Dataset Information

Primary care in the time of COVID-19: monitoring the effect of the pandemic and the lockdown measures on 34 quality of care indicators calculated for 288 primary care practices covering about 6 million people in Catalonia.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To analyse the impact of the COVID-19 epidemic and the lockdown measures on the follow-up and control of chronic diseases in primary care.

Methods

Retrospective study in 288 primary care practices (PCP) of the Catalan Institute of Health. We analysed the results of 34 indicators of the Healthcare quality standard (EQA), comprising different types: treatment (4), follow-up (5), control (10), screening (7), vaccinations (4) and quaternary prevention (4). For each PCP, we calculated each indicator's percentage of change in February, March and April 2020 respective to the results of the previous month; and used the T-Student test for paired data to compare them with the percentage of change in the same month of the previous year. We defined indicators with a negative effect those with a greater negative change or a lesser positive change in 2020 in comparison to 2019; and indicators with a positive effect those with a greater positive change or a lesser negative change.

Results

We observed a negative effect on 85% of the EQA indicators in March and 68% in April. 90% of the control indicators had a negative effect, highlighting the control of LDL cholesterol with a reduction of - 2.69% (95%CI - 3.17% to - 2.23%) in March and - 3.41% (95%CI - 3.82% to - 3.01%) in April; and the control of blood pressure with a reduction of - 2.13% (95%CI - 2.34% to - 1.9%) and - 2.59% (95%CI - 2.8% to - 2.37%). The indicators with the greatest negative effect were those of screening, such as the indicator of diabetic foot screening with a negative effect of - 2.86% (95%CI - 3.33% to - 2.39%) and - 4.13% (95%CI - 4.55% to - 3.71%) in March and April, respectively. Only one vaccination indicator, adult Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine, had a negative effect in both months. Finally, among the indicators of quaternary prevention, we observed negative effects in March and April although in that case a lower inadequacy that means better clinical outcome.

Conclusions

The COVID-19 epidemic and the lockdown measures have significantly reduced the results of the follow-up, control, screening and vaccination indicators for patients in primary care. On the other hand, the indicators for quaternary prevention have been strengthened and their results have improved.

SUBMITTER: Coma E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7547821 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is evidence that an ongoing patient-physician relationship is associated with improved health outcomes and more efficient health systems. The main objective of this study is to describe the continuity of care in primary healthcare in Catalonia (Spain) and to analyze whether the organization of primary care practices (PCP) or their patients' sociodemographic characteristics play a role in its continuity of care.MethodsFour indices were used to measure continuity of care: Usual Provider Index (UPC), Modified Modified Continuity Index (MMCI), Continuity of Care Index (COC), and Sequential Continuity Index (SECON). The study was conducted on 287 PCP of the Catalan Institute of Health (Institut Català de la Salut-ICS). Each continuity of care index was calculated at the patient level (3.2 million patients and 35.5 million visits) and then aggregated at the PCP level. We adjusted linear regression models for each continuity index studied, considering the result of the index as an independent variable and demographic and organizational characteristics of the PCP as explanatory variables. Pearson correlation tests were used to compare the four continuity of care indices.ResultsIndices' results were: UPC: 70,5%; MMCI: 73%; COC: 53,7%; SECON: 60,5%. The continuity of care indices had the highest bivariate correlation with the percentage of appointments booked with an assigned health provider (VISUBA variable: the lower the value, the higher the visits without an assigned health provider, and thus an organization favoring immediate consultation). Its R2 ranged between 56 and 63%, depending on the index. The multivariate model which explained better the variability of continuity of care indices (from 49 to 56%) included the variables VISUBA and rurality with a direct relationship; while the variables primary care physician leave days and training practices showed an inverse relationship.ConclusionStudy results suggest that an organization of primary care favoring immediate consultation is related to a lower continuity of patient care.

