Symptoms, symptom severity, and contact with primary health care among nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients: a Norwegian web-based survey

Objective Dependent on clinical setting, geography and timing during the pandemic, variable symptoms of COVID-19 have been reported. Our aim was to describe self-reported symptom intensity and contact with primary health care among nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients. Design Web-based survey. Setting Norway between March 2020 and July 2021. Subjects Adults in home isolation. Main outcome measures Participants reported possible COVID-19 symptoms, duration of symptoms, score of symptom severity (Likert scale 0–3), risk factors, comorbidity, and questions regarding follow-up and information from primary health care. Results Of 477 participants, 379 (79%) had PCR-confirmed COVID-19, 324 (68%) were females, and 90% were younger than 60 years. Most common symptoms were “fatigue and/or muscle ache” (80%), nasal symptoms (79%), and headache (73%). The mean severity of symptoms was generally low. Symptoms with the highest mean scores were “fatigue and/or muscle ache” (1.51, SD 1.02) and headache (1.27 (SD 1.00). Mean scores for severity ranged from 0.28 (nausea) to 1.51 (fatigue and/or muscle ache). Women reported higher symptom scores than men. For “affected sense of smell and/or taste”, patients either reported a high symptom score (24%) or no affliction at all (49%). A third of the participants (32%) were followed-up by primary care health personnel, and almost 40% had sought or received information about COVID-19 from general practitioners. Conclusion The mean severity of symptoms among nonhospitalized adult COVID-19 patients was generally low. We found large variations in the occurrence and severity of symptoms between patients.publishedVersio

Experiences and management strategies of Norwegian GPs during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal interview study

Objective: When the COVID-19 pandemic reached Norway, primary health care had to reorganize to ensure safe patient treatment and maintain infection control. General practitioners (GPs) are key health care providers in the municipalities. Our aim was to explore the experiences and management strategies of Norwegian GPs during the COVID-19 pandemic - over time, and in the context of a sudden organizational change. Design: Longitudinal qualitative interview study with two interview rounds. The first round of interviews was conducted from September–December 2020, the second round from January–April 2021. In the first interview round, we performed eight semi-structured interviews with GPs from eight municipalities in Norway. In the second round, five of the GPs were re-interviewed. Consecutive interviews were performed 2–4 months apart. To analyze the data, we used thematic analysis. Results: The COVID-19 pandemic required GPs to balance several concerns, such as continuity of care and their own professional efforts. Several GPs experienced challenges in the collaboration with the municipality and in relation to defining their own professional position. Guided by The Norwegian Association of General practitioners, The Norwegian College of General Practice and collegial support, they found viable solutions and ended up with a feeling of having adapted to a new normal. Conclusions: Although our study demonstrates that the GPs adapted to the changing conditions, the current municipal health care models are not ideal. There is a need for clarification of responsibilities between GPs and the municipality to facilitate a more coordinated future pandemic response

Pasienter - nyttig ressurs ved evaluering av medisinstudenters kliniske praksis?

Bakgrunn: Mange medisinstudenter opplever å få for lite tilbakemelding under utplassering i allmennpraksis. Vi ønsket å finne ut om strukturerte tilbakemeldinger fra pasientene var et nyttig hjelpemiddel for studenter og veiledere. Materiale og metode: Institutt for allmenn- og samfunnsmedisin ved Universitetet i Oslo inviterte medisinstudenter utplassert i allmennpraksis våren 2005 til å delta. Spørreskjemaet bestod av åtte spørsmål om konsultasjonen. Veileder og student vurderte nytteverdien av evalueringsformen. Skjemaene ble analysert statistisk. Fokusgrupper av studenter diskuterte bruken av pasientevalueringsskjemaene før og etter utplasseringen. Resultater: 648 pasienter fylte ut skjema etter 36 studenters selvstendige konsultasjoner. 63 konsultasjoner ble vurdert av både pasient, en observerende praksisveileder og studenten selv. Pasientene skåret åtte tema fra 4,4 til 5,0 i gjennomsnitt, der 5,0 var beste resultat. Ved observerte konsultasjoner var veiledernes evaluering ikke signifikant forskjellig fra pasientenes på seks av åtte tema. Veilederne skåret lavere for ett tema ("klinisk undersøkelse") og høyere for et annet ("brukt vanskelige ord og uttrykk"). Studentenes selvevaluering var signifikant lavere på sju av åtte temaer. Studenter og veiledere gav uttrykk for blandete erfaringer mer spørreskjemaet. Studentene mente skjemaene kunne bidra til bedre tilbakemelding fra veileder eller til å få flere selvstendige konsultasjoner. Fortolkning: Pasienter og veiledere gav studentene svært høye skårer, mens studentene skåret egne prestasjoner lavere. Evalueringsskjemaene kan hjelpe studentene til å forme praksisperioden slik at de får bedre tilbakemeldinger på sine konsultasjoner

Quality improvement and antimicrobial stewardship in general practice – the role of the municipality chief medical officer. A qualitative study

