“We literally worked in parking lots, cars, garages, and separately set up party tents.” Qualitative study on the experiences of GPs in the frame of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Austria

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2961900/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

“We literally worked in parking lots, cars, garages, and separately set up party tents.” Qualitative study on the experiences of GPs in the frame of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Austria

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2961900/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 12 Dec, 2023

Read the published version in BMC Health Services Research →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background:

Primary care is internationally recognised as one of the cornerstones of health care. During the COVID-19 pandemic, primary care physicians were assigned a variety of tasks and thus made a significant contribution to a country's pandemic response. They were expected to perform a variety of tasks, such as diagnosing and treating people with COVID-19, maintaining health care for all other patients, as well as several public health tasks, such as diagnostic testing and vaccination, protecting patients and staff from infection, and serving as community trusted persons. In Austria, there are no structured levels of care, no definition of the role of the general practitioner during a pandemic is given, and no specific support structures are present. The aim of this study was to assess the views and experiences of primary care physicians regarding supportive and hindering factors for pandemic preparedness in Austria.

Methods:

Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. A total of 30 general practitioners were interviewed, with particular attention to an equitable distribution in small, medium and large primary care facilities. Qualitative content analysis was performed.

Results:

Interviewees described a wide range of infection control, organisational and communication measures that they had implemented. They made changes to practise equipment, found makeshift solutions when supplies were scarce, and established communication and information pathways when official communication lines were inadequate.

Conclusion:

General practitioners took on essential tasks and showed a high level of understanding of their role in the pandemic response. This was achieved mainly at an informal level and with high personal commitment. Their functioning in the absence of structural regulations and support shows that they had a clear intrinsic understanding of their responsibilities. To ensure reliability and sustainability and to reduce their burden, it will be necessary to clarify the role and tasks of a general practitioner and to provide the necessary support. This concerns both infrastructural support and communication and information strategies. As part of the reform to strengthen primary care, primary care needs to be seen, valued and involved in decision-making processes.

Pandemic

COVID 19

primary health care

general practioner

pandemic management

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, it was clear that a well-developed primary care sector, as defined by the Expert Panel on Effective Ways of Investing in Health (1), is essential for comprehensive, cost-effective and equitable health for any population (1–4). The Austrian health care system is characterised by free access to almost all levels of health care and a lack of regulation of the responsibilities of these levels, including primary care, which is mostly informal and thus left to self-organisation. This also means that there is no clearly defined role for primary health care (PHC) in pandemic management, no integration into official communication channels within the health system, and no distribution plans for personal protective equipment (PPE) (5). Even a first review of Austrian pandemic management, published in 2021, paid very little attention to the primary care (PC) sector, devoting half a page out of 150 to it. This was at a time when the WHO had already specified the role of PC in COVID-19 management (6).

The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that a strong primary care sector, including general practice, is one of the most important pillars of pandemic control. The core functions of PHC as outlined by WHO (Interim Guidance) are: Timely, effective and safe supportive management of patients with suspected and confirmed COVID-19 at the primary care level; provision of essential health services at the primary care level and COVID-19 vaccination.

Specifically, the following tasks are assigned to primary care structures and are considered essential for pandemic management by international studies and analyses: reducing the burden on other levels of health care, e.g. hospitals and nursing homes (3), avoiding unnecessary consultations at different points of care reduces the risk of infection for the individual: testing, isolation and treatment of patients can be completed in a single setting (7) (6, 8, 9). Good surveillance can identify individuals at risk of complications and allow early intervention (10). COVID-19-related conditions, such as post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) (11), require appropriate attention and must be managed primarily by generalists (12, 13). In addition, general practitioners (GPs), as people's confidants, have an important role to play in educating people about infection, prevention and immunisation strategy (6–9). In addition, maintaining good usual care can protect chronically ill people from deterioration through neglect at a time of public health emergency for the general population (6–9, 14).

In this way, pandemic-related collateral health risks can be mitigated (15). The adverse consequences of neglecting the core functions of primary care during a pandemic are examined in a Flemish study (16).

Other authors propose an active role for GPs in developing plans for health emergency risks (17, 18).

