Background General practitioners (GPs) face numerous challenges that can contribute to stress. Understanding these factors is crucial for developing interventions to support physician wellbeing and maintain high-quality care.Objectives The study aims to explore the factors associated with perceived stress among European GPs, including attitudes towards person-centred care (PCC), demographics, and professional characteristics.Methods The PACE GP/FP study is an online, cross-sectional, multi-centred survey conducted in 24 European countries between November 2022 and January 2024. The survey tool included the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), the Patient-Practitioner Orientation Scale (PPOS), and questions on GPs’ demographics and practice characteristics. Linear mixed models analysed the relationship between these variables and perceived stress.Results In total, 3522 GPs were included in the analysis. The mean PSS score indicated moderate levels of stress. Female gender and younger age were associated with increased stress. Also, a higher number of daily patient contacts and a greater perceived responsibility for vulnerable patient populations (e.g. migrants, those with limited social support, or psychiatric vulnerabilities) were significantly associated with higher stress. A stronger patient-centred orientation was associated with lower perceived stress.Conclusion The findings have implications for interventions to reduce GP stress, such as training programs promoting PCC, optimising patient contact rates, and providing targeted support for GPs caring for vulnerable patients. Further research is needed to explore these factors’ complex interplay and impact on GP wellbeing.

Background: Virtual consultations (VC) are now integral to primary care delivery, but their implementation has been hampered by technological limitations, user engagement issues, and the lack of validated implementation frameworks.Objective: This study sought to identify and validate key elements required for the successful adoption of high-quality VC and to develop recommendations for its implementation in primary care.Methods: An electronic Delphi (eDelphi) study was conducted between March and December 2024 with Primary Care Physicians (PCPs) from 24 countries who had experience using VC in routine practice. Participants assessed 25 proposed toolkit components across six domains using a 5-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics were applied, and consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement.Results: A total of 135 PCPs participated across three Delphi rounds. Consensus was achieved for 24 of the 25 framework elements. High priority was placed on long-term strategic planning and financial sustainability, sustained investment in VC infrastructure, enhanced cybersecurity and system resilience, improved digital literacy, and clear communication strategies for end-users. The sole component failing to reach consensus related to religious factors affecting VC acceptability, with most participants favouring inclusion of religion within broader cultural considerations rather than as a separate element.Conclusion: This study validated key components of a flexible VC implementation framework for primary care. The lack of consensus on certain contextual factors highlights the importance of culturally sensitive adaptation when implementing VC. Future work should focus on real-world piloting of the framework to evaluate its effectiveness at practice, policy, and system levels.

Breast cancer mortality in Poland shows a concerning upward trend, contrasting with the declines seen across much of Europe. While primary care is the frontline of the healthcare system, its role in breast cancer prevention remains underutilized. This study aimed to evaluate breast cancer literacy, screening participation, and the specific role of the family physician (FP) in fostering informed, person-centered screening decisions among women in the Małopolska region. A cross-sectional study was conducted (August 2024–June 2025) involving 302 women (aged 40–75) recruited from six primary care centers. Data was collected via face-to-face interviews. The study assessed symptom awareness (0–110 scale), sources of health information, and individual risk using the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT). Multivariate linear regression identified factors associated with symptom literacy. The mean age was 57.9 years. While lifetime screening participation (mammography or ultrasound) was high at 78.5