Aims This study aimed to explore the conditions for the Municipal Chief Medical Officers’ (MCMOs) involvement in quality improvement in general practice, specifically concerning antibiotic prescribing practices. Methods This qualitative study consisted of semi-structured in-depth telephone interviews and group interviews with MCMOs (n = 12). The interview guide aimed to explore the MCMOs’ views on their role and responsibilities regarding the quality of care in general practice. The data were analysed using systematic text condensation. Results Three main themes were identified: 1) the relationship between the municipality and the general practitioner (GP), with the MCMO acting as an intermediary, 2) influencing the GPs’ work and 3) antibiotic use and infection control. The MCMOs perceived themselves as liaisons between the municipalities and the GPs. They emphasized building trust, showing respect and sharing common values in their interactions with the GPs, upholding the GPs’ professional autonomy. Working for quality improvement was considered a priority; however, MCMOs expressed a need for external support to establish a permanent quality improvement framework. The informants were positive about engaging in improving antibiotic prescribing practices because this combined the municipality’s responsibilities for quality improvement and communicable disease control. Conclusions The MCMOs considered themselves as well-suited agents for quality improvement in general practice, as liaisons between the municipalities and the GPs. Quality improvement in general practice would benefit from a clearer structure in terms of the MCMOs’ roles and responsibilities. Within communicable diseases control, the MCMOs have a clear mandate, which places antimicrobial stewardship initiatives in a favourable position amongst other areas of quality improvement

Publication and non-publication of drug trial results: a 10-year cohort of trials in Norwegian general practice

Objectives Previously, we identified a 10-year cohort of protocols from applications to the Norwegian Medicines Agency 1998–2007, consisting of 196 drug trials in general practice. The aim of this study was to examine whether trial results were published and whether trial funding and conflicts of interest were reported. Design Cohort study of trials with systematic searches for published results. Setting Clinical drug trials in Norwegian general practice. Methods We performed systematic literature searches of MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL to identify publications originating from each trial using characteristics such as test drug, comparator and patient groups as search terms. When no publication was identified, we contacted trial sponsors for information regarding trial completion and reference to any publications. Main outcome measures We determined the frequency of publication of trial results and trial characteristics associated with publication of results. Results Of the 196 trials, 5 were never started. Of the remaining 191 trials, 71% had results published in a journal, 11% had results publicly available elsewhere and 18% of trials had no results available. Publication was more common among trials with an active comparator drug (χ2 test, p=0.040), with a larger number of patients (total sample size≥median, p=0.010) and with a longer trial period (duration≥median, p=0.025). Trial funding was reported in 85% of publications and increased over time, as did reporting of conflicts of interest among authors. Among the 134 main journal articles from the trials, 60% presented statistically significant results for the investigational drug, and the conclusion of the article was favourable towards the test drug in 78% of papers. Conclusions We did not identify any journal publication of results for 29% of the general practice drug trials. Trials with an active comparator, larger and longer trials were more likely to be published

General practitioners’ and students’ experiences with feedback during a six-week clerkship in general practice: a qualitative study

Objective: Feedback may be scarce and unsystematic during students' clerkship periods. We wanted to explore general practitioners' (GPs) and medical students' experiences with giving and receiving supervision and feedback during a clerkship in general practice, with a focus on their experiences with using a structured tool (StudentPEP) to facilitate feedback and supervision. Design: Qualitative study. Setting: Teachers and students from a six-week clerkship in general practice for fifth year medical students were interviewed in two student and two teacher focus groups. Subjects: 21 GPs and nine medical students. Results: We found that GPs first supported students' development in the familiarization phase by exploring the students' expectations and competency level. When mutual trust had been established through the familiarization phase GPs encouraged students to conduct their own consultations while being available for supervision and feedback. Both students and GPs emphasized that good feedback promoting students' professional development was timely, constructive, supportive, and focused on ways to improve. Among the challenges GPs mentioned were giving feedback on behavioral issues such as body language and insensitive use of electronic devices during consultations or if the student was very insecure, passive, and reluctant to take action or lacked social or language skills. While some GPs experienced StudentPEP as time-consuming and unnecessary, others argued that the tool promoted feedback and learning through mandatory observations and structured questions. Conclusion: Mutual trust builds a learning environment in which supervision and feedback may be given during students' clerkship in general practice. Structured tools may promote feedback, reflection and learning. Key Points Observing the teacher and being supervised are essential components of Medical students' learning during general practice clerkships. Teachers and students build mutual trust in the familiarization phase. Good feedback is based on observations, is timely, encouraging, and instructive. StudentPEP may create an arena for structured feedback and reflection

Prevalence of Isotretinoin Therapy in Adolescents and Young Adults With and Without Atopic Dermatitis: A Nationwide Prescription-based Population Study

Although isotretinoin has anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties, it can exacerbate atopic dermatitis. National estimates of the extent to which patients with atopic dermatitis are affected by severe acne and isotretinoin tolerability are lacking. The aim of this study is to investigate isotretinoin therapy in patients with atopic dermatitis and to compare the nationwide prevalence with individuals without atopic dermatitis. All Norwegian residents were followed for 17 years until age 20–22 years in 2020. Approximately 28% of patients with atopic dermatitis had been treated for acne, and 8% had received isotretinoin before age 23 years. In those over 17 years old, significantly more patients with atopic dermatitis were treated with isotretinoin than those without. At age 22 years, 2.21% (95% confidence interval 1.92–2.49) of patients with atopic dermatitis were treated with isotretinoin, compared with 1.55% (95% confidence interval 1.44–1.65) of those without, representing 42.8% (1.43; 95% confidence interval 1.24–1.65) higher use in patients with atopic dermatitis. Patients who received long-term treatment (probable severe atopic dermatitis) tolerated isotretinoin similarly to patients who received short-term treatment (probable mild atopic dermatitis). There was significantly higher use of topical corticosteroids during isotretinoin therapy in patients with atopic dermatitis. Conclusively, severe acne (isotretinoin therapy) was associated with atopic dermatitis at the population level in young adults.