The role of Austrian GPs, as seen in the 2022 update of the Austrian pandemic report (5), now includes primary and secondary prevention, treatment and management, rehabilitation, and public health tasks such as testing and vaccination. The need to maintain usual care for all patients in chronic and acute care is explicitly described (5).

In the pandemic plan, the following tasks of extramural care during a future pandemic were specified: Prevention of nosocomial infections by protective measures at the point of care and during transport; identification, care and treatment of persons infected with SARS-CoV-2; maintenance of standard care, ensuring access to and treatment of the acutely ill; ensuring access to and treatment of the chronically ill; maintenance of preventive services as far as the situation permits; protection of the inpatient sector against overload.

It should be emphasised that these tasks were empirically assigned to primary care on the basis of experience during the public health emergency - that is, on the basis of what GPs appeared to be doing or not doing at the time. There was no analysis of what had helped or hindered the fulfilment of the internationally agreed obligations of primary care as described above, partly due to the fact that there is no data generated by primary care in Austria, making it difficult to assess its achievements, shortcomings or needs.

No effort has been made to assess the availability of the resources needed to fulfil the various tasks, such as access to protective equipment, financial and structural support and human resources (9), as well as communication and cooperation channels between GPs, specialists and, for example, health authorities (19).

Against this background, the aim of this study was to provide a qualitative analysis of what helped or hindered the achievement of international goals for primary care in pandemic management.

We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with general practitioners in different primary care settings (single practices, group practices, primary care centres) in Austria. A total of 30 semi-structured interviews were conducted between 2022.02.01 and 2022.07.22.

This study was conducted according to the COREQ checklist. The checklist is added as supplement 1 (S1).

Sampling strategy

Physicians were recruited through the Austrian Society of General Practice (Österreichische Gesellschaft für Allgemein- und Familienmedizin, ÖGAM) via e-mail information and newsletters and through the research network of the Department of Health Services Research in Primary Care at the Medical University of Vienna. Of the 1350 physicians approached, 34 expressed their interest by email. They were contacted by telephone or e-mail. After a description of the topic and an introduction by the research team, their consent to participate in a qualitative interview was requested. Participants were sent a consent form and a short demographic questionnaire. Of these, 4 were lost to follow-up due to time constraints, and 30 returned the consent form and questionnaire. An interview date was then arranged.

Data collection

Interviews were conducted in person, by telephone or via WebEx. The interviews were then recorded using an attached smartphone or the WebEx tool. The duration of the interviews ranged from 26 minutes to 1 hour 25 minutes. The average length was 56.5 minutes. None of the respondents dropped out during the interview. It was always a one-to-one setting. No interview was discontinued or had to be repeated.

The interviews were conducted by three female interviewers, two of the co-authors (MM, NS) and CT. CT was a last year medical student and is mentioned in the acknowledgements. The interview guide was based on the six research questions found in the supplementary material (S2). However, the order of the questions was modified after initial experience acquired through the interviews.

The 30 interviews were transcribed verbatim using Tucan software (contract, data protection agreement and data security agreement were concluded).

Research questions and interview guide

For the research questions of this paper, two research topics from the interview guide were considered relevant, as these were the most challenging during an airborne pandemic. The other topics will be explored in separate publications.

Infection control: protective equipment, practice organisation (appointment management, waiting room management), practice infrastructure, recommendations

Communication with authorities, health authorities, medical associations, colleagues, insurance companies, etc.

Data analysis

The data were analysed using qualitative content analysis (20).

The analysis was primarily open coded by one research assistant (MM) and analysed deductively and inductively along the research questions using content analysis. Additional staff members (KH, NS) independently coded approximately 30% of the interviews to ensure reliable and repeatable analysis of the material. The codes were discussed together and finally a code book was developed via Excel with code name, description, and parent category.

Relevant quotes from the material were also directly cited.

The demographic short questionnaire was statistically analysed to be able to describe the sample descriptively and to discover any differences between the organizational forms.

Ethical aspects and data protection

The research team guarantees that the project was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (1964) and all subsequent updates of the Declaration. The team is responsible for ensuring that the project is conducted in accordance with the European Commission's "Guidelines of Good Clinical Practice", national requirements and with the requirements of the Medical University of Vienna and the Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences in Krems.