Background Expanding access to self-management via Digital Health Technologies may supplement traditional care, mitigating pressures on primary care through self-management. Primary Care Physicians (PCP) can play a critical role in the integration of digital health technologies into patient care, but it is unclear what factors influence PCPs’ recommendation of such technologies.Aims To identify the factors associated with PCPs recommending digital health technologies to patients for self-management before and during the pandemic.Methods PCPs across 20 countries completed an online questionnaire between June and September 2020. The outcome was a self-report of recommending patients to at least one of six listed forms of digital health technologies. Univariable logistic regression models were performed to explore factors associated with recommending digital health technologies to patients before and during the pandemic.Results 1,592 PCPs were included. Before the pandemic, the odds of recommending digital health technologies for self-management were lower for PCPs not involved in teaching, or practising in Turkey, Australia, Chile, Colombia, France, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, and Spain. During the pandemic, PCPs practising in rural settings had higher odds of starting to recommend digital health technologies, as well as those from Brazil, Colombia, and Italy. There was no significant difference in recommending digital health technologies before and during the pandemic.Conclusions Involvement in teaching (pre-pandemic) and practising in a rural setting (during the pandemic) positively influenced the recommendation of digital health technologies. Significant variation in recommending digital health technologies was present across countries.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has caused psychological distress to the population and healthcare workers. Physicians' well-being is essential and contributes significantly to overall health. This study aimed to assess the strain on Polish general practitioners from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and to ascertain the potential predictors of their distress.MethodsData was collected using a self-reported online questionnaire from 162 GPs in Poland between December 2020 and August 2021 as part of the international PRICOV-19 study. General practitioners' well-being was evaluated using the validated Mayo Clinic's expanded 9-item well-being index (eWBI). Spearman's correlation was used to measure the strength and direction of association between general practitioners' distress level and continuous variables, and for ordinal variables, Gamma correlation was recommended for many tide ranks. We also checked the association of the level of distress with continuous variables by categorizing them and applying the Kruskal-Wallis test likewise for a comparison of the distress in different practice locations.ResultsA vast majority (80%) of respondents were considered at risk of distress during the COVID-19 outbreak, with an eWBI score of 2 or more. Higher distress scores were exhibited among general practitioners who reported increased responsibilities during the COVID-19 pandemic and perceived need for additional training. The experience of collaboration with neighbouring practices and the provision of adequate governmental support emerged as significant protective factors against distress. No correlation was observed between Polish general practitioners' distress level and years of professional experience, number of patients in the practice, number of doctors working there, the practice's location, or working with more vulnerable patient populations.ConclusionsOur findings proved that COVID-19 placed an extraordinary emotional burden on Polish general practitioners and highlighted the importance of targeted support services and resource allocation to primary healthcare in Poland in case of any potential future crisis similar to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has underlined the essential role of primary healthcare (PHC) in epidemiological surveillance and public health decision-making. Across Europe, the integration of electronic health records (EHRs) and the sentinel networks have been pivotal in monitoring COVID-19. However, the lack of standardized PHC indicators for COVID-19 hinders the comparability of data among countries. Objective: To establish a consensus on a set of standardized PHC activity indicators related to the COVID-19 pandemic for 31 countries, enhancing the capability of health authorities to make informed decisions and prepare for future health crises. Methods: A two-round eDelphi study was conducted using a structured web-based survey, following the CREDES guidelines, to achieve consensus among a panel of 164 experts from the Eurodata study. 86 Indicators were selected based on their availability during the current pandemic, with participants rating the relevance and utility of proposed indicators. Results: Of the 22 initial indicators, seven received consensuses for inclusion, while two remained contentious after the second round. The study found significant discrepancies in the awareness of sentinel networks and accessibility to PHC data. The consensus emphasized the necessity for indicators to be standardized, reproducible, and easily extractable from databases, with recommendations for disaggregation by age, sex, and vaccination status. Conclusion: Key COVID-19 indicators for PHC were identified, reflecting a consensus among healthcare professionals. Further cooperation between PHC providers and national public health authorities is warranted both on the national and the international level to harmonized healthcare indicators in response to future health emergencies.

BACKGROUND:Person-centred care (PCC) is a fundamental principle in general practice, emphasising practices tailored to individual patient preferences, needs, and values. Despite the importance of PCC, general practitioners (GPs) face obstacles in effectively implementing it, with associated factors remaining unclear. OBJECTIVES:The PACE GP/FP study aims to explore GPs' attitudes towards PCC and the factors facilitating or hindering its implementation in daily practice across European countries. This paper outlines the PACE GP/FP study protocol. METHODS:The cross-sectional design with data collection via an online survey distribution to GPs in 24 European countries. Study instruments include two validated questionnaires (Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) and Patient Physician Orientation Scale (PPOS)) and additional items covering general information about the doctor and their practice, as well as facilitators and barriers to PCC. These additional items were specifically developed for the study, translated using the forward-backward method, evaluated through cognitive debriefing, and integrated into the REDCap platform to create language and country-specific survey links. The STROBE checklist guides the reporting of the manuscript. CONCLUSION:The PACE GP/FP study will provide a comprehensive exploration of GPs' attitudes towards PCC and the factors shaping its practice in Europe. The findings from the PACE GP/FP study will provide evidence for designing future implementation strategies and guide targeted interventions to promote PCC in primary care across Europe.