Project description:ObjectivesThere is uncertainty about when the first cases of COVID-19 appeared in Spain. We aimed to determine whether influenza diagnoses masked early COVID-19 cases and estimate numbers of undetected COVID-19 cases.DesignTime-series study of influenza and COVID-19 cases, 2010-2020.SettingPrimary care, Catalonia, Spain.ParticipantsPeople registered in primary-care practices, covering >6 million people and >85% of the population.Main outcome measuresWeekly new cases of influenza and COVID-19 clinically diagnosed in primary care.AnalysesDaily counts of both cases were computed using the total cases recorded over the previous 7 days to avoid weekly effects. Epidemic curves were characterised for the 2010-2011 to 2019-2020 influenza seasons. Influenza seasons with a similar epidemic curve and peak case number as the 2019-2020 season were used to model expected case numbers with Auto Regressive Integrated Moving Average models, overall and stratified by age. Daily excess influenza cases were defined as the number of observed minus expected cases.ResultsFour influenza season curves (2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2016-2017) were used to estimate the number of expected cases of influenza in 2019-2020. Between 4 February 2020 and 20 March 2020, 8017 (95% CI: 1841 to 14 718) excess influenza cases were identified. This excess was highest in the 15-64 age group.ConclusionsCOVID-19 cases may have been present in the Catalan population when the first imported case was reported on 25 February 2020. COVID-19 carriers may have been misclassified as influenza diagnoses in primary care, boosting community transmission before public health measures were taken. The use of clinical codes could misrepresent the true occurrence of the disease. Serological or PCR testing should be used to confirm these findings. In future, this surveillance of excess influenza could help detect new outbreaks of COVID-19 or other influenza-like pathogens, to initiate early public health responses.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To identify a generic set of face valid quality indicators for primary care mental health services which reflect a multi-stakeholder perspective and can be used for facilitating quality improvement. DESIGN:Modified two-round postal Delphi questionnaire. SETTING:Geographical spread across Great Britain. PARTICIPANTS:One hundred and fifteen panellists representing 11 different stakeholder groups within primary care mental health services (clinical psychologist, health and social care commissioner, community psychiatric nurse, counsellor, general practitioner, practice nurse/district nurse/health visitor, psychiatrist, social worker, carer, patient and voluntary organisations). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Face validity (median rating of 8 or 9 on a nine point scale with agreement by all panels) for assessing quality of care. RESULTS:A maximum of 334 indicators were rated by panels in the second round; 26% were rated valid by all panels. These indicators were categorised into 21 aspects of care, 11 relating to general practices and 10 relating to health authorities or primary care groups/trusts. There was variation in the total number of indicators rated valid across the different panels. Overall, GPs rated the lowest number of indicators as valid (41%, n=138) and carers rated the highest number valid (91%, n=304). CONCLUSIONS:The quality indicators represent consensus among key stakeholder groups in defining quality of care within primary care mental health services. These indicators could provide a guide for primary care organisations embarking on quality improvement initiatives in mental health care when addressing national targets and standards relating to primary care set out in the National Service Framework for Mental Health for England. Although many of the indicators relate to parochial issues in UK service delivery, the methodology used in the development of the indicators could be applied in other settings to produce locally relevant indicators.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the impact of prehospital factors (diagnostic pathways, first presentation to healthcare services, intervals, participation in primary care) on 1-year and 5-year survival in people with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).DesignRetrospective quasi-population-based cohort study.SettingCatalan Integrated Public Healthcare System.ParticipantsPeople with EOC who underwent surgery with a curative intent in public Catalan hospitals between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2014.Outcome measuresData from primary and secondary care clinical histories and care processes in the 18 months leading up to confirmation (signs and symptoms at presentation, diagnosis pathways, referrals, diagnosis interval) of the EOC diagnosis (stage, histology type, treatment). Diagnostic process intervals were based on the Aarhus statement. 1-year and 5-year survival analysis was undertaken.ResultsOf the 513 patients included in the cohort, 67.2% initially consulted their family physician, while 36.4% were diagnosed through emergency services. In the Cox models, survival was influenced by advanced stage at 1 year (HR 3.84, 95% CI 1.23 to 12.02) and 5 years (HR 5.36, 95% CI 3.07 to 9.36), as was the type of treatment received, although this association was attenuated over follow-up. Age became significant at 5 years of follow-up. After adjusting for age, adjusted morbidity groups, stage at diagnosis and treatment, 5-year survival was better in patients presenting with gynaecological bleeding (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.79). Survival was not associated with a starting point involving primary care (HR 1.39, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.09), diagnostic pathways involving referral to elective gynaecological care from non-general practitioners (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.26), or self-presentation to emergency services (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.31).ConclusionsSurvival in EOC is not associated with diagnostic pathways or prehospital healthcare, but it is influenced by stage at diagnosis, administration of primary cytoreduction plus chemotherapy and patient age.

Project description:BackgroundIn Catalonia, the Fundació TIC Salut Social's mHealth Office created the AppSalut Site to showcase to mobile apps in the field of health and social services. Its primary objective was to encourage the public to look after their health. The catalogue allows primary health care doctors to prescribe certified, connected apps, which guarantees a safe and reliable environment for their use. The generated data can be consulted by health care professionals and included in the patient's clinical history. This document presents the intervention and the major findings following a five-month pilot project conducted in the Barcelona area.ObjectiveThe objective of the pilot study was to test, in a real, controlled environment, the implementation of AppSalut. Specifically, we tested whether (1) the procedures corresponding to the prescription, transmission, and evaluation of the data functions correctly, (2) users interact successfully and accept the tool, and (3) the data travels through existing pathways in accordance with international standards. The evaluation is not based on clinical criteria, but rather on the usability and technological reliability of the intervention and its implementation in the context of primary care.MethodsThe project was presented to the Primary Care Team participants to encourage the involvement of doctors. The study involved at least 5 doctors and 5 patients per professional, chosen at their discretion and in accordance with their own clinical criteria. An initial consultation took place, during which the doctor discussed the pilot project with the patient and recommended the app. The patient was sent a text message (SMS, short message service) containing an access code. When the patient arrived home, they accessed their personal health record (PHR) to view the recommendation, download the app, and enter the access code. The patient was then able to start using the app. The data was collected in a standardized manner and automatically sent to the system. In a second visit, the patient looked at the data with their doctor on their clinical station screen. The latter was able to consult the information generated by the patient and select what to include in their electronic health record. In order to assess the performance of the system, three focus groups were performed and two ad-hoc case-specific questionnaires, one for doctors and one for patients, were sent by email. Response was voluntary.ResultsA total of 32 doctors made 79 recommendations of apps to patients. On average, the patients uploaded data 13 times per prescribed app, accounting for a total of 16 different variables. Results show that data traveled through the established channels in an adequate manner and in accordance with international standards. This includes the prescription of an app by a doctor, the patient accessing the recommendation via the PHR, app download by the patient from the official app stores, linking of the patient to the public platform through the app, the generation and visualization of the data on the primary care workstation, and its subsequent validation by the clinician.ConclusionsFirst, the choice of apps to be used is fundamental; the user's perception of the utility of the proposed tool being paramount. Second, thorough face-to-face support is vital for a smooth transition towards a more intense model of telemedicine. Last, a powerful limiting factor is the lack of control over people's ability to use the apps.