The breadth of primary care: a systematic literature review of its core dimensions

Background: Even though there is general agreement that primary care is the linchpin of effective health care delivery, to date no efforts have been made to systematically review the scientific evidence supporting this supposition. The aim of this study was to examine the breadth of primary care by identifying its core dimensions and to assess the evidence for their interrelations and their relevance to outcomes at (primary) health system level. Methods: A systematic review of the primary care literature was carried out, restricted to English language journals reporting original research or systematic reviews. Studies published between 2003 and July 2008 were searched in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, King's Fund Database, IDEAS Database, and EconLit. Results: Eighty-five studies were identified. This review was able to provide insight in the complexity of primary care as a multidimensional system, by identifying ten core dimensions that constitute a primary care system. The structure of a primary care system consists of three dimensions: 1. governance; 2. economic conditions; and 3. workforce development. The primary care process is determined by four dimensions: 4. access; 5. continuity of care; 6. coordination of care; and 7. comprehensiveness of care. The outcome of a primary care system includes three dimensions: 8. quality of care; 9. efficiency care; and 10. equity in health. There is a considerable evidence base showing that primary care contributes through its dimensions to overall health system performance and health. Conclusions: A primary care system can be defined and approached as a multidimensional system contributing to overall health system performance and health

Patient satisfaction with healthcare provided by family doctors: primary dimensions and an attempt at typology

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Patient satisfaction is a complex and difficult concept to measure, thus precluding the use of exclusively quantitative methods for its description. The purpose of this survey was firstly to identify particular healthcare dimensions that determine a patient's satisfaction or dissatisfaction; and secondly to attempt to typologise the patients' responses based on their evaluation of healthcare.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using a qualitative research design, thirty-six in-depth interviews with patients of family physicians were conducted: four patients from each of 9 family practices in different regions of Poland were interviewed. The main outcome measure was factors associated with patient satisfaction/dissatisfaction.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In their evaluations of their contacts with family doctors, the patients cited mostly issues concerning interpersonal relationships with the doctor. Nearly 40% of the statements referred to this aspect of healthcare, with nearly equal proportions of positive and negative comments. The second most frequent category of responses concerned contextual factors (21%) that related to conditions of medical service, with two-thirds of the evaluations being negative. Statements concerning the doctor's competencies (12.9%) and personal qualities (10.5%) were less common.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>To improve the quality of healthcare, family doctors should take special care to ensure the quality of their interactions with patients.</p

Oseltamivir plus usual care versus usual care for influenza-like illness in primary care: an open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial

Background Antivirals are infrequently prescribed in European primary care for influenza-like illness, mostly because of perceived ineffectiveness in real world primary care and because individuals who will especially benefit have not been identified in independent trials. We aimed to determine whether adding antiviral treatment to usual primary care for patients with influenza-like illness reduces time to recovery overall and in key subgroups. Methods We did an open-label, pragmatic, adaptive, randomised controlled trial of adding oseltamivir to usual care in patients aged 1 year and older presenting with influenza-like illness in primary care. The primary endpoint was time to recovery, defined as return to usual activities, with fever, headache, and muscle ache minor or absent. The trial was designed and powered to assess oseltamivir benefit overall and in 36 prespecified subgroups defined by age, comorbidity, previous symptom duration, and symptom severity, using a Bayesian piece-wise exponential primary analysis model. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN 27908921. Findings Between Jan 15, 2016, and April 12, 2018, we recruited 3266 participants in 15 European countries during three seasonal influenza seasons, allocated 1629 to usual care plus oseltamivir and 1637 to usual care, and ascertained the primary outcome in 1533 (94%) and 1526 (93%). 1590 (52%) of 3059 participants had PCR-confirmed influenza infection. Time to recovery was shorter in participants randomly assigned to oseltamivir (hazard ratio 1·29, 95% Bayesian credible interval [BCrI] 1·20–1·39) overall and in 30 of the 36 prespecified subgroups, with estimated hazard ratios ranging from 1·13 to 1·72. The estimated absolute mean benefit from oseltamivir was 1·02 days (95% [BCrI] 0·74–1·31) overall, and in the prespecified subgroups, ranged from 0·70 (95% BCrI 0·30–1·20) in patients younger than 12 years, with less severe symptoms, no comorbidities, and shorter previous illness duration to 3·20 (95% BCrI 1·00–5·50) in patients aged 65 years or older who had more severe illness, comorbidities, and longer previous illness duration. Regarding harms, an increased burden of vomiting or nausea was observed in the oseltamivir group. Interpretation Primary care patients with influenza-like illness treated with oseltamivir recovered one day sooner on average than those managed by usual care alone. Older, sicker patients with comorbidities and longer previous symptom duration recovered 2–3 days sooner. Funding European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme

Airway Obstruction and Bronchodilator Responsiveness in Adults With Acute Cough

PURPOSE: We sought to determine the prevalence of airway obstruction and bronchodilator responsiveness in adults consulting for acute cough in primary care. METHODS: Family physicians recruited 3,105 adult patients with acute cough (28 days or shorter) attending primary care practices in 12 European countries. After exclusion of patients with preexisting physician-diagnosed asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), we undertook complete case analysis of spirometry results (n = 1,947) 28 to 35 days after inclusion. Bronchodilator responsiveness was diagnosed if there were recurrent complaints of wheezing, cough, or dyspnea and an increase of the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) of 12% or more after bronchodilation. Airway obstruction was diagnosed according to 2 thresholds for the (postbronchodilator) ratio of FEV(1) to forced vital capacity (FEV(1):FVC): less than 0.7 and less than the lower limit of normal. RESULTS: There were 240 participants who showed bronchodilator responsiveness (12%), 193 (10%) had a FEV(1)/FVC ratio of less than 0.7, and 126 (6%) had a ratio of less than the lower limit of normal. Spearman's correlation between the 2 definitions of obstruction was 0.71 (P <.001), with discordance most pronounced among those younger than 30 years and in older participants. CONCLUSIONS: Both bronchodilator responsiveness and persistent airway obstruction are common in adults without established asthma or COPD who consult for acute cough in primary care, which suggests a high risk of undiagnosed asthma and COPD. Different accepted methods to define airway obstruction detected different numbers of patients, especially at the extremes of age. As both conditions benefit from appropriate and timely interventions, clinicians should be aware and responsive to potential underdiagnosis

Temporal changes in HCV genotype distribution in three different high risk populations in San Francisco, California

Abstract Background Hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype (GT) has become an important measure in the diagnosis and monitoring of HCV infection treatment. In the United States (U.S.) HCV GT 1 is reported as the most common infecting GT among chronically infected patients. In Europe, however, recent studies have suggested that the epidemiology of HCV GTs is changing. Methods We assessed HCV GT distribution in 460 patients from three HCV-infected high risk populations in San Francisco, and examined patterns by birth cohort to assess temporal trends. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess factors independently associated with GT 1 infection compared to other GTs (2, 3, and 4). Results Overall, GT 1 was predominant (72.4%), however younger injection drug users (IDU) had a lower proportion of GT 1 infections (54.7%) compared to older IDU and HIV-infected patients (80.5% and 76.6%, respectively). Analysis by birth cohort showed increasing proportions of non-GT 1 infections associated with year of birth: birth before 1970 was independently associated with higher adjusted odds of GT 1: AOR 2.03 (95% CI: 1.23, 3.34). African-Americans as compared to whites also had higher adjusted odds of GT 1 infection (AOR: 3.37; 95% CI: 1.89, 5.99). Conclusions Although, HCV GT 1 remains the most prevalent GT, especially among older groups, changes in GT distribution could have significant implications for how HCV might be controlled on a population level and treated on an individual level