The medical home functions of primary care practices that care for adults with psychological distress: a cross-sectional study

Abstract Background: The COVID-19 pandemic is affecting people worldwide. In Spain, the first wave was especially severe. Objectives: This study aimed to identify sources and levels of distress among Spanish primary care physicians (PCPs) during the first wave of the pandemic (April 2020). Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using a survey that included sociodemographic data, a description of working conditions related to distress [such as gaps in training in protective measures, cleaning, and hygiene procedures in work setting, unavailability of personal protective equipments (PPEs) and COVID-19 RT-PCR test, and lack of staff due to be infected] and a validated scale, the ‘Self-applied Acute Stress Scale’ (EASE). The survey was answered by a non-probability sampling of PCPs working in family healthcare centres from different regions of Spain. Analysis of variance and multivariate linear regression analysis were performed. Results: In all, out of 518 PCP participants, 123 (23.7%) obtained high psychological distress scores. Only half of them had received information about the appropriate use of PPE. PCP characteristics associated with higher levels of distress include female gender [1.69; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54, 2.84]; lack of training in protective measures (1.96; 95% CI 0.94, 2.99); unavailable COVID-19 RT-PCR for health care workers after quarantine or COVID-19 treatment (−0.77 (−1.52, −0.02). Reinforcing disinfection of the work environment (P < 0.05), availability of PPEs (P < 0.05), and no healthcare professional was infected (P < 0.05) were related to the lowest distress score. Conclusions: A better understanding of the sources of distress among PCPs could prevent its effect on future outbreaks.

Download Full-text

Associations of primary care structures with polypharmacy and patient-reported indicators in patients with complex multimorbidity: a multicentre cross-sectional study in Japan

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054348 ◽

2022 ◽

Vol 12 (1) ◽

pp. e054348

Author(s):

Takuya Aoki ◽

Yasuki Fujinuma ◽

Masato Matsushima

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Lower Prevalence ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Community Orientation ◽

Patient Reported ◽

Care Facilities ◽

Care Practices ◽

Primary Care Practices

ObjectivesEvidence supporting the effects of primary care structures on the quality of care for patients with complex multimorbidity, which is one of the most important challenges facing primary care, is scarce internationally. This study aimed to examine the associations of the types of primary care facilities with polypharmacy and patient-reported indicators in patients with complex multimorbidity, with a focus on differences between community clinics and hospitals.DesignMulticentre cross-sectional study.SettingA total of 25 primary care facilities (19 community clinics and 6 small- and medium-sized hospitals).ParticipantsAdult outpatients with complex multimorbidity, which was defined as the co-occurrence of three or more chronic conditions affecting three or more different body systems within one person.Primary outcome measurePolypharmacy, the Patient-Reported Experience Measure using the Japanese version of Primary Care Assessment Tool Short Form (JPCAT-SF) and the Patient-Reported Outcome Measure using self-rated health status (SRH).ResultsData were analysed for 492 patients with complex multimorbidity. After adjustment for possible confounders and clustering within facilities, clinic-based primary care practices were significantly associated with a lower prevalence of polypharmacy, higher JPCAT-SF scores in coordination and community orientation, and a lower prevalence of poor or fair SRH compared with hospital-based primary care practices. In contrast, the JPCAT-SF score in first contact was significantly lower in clinic-based practices. The associations between the types of primary care facilities and JPCAT-SF scores in longitudinality and comprehensiveness were not statistically significant.ConclusionsClinic-based primary care practices were associated with a lower prevalence of polypharmacy, better patient experience of coordination and community orientation, and better SRH in patients with complex multimorbidity compared with hospital-based primary care practices. In the primary care setting, small and tight teams may improve the quality of care for patients with complex multimorbidity.

Download Full-text