BackgroundVirtual consultations represent a notable change in health care delivery following the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding the dynamics of virtual consultations is critical in assessing health care system resilience and adaptability in times of crisis. ObjectiveThis study aimed to describe the availability and hours of use of telephone, video, and human chat consultations before and during the COVID-19 pandemic period, and identify factors associated with their availability. MethodsPrimary care physicians (PCPs) from 20 upper-middle– and high-income countries completed a cross-sectional web-based survey in 2020. Factors associated with availability were investigated using chi-square tests and effect size (ES) estimates calculated using Cramer V. ResultsA total of 1370 PCPs were included in this study (85.4% of the total sample of 1605). Telephone consultations were the most frequently available type of virtual consultations before and during the pandemic (73.1% and 90.4%, respectively). Significant increases in availability and use were observed during the pandemic for all the types of virtual consultations. The largest absolute increase in availability was observed for video consultations (39.5%), followed by telephone (17.3%) and chat (8.6%; all P<.001). The largest increase in use was observed for telephone consultations (+11 hours per week, P<.001). Digital maturity of the practice was weakly associated with availability of video consultations both before (ES 0.2) and during (ES 0.2) the pandemic (P<.001 for both), and with chat consultations before the pandemic only (ES 0.1, P=.001). Greater availability of video and chat consultations was found in PCPs who had completed digital health training, both before and during the pandemic (P<.001 for all). There was significant country-level variation in the use and availabilities of the technologies between both time periods. The association between country and the availability of telephone consultations changed from strong (ES 0.5, P<.001) to weak (ES 0.2, P=.03), while the relationship between country and video consultations changed from moderate (ES 0.3, P<.001) to strong (ES 0.5, P<.001). ConclusionsOur study demonstrates the transformative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the availability of virtual consultations globally, and how practice-level factors, predominantly digital maturity, digital health training, and country, were associated with the availability of virtual consultations. Further exploration of drivers of availability, particularly at the national level, is needed to ensure sustained and effective implementation of virtual consultations. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)RR2-10.2196/30099