A positive vote for the survey from the Ethics Committee of the Med. University is available: EC no.: 1491/2021.

For all interviews, a written informed consent form as well as a written agreement to maintain anonymity and data protection were signed by the participants after they were informed in detail about the study.

Description of interviewees

The interview sample consists of 30 participants. Participants were recruited from eight of the nine Austrian provinces. Participants could be recruited from all provinces except Salzburg (Table 1). The gender distribution was well balanced. Details are given in Table 1.

Table 1

Demographics of the participants
Variable	Subvariable	n
All		30
County	Burgenland	3
	Carinthia	1
	Lower Austria	4
	Upper Austria	2
	Salzburg	0
	Styria	4
	Tyrol	1
	Vienna	13
	Vorarlberg	2
Sex	Female	15
	Male	15
Type of practice	Single-handed (1 GP)	11
	Group-practice (2 + GPs)	11
	PVE	8

Results of the content analysis

Deductive and inductive analysis of the transcripts resulted in two supercategories, each with between 3–5 subcategories.

The corresponding supercategories and sub-categories are shown in Table 2.

Table 2

Supercategories and subcategories
Supercategories	Subcategories
Practice management/care process adjustments	Practice organisation process adaptations in private practice
	Appointment management
	Infrastructure management
	Transmission control
	Personal protective equipment (PPE)
Communication management	Communication with institutions and authorities
	Information from ÖGAM
	Communication with colleagues

Process adjustments in practice organisation in the private practice sector

None of the respondents closed their practices completely during the Corona pandemic. One doctor reported hostility from other doctors who closed their practices, and larger units reported taking on patients from closed practices in the area.

A sharp decline in patient attendance was noted by almost all participants. This was mainly attributed to patients' fear of infection in the surgery.

"The surgeries were empty and the patients stayed at home in shock." (Interview 4)

"20% drop in turnover." (Interview 9)

Subsequently, however, an increase in patient contacts was reported. Process changes were also made in many organisations during the first days of the lockdown. These mainly involved separating patients spatially or temporally, adapting infrastructure and introducing protective equipment.

"Of course, all this can only be done if the physical and human resources are available. (Interview 1)

Time management

In terms of time management, there was a strong trend towards working by appointment, especially when the patient had an infection (initially fewer patients, then many more). However, many practices interviewed did not change their appointment system in the context of the pandemic, as some had an appointment system in place before the pandemic and others had mixed systems. Among the mixed systems, different types were identified: patients with symptoms of infection were asked to make an appointment, while other patients could turn up without prior notice; an appointment system for all patients combined with free access for acute or infection-related problems; separate areas for patients with acute or other reasons for visiting; appointments for scheduled tests or therapies. Almost half of the 30 practices surveyed had switched to an appointment system because of Covid-19, with the intention of preventing transmission within their premises, with some of them setting up a fixed time slot for patients with signs of infection.

"...through the appointment system to separate patients who are already sick or suspected of being sick from patients without symptoms of infection, because they need something else. And that is the first selection, which is done by telephone. Then they get their own appointment in the infection unit. (Interview 15)

Only one doctor still does not offer appointments.

The following advantages were mentioned: less congestion in the waiting room; telephone contacts for appointments can already be used as a selection tool to assign specific appointments to patients with symptoms of infection, as well as to determine the urgency of the request.

Lack of acceptance by patients was mentioned as a disadvantage of the appointment system; one rural doctor also described meeting in the waiting room as a "mode of communication" that was missing because of the appointment system. Other disadvantages mentioned were that patients expect shorter waiting times for appointments and that there is more administrative work involved in arranging appointments.

Infrastructure management

In many practices, access was restricted by physical barriers: first contact through a window; separate entrances to different areas; separate areas to isolate patients with infectious diseases.

Common measures to maintain physical distance included removing seating in waiting areas and spending time waiting outside the surgery.

"We are in the middle of the city, patients have been informed, they can go for a walk for half an hour". (Interview 2).

Several practices had the opportunity to create several waiting areas or treatment zones.

"We were lucky to have this space, this infection room, so to speak" (interview 8).

Problems mentioned were e.g. a single entrance to the premises, or small rooms.

