Resilience of the primary health care system - German primary care practitioners' perspectives during the early COVID-19 pandemic.
COVID-19 pandemic
Primary care
Primary health care
Resilience
Journal
BMC primary care
ISSN: 2731-4553
Titre abrégé: BMC Prim Care
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9918300889006676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 08 2022
11 08 2022
Historique:
received:
10
10
2021
accepted:
05
07
2022
entrez:
10
8
2022
pubmed:
11
8
2022
medline:
13
8
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Primary care is a relevant pillar in managing not only individual, but also societal medical crises. The COVID-19 pandemic has demanded a rapid response from primary care with interventions in the health care system. The aim of this paper was to explore the responses of primary care practitioners (PCP) during the early COVID-19 pandemic and to analyze these with a view on the resilience of the primary health care system from the PCPs perspective. Shortly after the first COVID-19 wave (July-October 2020) n = 39, semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with PCP in practices and at Corona contact points (CCP) in Baden-Wuerttemberg (Germany). Qualitative content analysis was applied, and the evolved categories were related to in a framework for resilience. Primary care had an overall strong ability to adapt and show resilience, albeit with wide variance in speed and scope of the responses. When coping with uncertainty, the reasons given by PCPs in favor of opening a CCP mainly involved intrinsic motivation and self-initiative; the reasons against doing so were i.e. the lack of personal protective equipment, problems with space, and worries about organizational burden. A strong association existed between the establishment of a CCP and the use of resources (i.e. existing networks, personal protective equipment, exercising an office of professional political function). Our study predominantly found adaptive aspects for measures taken at medical practices and transformative aspects for setting up outpatient infection centers. PCPs played an important role in the coordination process (i.e. actively transferring knowledge, integration in crisis management teams, inclusion in regional strategic efforts) reaching a high level in the dimensions knowledge and legitimacy. The dimension interdependence repeatedly came into focus (i.e. working with stakeholders to open CCP, interacting among different types of primary care facilities, intersectoral interfaces). A need for regional capacity planning was visible at the time of the interviews. The results can be used for practical and research-based institutional and capacity planning, for developing resilience in primary care and for augmentation by perspectives from other stakeholders in the primary health care system.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Primary care is a relevant pillar in managing not only individual, but also societal medical crises. The COVID-19 pandemic has demanded a rapid response from primary care with interventions in the health care system. The aim of this paper was to explore the responses of primary care practitioners (PCP) during the early COVID-19 pandemic and to analyze these with a view on the resilience of the primary health care system from the PCPs perspective.
METHODS
Shortly after the first COVID-19 wave (July-October 2020) n = 39, semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with PCP in practices and at Corona contact points (CCP) in Baden-Wuerttemberg (Germany). Qualitative content analysis was applied, and the evolved categories were related to in a framework for resilience.
RESULTS
Primary care had an overall strong ability to adapt and show resilience, albeit with wide variance in speed and scope of the responses. When coping with uncertainty, the reasons given by PCPs in favor of opening a CCP mainly involved intrinsic motivation and self-initiative; the reasons against doing so were i.e. the lack of personal protective equipment, problems with space, and worries about organizational burden. A strong association existed between the establishment of a CCP and the use of resources (i.e. existing networks, personal protective equipment, exercising an office of professional political function). Our study predominantly found adaptive aspects for measures taken at medical practices and transformative aspects for setting up outpatient infection centers. PCPs played an important role in the coordination process (i.e. actively transferring knowledge, integration in crisis management teams, inclusion in regional strategic efforts) reaching a high level in the dimensions knowledge and legitimacy. The dimension interdependence repeatedly came into focus (i.e. working with stakeholders to open CCP, interacting among different types of primary care facilities, intersectoral interfaces). A need for regional capacity planning was visible at the time of the interviews.
CONCLUSIONS
The results can be used for practical and research-based institutional and capacity planning, for developing resilience in primary care and for augmentation by perspectives from other stakeholders in the primary health care system.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35948965
doi: 10.1186/s12875-022-01786-9
pii: 10.1186/s12875-022-01786-9
pmc: PMC9365682
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
203Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
BMC Fam Pract. 2021 Jun 23;22(1):125
pubmed: 34162343
Eur J Gen Pract. 2020 Dec;26(1):129-133
pubmed: 32985278
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2021 Oct;165:35-42
pubmed: 34474994
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017 Apr 04;6(8):431-435
pubmed: 28812842
BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 Aug 11;21(1):792
pubmed: 34380486
BMJ. 2020 Apr 14;369:m1465
pubmed: 32291259
Front Med (Lausanne). 2021 Jun 02;8:613537
pubmed: 34150788
Eur Geriatr Med. 2021 Feb;12(1):193-204
pubmed: 33057981
Epidemiol Infect. 2020 Aug 07;148:e174
pubmed: 32762783
Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2021 Jun 10;22:e27
pubmed: 34109936
Prehosp Disaster Med. 2021 Jun;36(3):362-369
pubmed: 33678209
BMC Public Health. 2013 Jul 27;13:687
pubmed: 23890226
Infect Dis Health. 2021 Aug;26(3):166-172
pubmed: 33676878
BMC Fam Pract. 2021 Sep 3;22(1):174
pubmed: 34474684
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2010 Dec;53(12):1277-82
pubmed: 21161478
BMJ Open. 2020 Jun 17;10(6):e039674
pubmed: 32554730
Int J Health Plann Manage. 2021 May;36(S1):71-91
pubmed: 33735509
BMC Fam Pract. 2020 Dec 5;21(1):255
pubmed: 33278877
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Mar 12;18(6):
pubmed: 33809000
BMC Public Health. 2021 May 1;21(1):835
pubmed: 33933062
Health Policy Plan. 2020 Oct 1;35(8):1084-1109
pubmed: 32529253
BMJ Glob Health. 2021 Aug;6(8):
pubmed: 34353820
Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2020 Aug 17;13:1187-1194
pubmed: 32904086
Acta Paediatr. 2020 Aug;109(8):1672-1676
pubmed: 32460364
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2014 Jun;57(6):687-93
pubmed: 24817143
Glob Public Health. 2021 Aug-Sep;16(8-9):1304-1319
pubmed: 33491583
Med J Aust. 2006 Nov 20;185(S10):S66-9
pubmed: 17115956
Med J Aust. 2020 Aug;213(3):104-106.e1
pubmed: 32623740
BMC Fam Pract. 2021 May 6;22(1):86
pubmed: 33952205
Implement Sci. 2021 May 07;16(1):50
pubmed: 33962635
Fam Pract. 2021 Nov 24;38(6):811-825
pubmed: 33586769
Gesundheitswesen. 2021 Apr;83(4):250-257
pubmed: 33742429
Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2013 Oct;7(5):522-33
pubmed: 24274132
BJGP Open. 2020 Oct 27;4(4):
pubmed: 32900707
Elife. 2021 Jun 30;10:
pubmed: 34190045
Br J Gen Pract. 2013 Nov;63(616):e742-50
pubmed: 24267857
J Korean Med Sci. 2020 Mar 23;35(11):e123
pubmed: 32193904
J R Soc Med. 2020 Jun;113(6):208-210
pubmed: 32521196