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted global healthcare systems, leading to challenges in managing Long COVID. Variations in definitions and diagnostic criteria across Europe hinder recognition and treatment efforts. This study aims to analyse and compare the definitions of Long COVID used in 34 European countries.Methods A retrospective descriptive study was conducted involving key informants from 34 European countries, utilising an online questionnaire to gather data on Long COVID definitions. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were employed to assess the variability of definitions and challenges in managing Long COVID.Results The study found significant variation in Long COVID definitions among the participating countries; the most frequent definition was the other definition (n: 17, 50.0%), followed by the World Health Organisation’s definition (n: 16, 47.0%) and the CDC definition (n: 11, 32.3%). Half of the countries reported using multiple definitions simultaneously, indicating a lack of standardisation. Qualitative analyses highlighted challenges such as difficulties in standardising terminology, variability in clinical criteria, and issues with implementing diagnostic codes.Conclusion The findings underscore the need for a unified, yet adaptable, definition of Long COVID. Such a definition would support general practitioners (GPs) by simplifying diagnostic processes, improving continuity of care, and facilitating equitable patient access to multidisciplinary resources. The current lack of consensus complicates patient care, data collection, and resource allocation, impacting health policy development. Future efforts should focus on achieving agreement on definitions to ensure equitable treatment and effective healthcare responses to Long COVID.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated changes in European healthcare systems, with a significant proportion of COVID-19 cases being managed on an outpatient basis in primary healthcare (PHC). To alleviate the burden on healthcare facilities, many European countries developed contact-tracing apps and symptom checkers to identify potential cases. As the pandemic evolved, the European Union introduced the Digital COVID-19 Certificate for travel, which relies on vaccination, recent recovery, or negative test results. However, the integration between these apps and PHC has not been thoroughly explored in Europe. Objective: To describe if governmental COVID-19 apps allowed COVID-19 patients to connect with PHC through their apps in Europe and to examine how the Digital COVID-19 Certificate was obtained. Methodology: Design and setting: Retrospective descriptive study in PHC in 30 European countries. An ad hoc, semi-structured questionnaire was developed to collect country-specific data on primary healthcare activity during the COVID-19 pandemic and the use of information technology tools to support medical care from 15 March 2020 to 31 August 2021. Key informants belong to the WONCA Europe network (World Organization of Family Doctors). The data were collected from relevant and reliable official sources, such as governmental websites and guidelines. Main outcome measures: Patient’s first contact with health system, governmental COVID-19 app (name and function), Digital COVID-19 Certification, COVID-19 app connection with PHC. Results: Primary care was the first point of care for suspected COVID-19 patients in 28 countries, and 24 countries developed apps to complement classical medical care. The most frequently developed app was for tracing COVID-19 cases (24 countries), followed by the Digital COVID-19 Certificate app (17 countries). Bulgaria, Italy, Serbia, North Macedonia, and Romania had interoperability between PHC and COVID-19 apps, and Poland and Romania’s apps considered social needs. Conclusions: COVID-19 apps were widely created during the first pandemic year. Contact tracing was the most frequent function found in the registered apps. Connection with PHC was scarcely developed. In future pandemics, connections between health system levels should be guaranteed to develop and implement effective strategies for managing diseases.

Background The COVID-19 vaccination campaign in several European countries involved collaboration between public health and Primary Health Care (PHC).Objective To highlight the role of PHC professionals in the COVID-19 vaccination rollout, specifically in terms of vaccine administration, communication and contributing to vaccination population coverage.Methods A descriptive retrospective study of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign across 28 European countries was conducted, covering data from December 2020 to November 2021. Data were collected by key informants recruited from each country, who were health professionals involved in their national vaccination campaigns. Utilising an ad-hoc semi-structured questionnaire, information was gathered on organisation, communication strategies, priority groups, vaccine types, and vaccination pathways in PHC.Results PHC participated in communication strategies in 10 out of 28 countries, and vaccination was voluntary in most of them. The priority groups for vaccination varied across Europe, and the availability of vaccines in PHC differed between countries within the European Union (EU) and non-EU countries. The BioNTech Pfizer vaccine was the most widely available vaccine in most countries, followed by Moderna and AstraZeneca. PHC administered COVID-19 vaccines to the population, being the nurses the most involved, followed by general practitioners. Vaccination appointments were available online in 18/28 or by phone in 15/28, direct appointments at health centres were available in 8/28. In several countries, healthcare professionals who administered vaccines were given extra compensation for their role.Conclusion PHC professionals played a crucial role in the successful distribution and administration of COVID-19 vaccines in European countries.

Background Primary Health Care (PHC) plays a crucial role in managing the COVID-19 pandemic, with only 8% of cases requiring hospitalization. However, PHC COVID-19 data often goes unnoticed on European government dashboards and in media discussions. This project aims to examine official information on PHC patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe, with specific objectives: (1) Describe PHC's clinical pathways for acute COVID-19 cases, including long-term care facilities, (2) Describe PHC COVID-19 pandemic indicators, (3) Develop COVID-19 PHC activity indicators, (4) Explain PHC's role in vaccination strategies, and (5) Create a PHC contingency plan for future pandemics.Methods A mixed-method study will employ two online questionnaires to gather retrospective PHC data on COVID-19 management and PHC involvement in vaccination strategies. Validation will occur through focus group discussions with medical and public health (PH) experts. A two-wave Delphi survey will establish a European PHC indicators dashboard for future pandemics. Additionally, a coordinated health system action plan involving PHC, secondary care, and PH will be devised to address future pandemic scenarios. Analysis: Quantitative data will be analysed using STATA v16.0 for descriptive and multivariate analyses. Qualitative data will be collected through peer-reviewed questionnaires and content analysis of focus group discussions. A Delphi survey and multiple focus groups will be employed to achieve consensus on PHC indicators and a common European health system response plan for future pandemics. The Eurodata research group involving researchers from 28 European countries support the development.Discussion While PHC manages most COVID-19 acute cases, data remains limited in many European countries. This study collects data from numerous countries, offering a comprehensive perspective on PHC's role during the pandemic in Europe. It pioneers the development of a PHC dashboard and health system plan for pandemics in Europe. These results may prove invaluable in future pandemics. However, data may have biases due to key informants' involvement and may not fully represent all European GP practices. PHC has a significant role in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic, as most of the cases are mild or moderate and only 8% needed hospitalization. However, PHC COVID-19 activity data is invisible on governments' daily dashboards in Europe, often overlooked in media and public debates.

Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, the majority of patients received ambulatory treatment, highlighting the importance of primary health care (PHC). However, there is limited knowledge regarding PHC workload in Europe during this period. The utilization of COVID-19 PHC indicators could facilitate the efficient monitoring and coordination of the pandemic response. The objective of this study is to describe PHC indicators for disease surveillance and monitoring of COVID-19's impact in Europe.Methods Descriptive, cross-sectional study employing data obtained through a semi-structured ad hoc questionnaire, which was collectively agreed upon by all participants. The study encompasses PHC settings in 31 European countries from March 2020 to August 2021. Key-informants from each country answered the questionnaire. Main outcome: the identification of any indicator used to describe PHC COVID-19 activity.Results Out of the 31 countries surveyed, data on PHC information were obtained from 14. The principal indicators were: total number of cases within PHC (Belarus, Cyprus, Italy, Romania and Spain), number of follow-up cases (Croatia, Cyprus, Finland, Spain and Turkey), GP's COVID-19 tests referrals (Poland), proportion of COVID-19 cases among respiratory illnesses consultations (Norway and France), sick leaves issued by GPs (Romania and Spain) and examination and complementary tests (Cyprus). All COVID-19 cases were attended in PHC in Belarus and Italy.Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic exposes a crucial deficiency in preparedness for infectious diseases in European health systems highlighting the inconsistent recording of indicators within PHC organizations. PHC standardized indicators and public data accessibility are urgently needed, conforming the foundation for an effective European-level health services response framework against future pandemics.

BackgroundMost COVID-19 patients were treated in primary health care (PHC) in Europe.ObjectivesTo demonstrate the scope of PHC workflow during the COVID-19 pandemic emphasising similarities and differences of patient's clinical pathways in Europe.MethodsDescriptive, cross-sectional study with data acquired through a semi-structured questionnaire in PHC in 30 European countries, created ad hoc and agreed upon among all researchers who participated in the study. GPs from each country answered the approved questionnaire. Main variable: PHC COVID-19 acute clinical pathway. All variables were collected from each country as of September 2020.ResultsCOVID-19 clinics in PHC facilities were organised in 8/30. Case detection and testing were performed in PHC in 27/30 countries. RT-PCR and lateral flow tests were performed in PHC in 23/30, free of charge with a medical prescription. Contact tracing was performed mainly by public health authorities. Mandatory isolation ranged from 5 to 14 days. Sick leave certification was given exclusively by GPs in 21/30 countries. Patient hotels or other resources to isolate patients were available in 12/30. Follow-up to monitor the symptoms and/or new complementary tests was made mainly by phone call (27/30). Chest X-ray and phlebotomy were performed in PHC in 18/30 and 23/30 countries, respectively. Oxygen and low-molecular-weight heparin were available in PHC (21/30).ConclusionIn Europe PHC participated in many steps to diagnose, treat and monitor COVID-19 patients. Differences among countries might be addressed at European level for the management of future pandemics.