"What we would really like is more space, more rooms, more ways to separate patients" (interview 26).

Coping strategies developed were: acquiring additional space (mostly provided by municipalities), contacting patients in their cars, practising in garages and tents:

"We literally worked in car parks, cars, garages, and separately set up party tents." (Interview 19)

Physical contact with patients was reduced in many practices at the start of the pandemic, partly replaced by remote consultations by telephone or channelling through appointments.

Control of transmission

One practice simply provided disinfectant dispensers, while others purchased sophisticated equipment or set up extra rooms. In some cases, the communication infrastructure was upgraded as the number of remote contacts (telephone or video) increased:

"Very important are the communication structures, so the internet connection has to be very good, the telephone system has to be very well dimensioned, redundant". (Interview 18)

Some doctors purchased additional mobile phones or laptops. Some practices set up home offices for some of their staff, especially at the beginning:

"We also let our assistants work from home. Sometimes a doctor on rotation would also work from home, reading reports and things like that, so we could just unbundle the whole thing'. (Interview 18).

The most frequently mentioned infrastructure adaptation was the installation of transparent screens at reception desks. As a result, communication problems were reported, with a marked increase in noise levels. The installation of additional disinfectant dispensers was reported very frequently. Some practices were equipped with air filters or means of taking body temperature. Procedural changes to reduce transmission within the premises included regular airing, surface disinfection, more frequent changes of clothing and avoidance of physical contact, i.e. shaking hands was discouraged.

Personal protective equipment (PPE)

Doctors reported a high level of uncertainty during the first phase of the pandemic.

"How often do you have to change the mask? How infectious is it? And you were just very, very uncertain. And that was not pleasant in the beginning, yeah, you had to go through that.'' (Interview 21).

Concerns were expressed about the danger posed by the disease and the measures taken by the authorities: "It was clear that if we had a positive case of COVID-19 in the practice, the health authorities would immediately close the entire premises.

Shortages of personal protective equipment at the start of the pandemic, especially disinfectants and masks, but also medical gloves, were overcome with makeshift solutions such as making their own disinfectants, reusing plastic raincoats, chemical suits and masks intended for different purposes. Masks were cleaned and reused.

Wearing masks was accepted by most as an important means of protection, with some mentioning communication barriers associated with this. Among other PPE, protective coats and gloves were well accepted. Full-body protection was used in several practices, most commonly in contact with suspected or known infectious patients and during the early pandemic period.

Other measures in practices were reported: testing of staff, information on the use of the FFP2 mask, disinfection, and keeping distance (notices; announcement in the community newspaper):

"Of course we have informed the patients, also via our homepage, that they have to come to our practice equipped accordingly" (interview 22).

Communication Management

Communication with institutions and authorities

The first few weeks of the pandemic were perceived by all study participants to be particularly difficult in terms of information and guidance, although views differed on the later periods.

Communication between the different actors in the health sector was seen as a major challenge. One doctor expresses the sentiment described by a number of respondents:

"I had the feeling that there was a fundamental interest from all sides and from all parties involved, whether it was the authorities, whether it was the colleagues, whether it was the medical association, to manage this situation well and jointly and positively (interview 1).

Nevertheless, there was some criticism of the communication structures, and information management was seen as unsatisfactory, particularly in the first few weeks.

"In the first four to six weeks we didn't hear from anybody. We just had what we had." (interview 15)

Complaints related to the lack of a contingency plan, recommendations that were inappropriate for extramural care, and inappropriate or incorrect recommendations (valve masks, practice closures). Understanding was expressed for the difficulties associated with the pandemic situation and the lack of knowledge about the virus and the disease:

"It all took a bit of time, it's chaos when a pandemic breaks out. [Who should I criticise now? No structure has been created for this. (Interview 27)

Overall, one doctor described a general problem in the cascade of communication in the context of this crisis, in which excessive demands and problems also occurred and were passed on at the institutional level.

"One level simply tries to pass on unresolved problems to another level, then of course it becomes problematic. [...] If a structure is overburdened, then exactly these communication problems occur. (Interview 1).

