Research Unit for General Medicine and Primary Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece.
Quality and Safety Ghent, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
BMC Prim Care. 2024 May 17;24(Suppl 1):287. doi: 10.1186/s12875-024-02392-7.
The PRICOV-19 study aimed to assess the organization of primary health care (PHC) during the COVID-19 pandemic in 37 European countries and Israel; and its impact on different dimensions of quality of care. In this paper, we described measures taken by public PHC centers in Greece. Additionally, we explored potential differences between rural and non-rural settings.
The study population consisted of the 287 public PHC centers in Greece. A random sample of 100 PHC centers stratified by Health Region was created. The online questionnaire consisted of 53 items, covering six sections: general information on the PHC center, patient flow, infection prevention, information processing, communication to patients, collaboration, and collegiality.
Seventy-eight PHC centers (78%) - 50 rural and 28 non-rural - responded to the survey. Certain measures were reported by few PHC centers. Specifically, the use of online messages about complaints that can be solved without a visit to the PHC center (21% rural; and 31% non-rural PHC centers), the use of video consultations with patients (12% rural; and 7% non-rural PHC centers), and the use of electronic medical records (EMRs) to systematically identify the list of patients with chronic conditions (5% rural; and 10% non-rural PHC centers) were scarcely reported. Very few PHC centers reported measures to support identifying and reaching out to vulnerable population, including patients that may have experienced domestic violence (8% rural; and 7% non-rural PHC centers), or financial problems (26% rural; and 7% non-rural PHC centers). Providing administrative documents to patients through postal mail (12% rural; and 21% non-rural PHC centers), or regular e-mail (11% rural; and 36% non-rural PHC centers), or through a secured server (8% rural; and 18% non-rural PHC centers) was rarely reported. Finally, providing information in multiple languages through a PHC website (12% rural PHC centers only), or an answering machine (6% rural PHC centers only), or leaflets (3% rural PHC centers only; and for leaflets specifically on COVID-19: 6% rural; and 8% non-rural PHC centers) were lacking in most PHC centers.
Our study captured measures implemented by few PHC centers suggesting potential priority areas of future improvement.
PRICOV-19 研究旨在评估 COVID-19 大流行期间 37 个欧洲国家和以色列的初级保健（PHC）组织情况；及其对不同维度的医疗质量的影响。在本文中，我们描述了希腊公共 PHC 中心所采取的措施。此外，我们还探讨了农村和非农村环境之间的潜在差异。
研究人群由希腊的 287 家公共 PHC 中心组成。创建了一个由卫生区域分层的 100 个 PHC 中心的随机样本。在线问卷包含 53 个项目，涵盖六个部分：PHC 中心的一般信息、患者流量、感染预防、信息处理、与患者的沟通、合作和同事关系。
78 家 PHC 中心（78%）——50 家位于农村，28 家位于非农村——对调查做出了回应。少数 PHC 中心报告了某些措施。具体来说，很少有 PHC 中心使用在线消息来解决无需到 PHC 中心就诊的投诉（农村地区为 21%，非农村地区为 31%）、使用视频咨询与患者沟通（农村地区为 12%，非农村地区为 7%），以及使用电子病历（EMR）系统地识别慢性病患者名单（农村地区为 5%，非农村地区为 10%）。很少有 PHC 中心报告采取措施支持识别和接触弱势群体，包括可能遭受家庭暴力的患者（农村地区为 8%，非农村地区为 7%）或经济困难的患者（农村地区为 26%，非农村地区为 7%）。通过邮政邮件（农村地区为 12%，非农村地区为 21%）、定期电子邮件（农村地区为 11%，非农村地区为 36%）或通过安全服务器（农村地区为 8%，非农村地区为 18%）向患者提供行政文件很少有 PHC 中心报告。最后，通过 PHC 网站（仅农村地区的 12%）、答录机（仅农村地区的 6%）或传单（仅农村地区的 3%；具体关于 COVID-19 的传单：农村地区为 6%，非农村地区为 8%）以多种语言提供信息在大多数 PHC 中心都很缺乏。
我们的研究捕捉到了少数 PHC 中心实施的措施，这表明未来有潜在的优先改进领域。