AbstractBackground In manufacturers’ trials, vaccination against COVID-19 proved to be safe and effective. The officially reported frequency of vaccine adverse events (VAEs) in Poland is lower than that declared by the manufacturers. The anti-vaccination activists questioned the trustworthiness of official data.Objectives The aim was to explore the real-life prevalence of VAEs in general practice settings and the factors that may influence it.Methods In this pragmatic, mixed prospective and retrospective study, patients vaccinated against COVID-19 between May and October 2021 in three GP practices in Krakow, Poland, were enrolled. Their demographic (age, sex, level of education) and clinical data (weight and height, smoking status, history of allergies, COVID-19 and chronic diseases) were collected. Then, they were interviewed about VAEs they experienced.Results Out of 1530 patients invited to participate, 1051 (69%) agreed and were eligible for analyses. Only 8.8% did not report any VAE. Pain at the injection site was the most frequently reported reaction (800, 76.2%). The most prevalent systemic ones were excessive fatigue/lethargy (527, 50.6%), sleep/circadian rhythm disturbances (433, 41.6%) and headache (399, 38.3%). Fifty required medical assistance − 39 experienced presyncope (3.7%) and 11 loss of consciousness (1.1%). Only two others were hospitalised. Females, younger adults, those with higher education and with a history of COVID-19 reported systemic VAEs more frequently, while those who were older and obese were less likely to report local reactions.Conclusion Although more than 90% of patients vaccinated against COVID-19 in general practice settings may experience VAEs, in short-term observation, the vast majority are localised and mild.

Background and aim:Primary health care (PHC) supported long-term care facilities (LTCFs) in attending COVID-19 patients. The aim of this study is to describe the role of PHC in LTCFs in Europe during the early phase of the pandemic.Methods:Retrospective descriptive study from 30 European countries using data from September 2020 collected with an ad hoc semi-structured questionnaire. Related variables are SARS-CoV-2 testing, contact tracing, follow-up, additional testing, and patient care.Results:Twenty-six out of the 30 European countries had PHC involvement in LTCFs during the COVID-19 pandemic. PHC participated in initial medical care in 22 countries, while, in 15, PHC was responsible for SARS-CoV-2 test along with other institutions. Supervision of individuals in isolation was carried out mostly by LTCF staff, but physical examination or symptom's follow-up was performed mainly by PHC.Conclusion:PHC has participated in COVID-19 pandemic assistance in LTCFs in coordination with LTCF staff, public health officers, and hospitals.

Background The extent to which digital technologies are employed to promote the delivery of high-quality healthcare is known as Digital Maturity. Individual and systemic digital maturity are both necessary to ensure a successful, scalable and sustainable digital transformation in healthcare. However, digital maturity in primary care has been scarcely evaluated. Objectives This study assessed the digital maturity in General Practice (GP) globally and evaluated its association with participants' demographic characteristics, practice characteristics and features of Electronic Health Records (EHRs) use. Methods GPs across 20 countries completed an online questionnaire between June and September 2020. Demographic data, practice characteristics, and features of EHRs use were collected. Digital maturity was evaluated through a framework based on usage, resources and abilities (divided in this study in its collective and individual components), interoperability, general evaluation methods and impact of digital technologies. Each dimension was rated as 1 or 0. The digital maturity score was calculated as the sum of the six dimensions and ranged between 0 to 6 (maximum digital maturity). Multivariable linear regression was used to model the total score, while multivariable logistic regression was used to model the probability of meeting each dimension of the score. Results One thousand six hundred GPs (61% female, 68% Europeans) participated. GPs had a median digital maturity of 4 (P25–P75: 3–5). Positive associations with digital maturity were found with: male gender [B = 0.18 (95% CI 0.01; 0.36)], use of EHRs for longer periods [B = 0.45 (95% CI 0.35; 0.54)] and higher frequencies of access to EHRs [B = 0.33 (95% CI 0.17; 0.48)]. Practicing in a rural setting was negatively associated with digital maturity [B = −0.25 (95%CI −0.43; −0.08)]. Usage (90%) was the most acknowledged dimension while interoperability (47%) and use of best practice general evaluation methods (28%) were the least. Shorter durations of EHRs use were negatively associated with all digital maturity dimensions (aOR from 0.09 to 0.77). Conclusion Our study demonstrated notable factors that impact digital maturity and exposed discrepancies in digital transformation across healthcare settings. It provides guidance for policymakers to develop more efficacious interventions to hasten the digital transformation of General Practice.

