Dataset Information

[Long COVID: care and support needs from the perspective of "long-haul" patients and primary care practitioners - a mixed-methods study from Baden-Wuerttemberg].

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The approaches to cope with the challenges of medical care long COVID are multidisciplinary and involve primary care worldwide. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences and ideas for continued development of medical care of long COVID from the patients' (PAT) and primary care practitioners' (PCP) perspective.

Methods

Between the third and fourth COVID-19 wave in Germany (July to September 2021), a mixed methods study was conducted by inviting patients and PCPs in two neighboring districts (urban and rural) in Baden-Wuerttemberg to a paper-based questionnaire with both closed and open questions. On the part of the PCPs a written, anonymized, complete survey was conducted, on the part of the symptomatic COVID long-haul patients an anonymized online-survey with announcement of the study by multiple recruiting processes. Qualitative content analysis was applied to free text entries. The quantitative results were analyzed mainly descriptively.

Results

The responses of n = 72 PCPs (response rate 12%) and n = 126 PAT showed a heterogeneous assessment regarding the satisfaction with medical care of long COVID as well as the perception of the attitude towards patients and their disease in both groups. Uncertainty and dealing with it played a relevant role in both groups as well. The professional medical knowledge was assessed by 3,1 (self-assessment PCPs) and 3,2 (PAT) on average using a five-point Likert scale (1 = not applicable; 5 = applicable). The request for a structured overall concept with competent contact points and coordination of medical care of long COVID emerged out of the statements of both groups.

Conclusion

The results support an interdisciplinary, intersectoral and interprofessional stepped-care concept for long COVID in Germany with PCPs as the first contact persons, integration of specialized contact points and knowledge transfer. Therefore, it appears to be both reasonable and appropriate to establish regional networks with links between regional outpatient medical care structures and the university medical sector.

SUBMITTER: Stengel S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9212842 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has emerged as an unprecedented global crisis challenging health systems. This paper aims to assess and characterise SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg to identify groups at greatest risk, to establish early measures to curb transmission. We analysed all mandatory notified (i.e. laboratory-confirmed) coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreaks with more than two cases in Baden-Wuerttemberg from calendar weeks 18-49 (from 27 April to 6 December 2020). We used the following classification for settings: asylum and refugee accommodation, care homes, care facilities, day care child centres, hobby-related, hospitality, hospitals, households, other, residence halls, schools, supported housing, training schools, transportation, treatment facilities and workplace (occupational). We used R program version 3.6.3 for analysis. In our analysis, 3219 outbreaks with 22 238 individuals were included. About 48% were in household and hobby-related settings. Care homes accounted for 9.5% of outbreaks and 21.6% of cases. The median age across all settings was 43 (interquartile range (IQR) 24-63). The median age of cases in care homes was 81 (IQR 56-88). Of all reported cases in care homes, 72.1% were women. Over 30% (466/1511) of hospitalisations were among cases in care homes compared to 17.7% (268/1511) in households. Overall, 70% (500/715) of all deceased persons in outbreaks in the study period were in care homes compared to 4.2% in household settings (30/715). We observed an exponential increase in the number of notified outbreaks starting around the 41st week with N = 291 outbreaks reported in week 49. The median number of cases in outbreaks in care homes and care facilities after the 40th week was 14 (IQR 5-29) and 11 (IQR 5-20), respectively, compared to 3 (IQR 3-5) in households. We observed an increase in hospitalisations, and mortality associated with COVID-19 outbreaks in care homes after the 40th week. We found the care home demographic to be at greatest risk after the 40th week, based on the exponential increase in outbreaks, the number of cases, hospitalisations and mortality trends. Our analysis highlights the necessity of targeted, setting-specific approaches to control transmission in this vulnerable population. Regular screening of staff members and visitors' using rapid antigen point-of-care-tests could be a game-changer in curbing transmission in this setting.

Project description:BackgroundDuring the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic various ambulatory health care models (SARS-CoV-2 contact points: Subspecialised Primary Care Practices, Fever Clinics, and Special Places for Corona-Testing) were organised in a short period in Baden-Wuerttemberg, a region in Southern Germany. The aim of these SARS-CoV-2 contact points was to ensure medical treatment for patients with (suspected) and without SARS-CoV-2 infection. The present study aimed to assess the beliefs and practices of primary care physicians who either led a Subspecialised Primary Care Practice or a Primary Care Practice providing care as usual in Baden-Wuerttemberg during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsThis cross-sectional study was based on a paper-based questionnaire in primary care physicians during the first wave of the pandemic. Participants were identified via the web page of the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians Baden-Wuerttemberg. The questionnaire was distributed in June and July 2020. It measured knowledge, practices, self-efficacy and fears towards SARS-CoV-2, using newly developed questions. Data was descriptively analysed.ResultsOne hundred fifty-five participants (92 leads of SARS-CoV-2 contact points/ 63 leads of primary care practices) completed the questionnaire. Out of 92 leads of SARS-CoV-2 contact points 74 stated to lead n Subspecialised Primary Care Practices. About half participants of both groups did not fear an own infection with the novel virus (between 50.8% and 62.2%), however about 75% feared financial loss. Knowledge was gained using various sources; main sources were the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (between 82.5% and 83.8%) and the German Society for Hygiene and Microbiology (RKI) (between 88.9% and 95.9%). Leads of Subspecialised Primary Care Practice felt more confident to perform anamnestic/diagnostic procedures (p < 0.001). The same was found for the confidence level regarding decision-making concerning the further treatment (p < 0.001). Several prevention measures to contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2 were adopted. Subspecialised Primary Care Practice had treated on average more patients with (suspected) COVID-19 (mean 408.12) than primary care practices (mean 83.8) (p < 0.001).ConclusionThe results of this study suggest that the Subspecialised Primary Care Practice that were implemented during the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic contributed containment of the pandemic. Leads of Subspecialised Primary Care Practice indicated that physical separation of patients with potential SARS-CoV-2 infection was easier compared to those who continued working in their own practice. Additionally, leads of Subspecialised Primary Care Practice felt more confident in dealing with patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.Trial registrationThe study has been prospectively registered at the German Clinical Trial Register (DRKS00022224).