For most doctors, the Austrian Medical Association was the main point of contact. The Austrian Medical Association represents all Austrian doctors and membership is compulsory. Half of the respondents saw efforts to maintain a certain flow of information, e.g. through newsletters, video conferences and advice. However, some respondents indicated that they only had positive experiences because they had personal contacts in the medical association.

The other half report negative experiences with their representatives. Respondents say that individual questions were not answered or were answered slowly and not always correctly. They felt left alone and not well involved.

Another important stakeholder is the Austrian Health Insurance Fund (ÖGK), which is the contracting authority for all physicians in the public health system in extramural care. Several doctors said they had good contact with the ÖGK, while others said they had little, or only for operational matters such as billing and administration. Others, however, feel left alone:

"The ÖGK, ......, was and is switched off as far as the pandemic is concerned. No guidelines, no instructions, nothing. So nothing, in two years nothing. The information you get is where you can bill" (interview 14).

Another important stakeholder mentioned was the health authorities at regional level. Again, the spectrum was quite wide: some interviewees described good contact - some of them suspected that this was due to good personal connections. Others reported a generally slow and untimely response to COVID-19, as well as poor accessibility of these institutions and erroneous or outright incorrect messages:

"We took it for granted that the authority is the authority and we are at the mercy of the authority. It sounds bad, but it is true. If you call two different health authorities and really get statements that contradict each other - in Vienna - then I can't argue with that anymore. (Interview 7)

Communication between doctors

The potential for self-help within the profession was mentioned as a positive aspect, as was the gathering and sharing of information and procedures and techniques for coping with the challenge, albeit with the disadvantage of very individual, non-systematic solutions.

"We are doing well, but I think it is still far from quality management, because everyone does what they want". (Interview 26)

All interviewees stated that communication within their own offices was very important and was perceived as positive in almost all practices.

"I realise more and more that being a doctor is very, very important, so one of the central tasks is how you work with the team and that you create an environment where they can work. Where communication can flow". (Interview 9)

Collaboration within a team was identified as an important factor in resilience to the COVID crisis.

"So for me it was actually not the worst time of my life, but it also showed how strong we are as a team and what we can achieve" (Interview 29).

Colleagues were mentioned as the main interlocutors. For example, most interviewees spoke of good networking between doctors and helpful contacts via communication platforms such as WhatsApp and/or Facebook groups.

"There was a huge exchange of knowledge among us colleagues or GPs, which we probably never thought would happen" (15).

Some doctors expressed a wish for better networking and criticised a lack of structured information sharing. Communication with specialists was seen as positive, as was communication with hospitals and nursing homes. Even though continuing medical education (CME) could be completed online, the interviewees missed meeting each other in face-to-face events.

Information from the Austrian Society for General and Family Medicine (ÖGAM)

The information provided by the Austrian Society for General Practice and Family Medicine (ÖGAM) through its networks, such as newsletters, podcasts and online information platforms, was considered very supportive. The ÖGAM is made up of voluntary members and has about a third of Austrian GPs on its list.

"We always received very good, very good materials from the Austrian Society of General Medicine. I really appreciated that." (Interview 21)

Some more informal sources of information were mentioned by the participants. One person each mentioned the Tyrolean Society for General Medicine (member association of the ÖGAM), the Primary Care Forum and the medical universities as sources of supportive information. All of them communicate through their informal networks.

The responses we collected show a wide range of creative, individual solutions to the problems GPs faced in the early stages of the pandemic. Despite official warnings and a general lack of information, the participating GPs had not closed their practices even at the beginning of the pandemic, unless they were closed by the authorities for quarantine. The perception of our interviewees is confirmed by figures from the health insurance funds, which show only a slight reduction in the number of GP practices opened compared with the years before the pandemic, as reported by the Austrian Court of Audit (21), the official auditor of the public sector.

To do this without putting themselves, their staff or their patients at risk, several changes and adaptations had to be made. One of the biggest challenges was how to protect against the transmission of infection within their premises. There was very little knowledge about how the virus was spread. Little attention seemed to have been paid by experts and authorities to the effectiveness and efficiency of protective measures in the context of family medicine. Information was not only scarce, but also slow to reach physicians in extramural care. This led to considerable individual investment in infrastructure and equipment that later proved unnecessary (disinfectants, full-body protection, glass screens, etc.).

