Self-Care Practices for Common Colds by Primary Care Patients: Study Protocol of a European Multicenter Survey—The COCO Study

Background. Self-care for common colds is frequent, yet little is known about the spectrum, regional differences, and potential risks of self-care practices in patients from various European regions. Methods/Design. We describe the study protocol for a cross-sectional survey in 27 primary care centers from 14 European countries. At all sites, 120 consecutive adult patients, who visit their general practitioner for any reason, filled in a self-administered 27-item questionnaire. This addresses patients' self-care practices for common colds. Separately, the subjective level of discomfort when having a common cold, knowing about the diseases' self-limited nature, and medical and sociodemographic data are requested. Additionally, physicians are surveyed on their use of and recommendations for self-care practices. We are interested in investigating which self-care practices for common colds are used, whether the number of self-care practices used is influenced by knowledge about the self-limited nature of the disease, and the subjective level of discomfort when having a cold and to identify potential adverse interactions with chronic physician-prescribed medications. Further factors that will be considered are, for example, demographic characteristics, chronic conditions, and sources of information for self-care practices. All descriptive and analytical statistics will be performed on the pooled dataset and stratified by country and site. Discussion. To our knowledge, COCO is the first European survey on the use of self-care practices for common colds. The study will provide new insight into patients' and general practitioners' self-care measures for common colds across Europe

Vaccination Management and Vaccination Errors: A Representative Online-Survey among Primary Care Physicians

<div><p>Background</p><p>Effective immunizations require a thorough, multi-step process, yet few studies comprehensively addressed issues around vaccination management.</p><p>Objectives</p><p>To assess variations in vaccination management and vaccination errors in primary care.</p><p>Methods</p><p>A cross sectional, web-based questionnaire survey was performed among 1157 primary physicians from North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany: a representative 10% random sample of general practitioners (n = 946) and all teaching physicians from the University Duisburg-Essen (n = 211). Four quality aspects with three items each were included: patient-related quality (patient information, patient consent, strategies to increase immunization rates), vaccine-related quality (practice vaccine spectrum, vaccine pre-selection, vaccination documentation), personnel-related quality (recommendation of vaccinations, vaccine application, personnel qualification) and storage-related quality (storage device, temperature log, vaccine storage control). For each of the four quality aspects, “good quality” was reached if all three criteria per quality aspect were fulfilled. Good vaccination management was defined as fulfilling all twelve items. Additionally, physicians’ experiences with errors and nearby-errors in vaccination management were obtained.</p><p>Results</p><p>More than 20% of the physicians participated in the survey. Good vaccination management was reached by 19% of the practices. Patient-related quality was good in 69% of the practices, vaccine-related quality in 73%, personnel-related quality in 59% and storage-related quality in 41% of the practices. No predictors for error reporting and good vaccination management were identified.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>We identified good results for vaccine- and patient-related quality but need to improve issues that revolve around vaccine storage.</p></div

Additional characteristics of vaccination management.

<p>*Multiple response.</p

Frequencies of errors and near-errors in vaccination management^*.

<p><b><i>*</i></b>The items offered were based on reports in a German primary care incidents reporting system.</p

Physician and practice characteristics of survey respondents.

<p>*Multiple response.</p>#<p>The final analysis included completed questionnaires only.</p><p>b.c.: board certified.</p><p>b.e.: board eligible.</p

More counselling for end-of-life decisions by GPs with own advance directives: A postal survey among German general practitioners

Background: Although general practitioners (GPs) are among the preferred contact persons for discussing end-of-life issues including advance directives (ADs), there is little data on how GPs manage such consultations. Objectives: This postal survey asked German GPs about their counselling for end-of-life decisions. Methods: In 2015, a two-sided questionnaire was mailed to 959 GPs. GPs were asked for details of their consultations on ADs: frequency, duration, template use, and whether they have own ADs. Statistical analysis evaluated physician characteristics associated with an above-average number of consultations on AD. Results: The participation rate was 50.3% (n = 482), 70.5% of the GPs were male; the average age was 54 years. GPs had an average of 18 years of professional experience, and 61.4% serve more than 900 patients per three months. Most (96.9%) GPs perform consultations on living wills (LW) and/or powers of attorney (PA), mainly in selected patients (72.3%). More than 20 consultations each on LWs and PAs are performed by 60% and 50% of GPs, respectively. The estimated mean duration of consultations was 21 min for LWs and 16 min for PAs. Predefined templates were used in 72% of the GPs, 50% of GPs had their ADs. A statistical model showed that GPs with ADs and/or a qualification in palliative medicine were more likely to counsel ≥20 patients per year for each document. Conclusion: The study confirmed that nearly all German GPs surveyed provide counselling on ADs. Physicians with ADs counsel more frequently than those without such documents

Higher Work-Privacy Conflict and Lower Job Satisfaction in GP Leaders and Practice Assistants Working Full-Time Compared to Part-Time: Results of the IMPROVEjob Study

Background: Work-privacy conflict (WPC) has become an important issue for medical professionals. The cluster-randomized controlled IMPROVEjob study aimed at improving job satisfaction (primary outcome), with additional outcomes such as examining the work-privacy conflict in German general practice personnel. Using baseline data of this study, the relationship between work-privacy conflict and job satisfaction (JS) was analyzed. In addition, factors associated with higher WPC were identified. Methods: At baseline, 366 participants (general practitioners (GPs) in leadership positions, employed general practitioners, and practice assistants) from 60 German practices completed a questionnaire addressing socio-demographic data and job characteristics. Standardized scales from the German version of the COPSOQ III requested data concerning job satisfaction and work-privacy conflict. Both scores range from 0 (lowest) to 100 (highest). Multilevel analysis accounted for the clustered data. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS and RStudio software, with a significance level set at p &lt; 0.05. Results: Job satisfaction was 77.16 (mean value; SD = 14.30) among GPs in leadership positions (n = 84), 79.61 (SD = 12.85) in employed GPs (n = 28), and 72.58 (SD = 14.42) in practice assistants (n = 254). Mean values for the WPC-scale were higher for professionals with more responsibilities: GPs in leadership positions scored highest with 64.03 (SD = 29.96), followed by employed physicians (M = 45.54, SD =30.28), and practice assistants (M = 32.67, SD = 27.41). General practitioners and practice assistants working full-time reported significantly higher work-privacy conflict than those working part-time (p &lt; 0.05). In a multilevel analysis, work-privacy conflict was significantly associated with job satisfaction (p &lt; 0.001). A multiple regression analysis identified working hours, as well as and being a practice owner or an employed physician as factors significantly influencing WPC. Discussion: WPC was high among general practice leaders and practice personnel working full-time. Future interventions to support practice personnel should focus on reducing WPC, as there is good evidence of its effects on job satisfaction