Harmonized definition of occupational burnout : A systematic review, semantic analysis, and Delphi consensus in 29 countries

Funding Information: This study was supported by the University of Lausanne and European Cooperation in Science and Technology, Action CA 16216 "Network on the Coordination and Harmonisation of European Occupational Cohorts” (OMEGA-NET). Publisher Copyright: © 2021, Nordic Association of Occupational Safety and Health. All rights reserved.Objective A consensual definition of occupational burnout is currently lacking. We aimed to harmonize the definition of occupational burnout as a health outcome in medical research and reach a consensus on this definition within the Network on the Coordination and Harmonisation of European Occupational Cohorts (OMEGA-NET). Methods First, we performed a systematic review in MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Embase (January 1990 to August 2018) and a semantic analysis of the available definitions. We used the definitions of burnout and burnout-related concepts from the Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms (SNOMED-CT) to formulate a consistent harmonized definition of the concept. Second, we sought to obtain the Delphi consensus on the proposed definition. Results We identified 88 unique definitions of burnout and assigned each of them to 1 of the 11 original definitions. The semantic analysis yielded a first proposal, further reformulated according to SNOMED-CT and the panelists` comments as follows: "In a worker, occupational burnout or occupational physical AND emotional exhaustion state is an exhaustion due to prolonged exposure to work-related problems". A panel of 50 experts (researchers and healthcare professionals with an interest for occupational burnout) reached consensus on this proposal at the second round of the Delphi, with 82% of experts agreeing on it. Conclusion This study resulted in a harmonized definition of occupational burnout approved by experts from 29 countries within OMEGA-NET. Future research should address the reproducibility of the Delphi consensus in a larger panel of experts, representing more countries, and examine the practicability of the definition.Peer reviewe

Clinical pathway of COVID-19 patients in primary health care in 30 European countries : Eurodata study

BackgroundMost COVID-19 patients were treated in primary health care (PHC) in Europe.ObjectivesTo demonstrate the scope of PHC workflow during the COVID-19 pandemic emphasising similarities and differences of patient's clinical pathways in Europe.MethodsDescriptive, cross-sectional study with data acquired through a semi-structured questionnaire in PHC in 30 European countries, created ad hoc and agreed upon among all researchers who participated in the study. GPs from each country answered the approved questionnaire. Main variable: PHC COVID-19 acute clinical pathway. All variables were collected from each country as of September 2020.ResultsCOVID-19 clinics in PHC facilities were organised in 8/30. Case detection and testing were performed in PHC in 27/30 countries. RT-PCR and lateral flow tests were performed in PHC in 23/30, free of charge with a medical prescription. Contact tracing was performed mainly by public health authorities. Mandatory isolation ranged from 5 to 14 days. Sick leave certification was given exclusively by GPs in 21/30 countries. Patient hotels or other resources to isolate patients were available in 12/30. Follow-up to monitor the symptoms and/or new complementary tests was made mainly by phone call (27/30). Chest X-ray and phlebotomy were performed in PHC in 18/30 and 23/30 countries, respectively. Oxygen and low-molecular-weight heparin were available in PHC (21/30).ConclusionIn Europe PHC participated in many steps to diagnose, treat and monitor COVID-19 patients. Differences among countries might be addressed at European level for the management of future pandemics.Peer reviewe

European general practitioners’/family physicians’ attitudes towards person-centered care and factors that influence its implementation in everyday practice : preliminary results

Background: Person-centered care (PCC) is widely acknowledged as a core value in family medicine and has been associated with many positive outcomes of care. There has been no comparison of GPs attitudes towards person-centeredness across European countries. Research questions: To investigate GPs/FPs attitudes towards person-centeredness. To understand GPs/FPs facilitators and barriers related to practicing PCC. To document obstacles to practicing PCC in practice. Method: A cross-sectional questionnaire-based study across 22 European countries (finished in one country, in 10 countries ongoing, in 11 countries finishing the preparatory phase). In each country, the population of GPs/FPs will be reached through the official mailing list of the national medical associations. The study instrument consists of four parts: General information about the doctor and the doctor's office, Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), Patient Practitioner Orientation Scale (PPOS) and Facilitators and barriers to PCC in everyday practice. The Ethics Committee, School of Medicine, University of Zagreb approved the project. The study will be carried out in close collaboration with the European Association for Quality and Patient Safety in Primary Care (EQuiP) and the European General Practice Research Network (EGPRN). The study will be coordinated by the Department of Family Medicine, School of Medicine University of Zagreb (Croatia). The project is supported by the EGPRN Grant. Results: GPs/FPs attitudes towards person-centeredness will be described and investigated in correlation to sociodemographic data and work stress in each participating European country. GPs/FPs facilitators and barriers to practicing PCC in everyday practice will be analysed. Data will be analysed using software package STATISTICA 7.1 (StatSoft Inc, Tulsa, OK, USA), and P < .05 will be considered statistically significant. Conclusions: Regardless of the specific context of care that is highly dependent on the patient, physician and healthcare system characteristics, PCC represents a core value of family medicine that should be implemented in GPs/FPs everyday work across Europe

The role of primary health care in long-term care facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic in 30 European countries : a retrospective descriptive study (Eurodata study)

Background and aim:Primary health care (PHC) supported long-term care facilities (LTCFs) in attending COVID-19 patients. The aim of this study is to describe the role of PHC in LTCFs in Europe during the early phase of the pandemic.Methods:Retrospective descriptive study from 30 European countries using data from September 2020 collected with an ad hoc semi-structured questionnaire. Related variables are SARS-CoV-2 testing, contact tracing, follow-up, additional testing, and patient care.Results:Twenty-six out of the 30 European countries had PHC involvement in LTCFs during the COVID-19 pandemic. PHC participated in initial medical care in 22 countries, while, in 15, PHC was responsible for SARS-CoV-2 test along with other institutions. Supervision of individuals in isolation was carried out mostly by LTCF staff, but physical examination or symptom's follow-up was performed mainly by PHC.Conclusion:PHC has participated in COVID-19 pandemic assistance in LTCFs in coordination with LTCF staff, public health officers, and hospitals.Peer reviewe

Clinical pathway of COVID-19 patients in primary health care in 30 European countries: Eurodata study

BACKGROUND: Most COVID-19 patients were treated in primary health care (PHC) in Europe. OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate the scope of PHC workflow during the COVID-19 pandemic emphasising similarities and differences of patient's clinical pathways in Europe. METHODS: Descriptive, cross-sectional study with data acquired through a semi-structured questionnaire in PHC in 30 European countries, created ad hoc and agreed upon among all researchers who participated in the study. GPs from each country answered the approved questionnaire. Main variable: PHC COVID-19 acute clinical pathway. All variables were collected from each country as of September 2020. RESULTS: COVID-19 clinics in PHC facilities were organised in 8/30. Case detection and testing were performed in PHC in 27/30 countries. RT-PCR and lateral flow tests were performed in PHC in 23/30, free of charge with a medical prescription. Contact tracing was performed mainly by public health authorities. Mandatory isolation ranged from 5 to 14 days. Sick leave certification was given exclusively by GPs in 21/30 countries. Patient hotels or other resources to isolate patients were available in 12/30. Follow-up to monitor the symptoms and/or new complementary tests was made mainly by phone call (27/30). Chest X-ray and phlebotomy were performed in PHC in 18/30 and 23/30 countries, respectively. Oxygen and low-molecular-weight heparin were available in PHC (21/30). CONCLUSION: In Europe PHC participated in many steps to diagnose, treat and monitor COVID-19 patients. Differences among countries might be addressed at European level for the management of future pandemics