Another common measure to prevent transmission was to introduce an appointment system to separate infectious from non-infectious patients. Practices that did not have space for separate waiting rooms or consulting rooms found pragmatic solutions, with GPs and family doctors holding their consultations in garages, marquees, carports, or containers provided by the municipalities.

It was not only on the doctors' side that there was an astonishing lack of information about which and how many primary (or secondary) care surgeries had actually been opened: According to the report of the Austrian Court of Audit, neither the Ministry of Health nor the regional authorities were informed about the data from the health insurance companies, so they were not able to find out whether and how the outpatient care structures were working. This may also have been one of the reasons why, for a considerable period of time, extramural health care staff did not receive the necessary amount of personal protective equipment (21). Again, this problem, which was a major concern for staff working with potentially infectious patients, was met with considerable ingenuity, with masks being sewn or re-used after disinfection - still leaving a sense of inadequacy and fear of the premises being closed by the authorities for quarantine.

Part of this effort was devoted to maintaining usual care for those with non-COVID health problems and for the chronically ill, contacts with whom participants reported that they had initially reduced. Primary care practices, according to our interviewees, used telephone or video consultations or visited patients at home for those who did not feel safe enough for a physical consultation.

The perception expressed by respondents to our survey that patients were less likely to come for consultations at the beginning of the pandemic, with a recovery later, was also confirmed retrospectively by health insurance data. These data show a decline at the beginning of the first lockdown and a milder decline during the second lockdown (21). After an initial, brief decline in the number of patients, there was a significant increase in patient consultations.

The fact that the decline in consultations and the number of surgeries closed was significantly higher among specialists during all early phases of the pandemic can be discussed as an expression of the high intrinsic motivation of general practitioners and their sense of responsibility for their patients as a group - even though they are not legally obliged in Austria to ensure the maintenance of patient care.

The fact that policymakers were not well informed about the situation at primary care level seems to have led to a strongly felt communication deficit: doctors report feeling forgotten. Although the Department of General Medicine and Family Practice at the Karl Landsteiner University published a special information website for primary care physicians as early as the end of March 2020, and there were several other efforts by the Society of General Medicine, only a small number of general practitioners could be reached through these channels. The lack of timely and consistent information can be explained by the fact that there is no communication structure that allows, for example, the Ministry of Health to contact all GP practices directly and simultaneously. Only the health insurance fund (ÖGK) can reach all its contractors immediately - even the Austrian Medical Association (ÖÄK) has to use 9 different communication networks in 9 different federal states. A formalised level of primary care has not yet been established in Austria, nor has a communication structure within the profession.

Strengths and limitations of the study

Strengths

This study is the first of its kind in Austria and provides a picture of the situation in Austrian primary care that cannot and has not been obtained elsewhere. The study provides information about the efforts of GPs to work without their role being formalised, and about obstacles and barriers they met with. We were able to conduct 30 semi-structured interviews on a wide range of issues of concern to this group during a major health care crisis. We used a structured interview guide and clearly reached data saturation.

Limitations

As a qualitative study, it can only provide a first insight into the situation. Recall and memory bias must be taken into account, particularly as the period studied was one of high workload, rapid turnover of tasks and information, and considerable confusion, all of which may have influenced and ultimately distorted participants' views.

The recruitment strategy via the ÖGAM mailing list created a high threshold. In fact, the response rate was low. We cannot say how many GPs were reached by the emails, how many opened them or simply clicked away, or how many were not interested in the topic. The need to actively apply to be interviewed will also have been a barrier. All this might have resulted in the participation of doctors with a high level of interest in the topic and intrinsic motivation - perhaps even those with smaller practices, less workload, and more time.

This may have led to an overestimation of resilience and coping skills. We tried to correct for this by looking at the little data available on the situation and were able to confirm some of the participants' perceptions. This may increase the reliability of our findings.

This study provides a first insight into the experiences of GPs in a country with a weak primary care system and their functioning within a health care system that has so far refrained from defining a primary care level and its responsibilities.

The conclusion of our qualitative analysis is that GPs in all organisational forms in Austria showed high ingenuity and flexibility to maintain the care of their patients and to provide additional protection against infection.

