas Chi square test was run to assess if there is a difference between GPs and GPSTs in terms of their experience of remote consultations by telephone. The questionnaire response rate was 69.3% (n = 133/192). Of the total, 54.1% (n = 72/133) of participants were women. About 36% (n = 48/133) of the participants were GPSTs, whereas 64% (n = 85/133) were qualified GPs. Not having enough training for phone consultation, technical issues during consultation, inadequate supervision framework, difficulties in building therapeutic alliance with patients, making diagnosis and risk assessment, and increased duration of consultation were identified as issues. Similarly, concerns around patients\' confidentiality and medico legal issues were highlighted. GPs and GPSTs reported similar difficulties. In conclusion, lack of training for the telephonic consultation has been identified as a unanimous issue along with other challenges to phone consultations. There is an urgent need to take measures to make telephone consultation more successful, enjoyable, and safe for patient care by addressing identified issues. Larger studies with representative samples are needed to increase generalizability of our findings.

People with intellectual disabilities experience overall poorer health and healthcare access than the general population. It is largely unknown how this applies to asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management by general practitioners (GPs). In a 10-year retrospective matched cohort study, n = 34,429, we examined year prevalence of asthma and COPD in adult patients with and without intellectual disabilities and potential differences in the delivery of asthma and COPD disease management activities in Dutch general practices (2010-2019). We collected information on patient characteristics, comorbidity, consultation patterns, use and outcomes of asthma/COPD control questionnaires, spirometry measurement, pulmonology referrals, and prescribed medication. Asthma patients with intellectual disabilities suffered more frequently from obesity (53.2% vs. 39.5% without intellectual disabilities), and both asthma and COPD patients with intellectual disabilities were more frequently current smokers (45.2% vs. 22.1% without intellectual disabilities, and 76.6% vs. 51.4% without intellectual disabilities, respectively). Also, a statistically significant larger number of asthma patients with intellectual disabilities were prescribed antibiotics (69.9% vs. 54.5%). COPD patients with intellectual disabilities, compared with matched controls without intellectual disabilities, received significantly more often either no COPD-related practice consultation at all (respectively 20.8% vs. 8.5%, p = 0.004) or a large number of practice consultations (>31 consultations, respectively 16.7% vs. 5.3%, p = 0.004). For asthma, there was no statistical difference between patients with or without intellectual disabilities regarding the number and type of consultations. The asthma year point prevalence in patients with intellectual disabilities was, from 2014 onward, significantly higher, and in 2019 was 8.7% vs. 6.0% for people without intellectual disabilities. For COPD, it was comparable in both groups. Both asthma and COPD patients with intellectual disabilities appeared considerably younger in age than patients without intellectual disabilities. Our findings warrant further research into the causes of the differences found for asthma and COPD and whether they also infer differences in the quality or the effectiveness of GP disease management, especially for young adults with intellectual disabilities.

BACKGROUND: Research suggests that general practice can play an important role in managing long COVID. However, studies investigating the perspectives of general practitioners (GPs) and patients are lacking and knowledge regarding optimal long COVID care in general practice is therefore limited.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate GPs\' and patients\' perspectives on the topic of long COVID and its management in general practice.
METHODS: Brief questionnaires (GP n = 11, Patient n = 7) and in-depth semi-structured interviews (GP n = 10, Patient n = 7) were conducted with GPs and patients from Irish general practices during July 2022-January 2023. Interviews were conducted via telephone and audio recordings were transcribed. A phenomenological analysis involving reflexive thematic analysis and constant comparison techniques was adopted.
RESULTS: Analysis of interviews with GPs (male = 7, female = 3; median age = 50yrs (IQR = 39.5-56)) and patients (males = 2, female = 5; median age = 58yrs (IQR = 45-62yrs) generated four themes. These were (1) Complex presentations (2) the value of standardising care, (3) choosing the right path, and (4) supportive and collaborative doctor-patient relationships. Strong agreement was observed among GPs and patients regarding the need for holistic and integrated multidisciplinary care. Supportive and collaborative doctor-patient relationships were largely well received by GPs and patients also. GPs strongly endorsed standardising long COVID care operations.
CONCLUSIONS: GPs and patients indicated that structured, integrated, and collaborative care can help optimise long COVID management in general practice. GPs are advised to incorporate these elements into their long COVID care practices going forward. Future research examining stakeholder\'s perspectives using larger and longitudinal samples is advised to enhance the generalisability of evidence in this area.