This paper explores the differences between rural and urban practices in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizing aspects such as management of patient flow, infection prevention and control, information processing, communication and collaboration. Using a cross-sectional design, data were collected through the online PRICOV-19 questionnaire sent to general practices in 38 countries. Rural practices in our sample were smaller than urban-based practices. They reported an above-average number of old and multimorbid patients and a below-average number of patients with a migrant background or financial problems. Rural practices were less likely to provide leaflets and information, but were more likely to have ceased using the waiting room or to have made structural changes to their waiting room and to have changed their prescribing practices in terms of patients attending the practices. They were less likely to perform video consultations or use electronic prescription methods. Our findings show the existence of certain issues that could impact patient safety in rural areas more than in urban areas due to the underlying differences in population profile and supports. These could be used to plan the organization of care for similar future pandemic situations.

Abstract - Background Primary Health Care (PHC) plays a crucial role in managing the COVID-19 pandemic, with only 8% of cases requiring hospitalization. However, PHC COVID-19 data often goes unnoticed on European government dashboards and in media discussions. This project aims to examine official information on PHC patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe, with specific objectives: 1) Describe PHC's clinical pathways for acute COVID-19 cases, including long-term care facilities (LTCF), 2) Explain PHC's role in vaccination strategies, 3) Develop COVID-19 PHC activity indicators, and 4) Create a PHC contingency plan for future pandemics. - Methods: A mixed-method study will employ two online questionnaires to gather retrospective data on COVID-19 management in PHC and PHC involvement in vaccination strategies. Validation will occur through focus group discussions with medical and public health experts. A two-wave Delphi survey will establish a European PHC indicators dashboard for future pandemics. Additionally, a coordinated health system action plan involving PHC, secondary care, and Public Health (PH) will be devised to address future pandemic scenarios. Analysis: Quantitative data will be analysed using STATA v16.0 for descriptive and multivariate analyses. Qualitative data will be collected through peer-reviewed questionnaires and content analysis of focus group discussions. A Delphi survey and multiple focus groups will be employed to achieve consensus on PHC indicators and a common European health system response plan for future pandemics. The Eurodata research group involving 28 European countries support the development. - Discussion: While PHC manages most COVID-19 acute cases, data remains limited in many European countries. This study collects data from numerous countries, offering a comprehensive perspective on PHC's role during the pandemic in Europe. It pioneers the development of a PHC dashboard and health system plan for pandemics in Europe. These results may prove invaluable in future pandemics. However, data may have biases due to key informants' involvement and may not fully represent all European GP practices. PHC has a significant role in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic, as most of the cases are mild or moderate and only 8% needed hospitalization. However, PHC COVID-19 activity data is invisible on governments’ daily dashboards in Europe, often overlooked in media and public debates.

Home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) is an increasingly important tool in managing hypertension (HTN); however, its efficacy depends on its accuracy. This study aimed to explore the differences between blood pressure (BP) measurements conducted by patients and medical professionals and the patient demographic factors correlating with inaccurate self-measured BP levels. One hundred hypertensive patients completed a questionnaire inquiring about their health status and HBPM procedures and were filmed while measuring their BP using their own devices. A researcher then measured the patients' BP using a calibrated sphygmomanometer to assess the accuracy of patient-performed readings. This cross-sectional study was conducted in five primary healthcare centers in Kraków, Poland. The mean differences in systolic and diastolic BP readings by patients and researchers were 8.36 mmHg (SD = 10.90 mmHg) and 2.16 mmHg (SD = 9.12 mmHg), respectively. Inaccuracies in patient BP measurements were associated with a less than high school education level, patients’ age, and a family history of HTN. Patient self-measured BP levels were higher than researcher values, likely due to a higher patient error rate. Healthcare providers must increase training regarding correct HBPM techniques offered to patients; such efforts should be directed at all hypertensive patients, emphasizing the most error-prone demographics.