The pandemic was characterised by a high degree of uncertainty in all areas. For GPs, there was a sense of responsibility from the very beginning. GPs knew that their presence was needed to care for patients with and without COVID-19, to care for the chronically ill, to prevent infection within their premises, and to care for the community. They were well aware of the tasks of primary health care, even if these were not defined for Austrian GPs either before or during the pandemic.

GP General Practitioner

PHC Primary Health Care

PC Primary Care

ÖÄK Österreichische Ärztekammer (Austrian Physicians` Association)

ÖGAM Österreichische Gesellschaft für Allgemein- und Familienmedizin (Austrian Society of General Medicine and Family Practice)

ÖGK Österreichische Gesundheitskasse (Austrian Health Insurance Fund)

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The research team guarantees that the project was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (1964) and all subsequent Declaration updates. The team is responsible for ensuring that the project is conducted in accordance with the European Commission's "Guidelines of Good Clinical Practice", with country-specific requirements and with the requirements of the Medical University of Vienna.

The survey received an approval from the Ethics Committee of the Med. University and is available: EC no.: 1491/2021. For all interviews, an informed consent form as well as a written agreement to maintain anonymity and data protection was signed by the participants after they have been informed in detail about the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

All data are centrally stored on the server of the Medical University of Vienna. All data was anonymized before the analysis. Reasonable request to corresponding author is required to access non-identifiable data by external users Access will be subject to a data transfer agreement.

Competing interests

None of the authors has a competing interest.

Funding

The CovFIT study was funded by the scientific-medical fund of the mayor of the capital Vienna. The funding authority had no influence in the conception, design, analysis and interpretation of the study and related data and had no influence in the writing of this publication.

Authors contributions

KH conceptualised and designed the study and wrote a first very raw draft. SR revised the first version of the draft substantially and wrote the first full version of the manuscript together with MM and PE. MM and NS did the recruitment of the participants, the interviews, and the analysis of the data. All authors critically reviewed and provided comments to the paper and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Constanze Teuschl for the support in the recruitment and interviewing of a part of the participants.

Author’s Information

S Rabady is head of the Division General and Family Medicine, Department of General Health Studies, Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences, Dr. Karl-Dorrek-Straße 30, 3500, Krems, Austria

M Mayrhofer is a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Primary Care Medicine at the Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. She holds a PhD in journalism and communication studies and is manager of a primary care centre in Vienna, Austria.

N Szabo is a student of law with a focus on medical aspects of the legal process. In addition, she has been assisting the Department of Primary Care Medicine in conducting studies for some time and has thus gained a good knowledge and practice in qualitative research.

P Erber is in a pre-doc position at the Division General and Family Medicine, Department of General Health Studies, Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences, Dr. Karl-Dorrek-Straße 30, 3500, Krems, Austria

K Hoffmann has a full professorship in Primary Care Medicine and chairs the Department of Primary Care Medicine at the Medical University of Vienna, Austria. Additionally, she is MD, Master of Public Health and General Practitioner.