BACKGROUND: There is a discussion among general practitioners and psychiatrists regarding over-diagnosing versus under-reporting of psychiatric diagnoses. A deeper understanding of this topic is relevant for providing reasonable health care and for planning future studies. A crucial factor to understanding this discussion is the difference in the prevalence of a disease in each sector. One way to attain knowledge about such prevalences is the analysis of routine care data of the sector in question. However, diagnosis-related data might be modified by several additional influencing factors.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore what kind of motives and modifying factors play a role for or against giving psychiatric diagnoses in psychiatric and general medical settings.
METHODS: Twenty-six semi-structured interviews were conducted with German physicians in the fields of general medicine and psychiatry. Interviews were analysed using content analysis.
RESULTS: The analysis revealed three major motivational categories for finding a diagnosis: (1) \"objective matters\" such as \"categorisation for research\"; (2) \"functional and performance-related factors\" such as \"requirement for medication\", \"billing aspects\" that go with certain diagnoses or \"access to adequate care\" and (3) \"Individual factors\" such as the \"personality of a physician\". Similarly, factors emerged that lead to not making psychiatric diagnoses like \"fear of stigmatization among patients\" or \"detrimental insurance status with psychiatric diagnosis\". Additionally participants mentioned other reasons for \"not diagnosing a psychiatric diagnosis\", such as \"coding of other clinical pictures\".
CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic process is a complex phenomenon that goes far beyond the identification of medical findings. This insight should be considered when processing and interpreting secondary data for designing health care systems or designing a study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted a re-evaluation of infection prevention and control (IPC) in general practices, highlighting the need for comprehensive IPC implementation. This study aimed to evaluate healthcare workers\' (HCWs) experiences and perspectives regarding IPC in general practices before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, and its implications for post-pandemic IPC implementation.
METHODS: This qualitative study involved semi-structured, in-depth interviews during two time periods: (1) prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (July 2019-February 2020), involving 14 general practitioners (GPs) and medical assistants; and (2) during the COVID-19 pandemic (July 2022-February 2023), including 22 GPs and medical assistants. Data analysis included thematic analysis that addressed multiple system levels.
RESULTS: Findings indicated a shift towards comprehensive IPC implementation and organisation during the pandemic compared to the pre-pandemic period. Since the Omicron variant, some general practices maintained a broad set of IPC measures, while others released most measures. HCWs\' future expectations on post-pandemic IPC implementation varied: some anticipated reduced implementation due to the desire to return to the pre-pandemic standard, while others expected IPC to be structurally scaled up during seasonal respiratory epidemics. Main contextual challenges included patient cooperation, staff shortages (due to infection), shortages of IPC materials/equipment, and frequently changing and ambiguous guidelines. Key lessons learned were enhanced preparedness (e.g., personal protective equipment supply), and a new perspective on care organisation (e.g., digital care). Main recommendations reported by HCWs were to strengthen regional collaboration within primary care, and between primary care, public health, and secondary care.
CONCLUSIONS: HCWs\' experiences, perspectives and recommendations provide insights to enhance preparedness for future epidemics and pandemics, and sustain IPC in general practices. For IPC improvement strategies, adopting an integrated system-based approach that encompasses actions across multiple levels and engages multiple stakeholders is recommended.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to determine the satisfaction and future training needs of general practice residents participating in a novel model of ambulatory teaching aligned with the specifications for standardized residency training in outpatient management issued by the Chinese Medical Doctor Association (CMDA).
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of the satisfaction and training needs was conducted among general practice residents at West China Hospital, Sichuan University. Patient characteristics and preceptors\' feedback on the residents\' performance were also analyzed.
RESULTS: The study involved 109 residents (30.28% men) and 161 patients (34.78% men; age: 52.63 ± 15.87 years). Residents reported an overall satisfaction score of 4.28 ± 0.62 with the ambulatory teaching program. Notably, residents scored lower in the Subjective-Objective-Assessment-Plan (SOAP) evaluation when encountering patients with the greater the number of medical problems (P < 0.001). Residents encountering patients with a shorter duration of illness (< 3 months) achieved higher scores than those with longer illness durations (≥ 3 months, P = 0.044). Residency general practitioners (GPs) were most challenged by applying appropriate and effective patient referrals (43/109; 39.45%). GPs expressed a strong desire to learn how to make decisions when facing challenging patient situations (4.51 ± 0.63).
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests selecting patients with multiple comorbidities for ambulatory teaching and enhancing training on practical problem-solving abilities for GPs. The findings provide insights for the development of future ambulatory teaching programs.

BACKGROUND: Early identification and treatment of chronic disease is associated with better clinical outcomes, lower costs, and reduced hospitalisation. Primary care is ideally placed to identify patients at risk of, or in the early stages of, chronic disease and to implement prevention and early intervention measures. This paper evaluates the implementation of a technological intervention called Future Health Today that integrates with general practice EMRs to (1) identify patients at-risk of, or with undiagnosed or untreated, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and (2) provide guideline concordant recommendations for patient care. The evaluation aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators to successful implementation.
METHODS: Future Health Today was implemented in 12 general practices in Victoria, Australia. Fifty-two interviews with 30 practice staff were undertaken between July 2020 and April 2021. Practice characteristics were collected directly from practices via survey. Data were analysed using inductive and deductive qualitative analysis strategies, using Clinical Performance - Feedback Intervention Theory (CP-FIT) for theoretical guidance.
RESULTS: Future Health Today was acceptable, user friendly and useful to general practice staff, and supported clinical performance improvement in the identification and management of chronic kidney disease. CP-FIT variables supporting use of FHT included the simplicity of design and delivery of actionable feedback via FHT, good fit within existing workflow, strong engagement with practices and positive attitudes toward FHT. Context variables provided the main barriers to use and were largely situated in the external context of practices (including pressures arising from the COVID-19 pandemic) and technical glitches impacting installation and early use. Participants primarily utilised the point of care prompt rather than the patient management dashboard due to its continued presence, and immediacy and relevance of the recommendations on the prompt, suggesting mechanisms of compatibility, complexity, actionability and credibility influenced use. Most practices continued using FHT after the evaluation phase was complete.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that FHT is a useful and acceptable software platform that provides direct support to general practice in identifying and managing patients with CKD. Further research is underway to explore the effectiveness of FHT, and to expand the conditions on the platform.