Project description:Aim: The seminar program of the KWBW Verbundweiterbildungplus® is offered by the Competence Center for Postgraduate Medical Education in Baden-Württemberg (KWBW) for physicians specializing in general practice (GP trainees). Attendance is a voluntary one comprised of 48 curricular units of 45 minutes each per GP trainee. This seminar program is meant to be attended in parallel to the postgraduate medical education in clinic or practice. The intention behind this project was to develop objectives, topics and a feasible structure for a seminar curriculum while taking time and financial constraints into account. Method: The Kern cycle was applied in an open, modified nominal group consensus technique in the form of an iterative process. Participating were 17 experts from the departments of general practice at the universities in Freiburg, Heidelberg, Tuebingen and Ulm, plus a pediatrician. Results: The main objective was defined as empowering GP trainees to independently provide high-quality primary care, including in rural areas. A basic curriculum was defined based on relevant frameworks, such as the 2018 Model Regulation for Postgraduate Medical Training (Musterweiterbildungsordnung/MWBO) and the Competency-based Curriculum General Practice (KCA). Overall, the seminar curriculum has 62 basic modules with 2 curricular units each (e.g. Basic Principles of General Practice, Chest Pain, Billing) and another 58 two-unit modules on variable topics (e.g. digitalization, travel medicine) adding up to 240 (124+116) curricular units. A blueprint with a rotation schedule for all of the teaching sites in Baden-Württemberg allows regular attendance by n=400 GP trainees over a period of five years, with individual variability in terms of program length. Conclusion: The model entails a five-year, flexible program to accompany the postgraduate medical education in general practice which can also be implemented in multicenter programs and those with high enrollments. The model's focus is on acquisition of core competencies for general practice. Despite the current shift to eLearning seminars due to SARS-CoV, the program's implementation is being continued, constantly evaluated, and used to further develop the KWBW Verbundweiterbildungplus® program.

Project description:ObjectivesTo identify follow-up services planned for patients with COVID-19 discharged from intensive care unit (ICU) and to explore the views of ICU staff and general practitioners (GPs) regarding these patients' future needs and care coordination.DesignThis is a sequential mixed-methods study using online surveys and semistructured interviews. Interview data were inductively coded and thematically analysed. Survey data were descriptively analysed.SettingGP surgeries and acute National Health Service Trusts in the UK.ParticipantsGPs and clinicians leading care for patients discharged from ICU.Primary and secondary outcomesUsual follow-up practice after ICU discharge, changes in follow-up during the pandemic, and GP awareness of follow-up and support needs of patients discharged from ICU.ResultsWe obtained 170 survey responses and conducted 23 interviews. Over 60% of GPs were unaware of the follow-up services generally provided by their local hospitals and whether or not these were functioning during the pandemic. Eighty per cent of ICUs reported some form of follow-up services, with 25% of these suspending provision during the peak of the pandemic and over half modifying their provision (usually to provide the service remotely). Common themes relating to barriers to provision of follow-up were funding complexities, remit and expertise, and communication between ICU and community services. Discharge documentation was described as poor and lacking key information. Both groups mentioned difficulties accessing services in the community and lack of clarity about who was responsible for referrals and follow-up.ConclusionsThe pandemic has highlighted long-standing issues of continuity of care and complex funding streams for post-ICU follow-up care. The large cohort of ICU patients admitted due to COVID-19 highlights the need for improved follow-up services and communication between specialists and GPs, not only for patients with COVID-19, but for all those discharged from ICU.

Project description:BackgroundWhile overactive bladder is often managed in the primary care setting, a number of barriers including embarrassment, poor communication, and low patient adherence contribute to the under-treatment of patients with burdensome urinary symptoms. In order to address these challenges, it is crucial to have a fundamental understanding of patient perspectives toward OAB and urinary symptoms. To meet this aim, researchers designed and conducted a study to identify patients' knowledge, experiences and attitudes, barriers to treatment adherence, and desires and tendencies regarding patient/clinician communications.MethodsA mixed-methods qualitative/quantitative needs assessment of patients with overactive bladder and/or urinary symptoms. Researchers conducted in-depth qualitative interviews via telephone with 40 patients. Interview results informed the design and dissemination of a quantitative survey, which was completed by 200 self-selected respondents who had previously identified themselves as having overactive bladder or bladder problems. Statistical and qualitative analysis of results were conducted.ResultsAmong survey respondents, an average of 3.5 years elapsed between symptom onset and seeking diagnosis by a physician. In the long term most patients do not experience improvement in symptoms. Medication non-adherence is common and is related to therapy effectiveness and adverse effects. Patients clearly indicate that communication and patient/physician relationships are important to them and they would prefer the clinician initiate the conversation on overactive bladder. Patient experiences, perspectives, and attitudes toward their bladder symptoms differ in many ways from clinicians' assumptions.ConclusionsThe significant time gap between symptom onset and diagnosis indicates ongoing need for screening and diagnosis of overactive bladder. Contrary to guideline recommendations, urinalysis and physical examination are not widely used in clinical practice. Many patients experience no improvement in symptoms over time. Patients indicate that clinician/patient relationships and communication regarding their condition are important.