Expert Panel on Effective Ways of Investing in Health. Report on definition of a frame of reference in relation to primary care with a special emphasis on financing systems and referral systems. Brussels: European Commission; 2014. Report No.: V2.
Kringos D, Boerma W, Bourgueil Y, Cartier T, Dedeu T, Hasvold T, et al. The strength of primary care in Europe: an international comparative study. The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners. 2013;63(616):e742-50.
Kringos DS, Boerma W, van der Zee J, Groenewegen P. Europe's strong primary care systems are linked to better population health but also to higher health spending. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(4):686-94.
Organization WH. The World Health Report: Primary Health Care—Now More than Ever. . Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008.
COVID-19-Pandemie. Bestandsaufnahme, Handlungsrahmen. Vienna: Bundesministerium Soziales, Gesundheit, Pflege und Konsumentenschutz; 2021.
Organization WH. Role of primary care in the COVID-19 response. Interim guidance 2021 [updated Revised and republished as of 9 April 2021. Available from: https://www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/primary-care/.
Performance IPHC. Key Messages: COVID-19 and Primary Health Care 2021 [Available from: COVID-19 and Primary Health Care.
NHS. Primary Care. Coronavirus 2021 [Available from: https://www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/primary-care/.
Rawaf S, Allen LN, Stigler FL, Kringos D, Quezada Yamamoto H, van Weel C. Lessons on the COVID-19 pandemic, for and by primary care professionals worldwide. Eur J Gen Pract. 2020;26(1):129-33.
Rabady S, Hoffmann K, Brose M, Lammel O, Poggenburg S, Redlberger-Fritz M, et al. Symptoms and risk factors for hospitalization of COVID-19 presented in primary care : An exploratory retrospective study. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2022;134(9-10):335-43.
Greenhalgh T, Knight M, A'Court C, Buxton M, Husain L. Management of post-acute covid-19 in primary care. BMJ. 2020;370:m3026.
Sudre CH, Murray B, Varsavsky T, Graham MS, Penfold RS, Bowyer RC, et al. Attributes and predictors of long COVID. Nat Med. 2021;27(4):626-31.
Shah W, Hillman T, Playford ED, Hishmeh L. Managing the long term effects of covid-19: summary of NICE, SIGN, and RCGP rapid guideline. BMJ. 2021;372:n136.
Kearon J, Risdon C. The Role of Primary Care in a Pandemic: Reflections During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Canada. J Prim Care Community Health. 2020;11:2150132720962871.
Greenhalgh T, Knight M, Inda-Kim M, Fulop NJ, Leach J, Vindrola-Padros C. Remote management of covid-19 using home pulse oximetry and virtual ward support. BMJ. 2021;372:n677.
VerhoevenV, Tsakitzidis G, Philips H, P VR. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the core functions of primary care: will the cure be worse than the disease? A qualitative interview study in Flemish GPs. BMJ Open. 2020;10(6):e039674.
Olm M, Schymura B, Torge M, Riedl B, Vorderwülbecke F, Wapler P, et al. Unterstützung der ambulanten Versorgung im Pandemiefall ZFA - Zeitschrift für Allgemeinmedizin. 2022(2):98.
Dunlop C, Howe A, Li D, Allen LN. The coronavirus outbreak: the central role of primary care in emergency preparedness and response. BJGP Open. 2020;4(1).
Krist AH, DeVoe JE, Cheng A, Ehrlich T, Jones SM. Redesigning Primary Care to Address the COVID-19 Pandemic in the Midst of the Pandemic. Ann Fam Med. 2020;18(4):349-54.
Hoffmann K. Individual interviews and focus groups. In: Akman M, Wass V, Goodyear-Smith F, editors. How To Do Primary Care Educational Research: A Practical Guide. 1 ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2021. p. 232.
Gesundheitsdaten zur Pandemiebewältigung im ersten Jahr der COVID–19–Pandemie. Bericht des Rechnungshofes. Vienna: Rechnungshof Österreich; 2021 Dezember 2021. Contract No.: GZ 004.939/024–PR3/21.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 12 Dec, 2023

Read the published version in BMC Health Services Research →

Editorial decision: Major revision
30 Oct, 2023
Reviews received at journal
16 Oct, 2023
Reviewers agreed at journal
09 Oct, 2023
Reviews received at journal
23 Sep, 2023
Reviewers agreed at journal
15 Sep, 2023
Reviewers invited by journal
15 Sep, 2023
Editor assigned by journal
18 Aug, 2023
Editor invited by journal
30 May, 2023
Submission checks completed at journal
30 May, 2023
First submitted to journal
21 May, 2023

You are reading this latest preprint version

“We literally worked in parking lots, cars, garages, and separately set up party tents.” Qualitative study on the experiences of GPs in the frame of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Austria

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Background:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusion:

Background

Methods

Sampling strategy

Data collection

Research questions and interview guide

Data analysis

Ethical aspects and data protection

Results

Description of interviewees

Results of the content analysis

Process adjustments in practice organisation in the private practice sector

Time management

Infrastructure management

Control of transmission

Personal protective equipment (PPE)

Communication Management

Communication between doctors

Information from the Austrian Society for General and Family Medicine (ÖGAM)

Discussion

Strengths and limitations of the study

Strengths

Limitations

Conclusion

List Of Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1