Objectives The aims of our study were to describe the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown on primary care in Germany regarding the number of consultations, the prevalence of specific reasons for consultation presented by the patients, and the frequency of specific services performed by the GP. Methods We conducted a longitudinal observational study based on standardised GP interviews in a quota sampling design comparing the time before the COVID-19 pandemic (12 June 2015 to 27 April 2017) with the time during lockdown (21 April to 14 July 2020). The sample included GPs in urban and rural areas 120 km around Hamburg, Germany, and was stratified by region type and administrative districts. Differences in the consultation numbers were analysed by multivariate linear regressions in mixed models adjusted for random effects on the levels of the administrative districts and GP practices. Results One hundred ten GPs participated in the follow-up, corresponding to 52.1% of the baseline. Primary care practices in 32 of the 37 selected administrative districts (86.5%) could be represented in both assessments. At baseline, GPs reported 199.6 ± 96.9 consultations per week, which was significantly reduced during COVID-19 lockdown by 49.0% to 101.8 ± 67.6 consultations per week (p < 0.001). During lockdown, the frequency of five reasons for consultation (-43.0% to -31.5%) and eleven services (-56.6% to -33.5%) had significantly decreased. The multilevel, multivariable analyses showed an average reduction of 94.6 consultations per week (p < 0.001). Conclusions We observed a dramatic reduction of the number of consultations in primary care. This effect was independent of age, sex and specialty of the GP and independent of the practice location in urban or rural areas. Consultations for complaints like low back pain, gastrointestinal complaints, vertigo or fatigue and services like house calls/calls at nursing homes, wound treatments, pain therapy or screening examinations for the early detection of chronic diseases were particularly affected.

ObjectivesAim of this study was to analyse if subjectively perceived treatment urgency of patients in emergency departments is associated with self-reported health literacy and the willingness to use the general practitioner (GP) as coordinator of treatment.DesignA multicentre, cross-sectional, observational study.SettingEmergency departments in five hospitals. Each hospital was visited 14 times representing two 8-hour shifts on each day of the week. Calendar dates were randomly assigned.ParticipantsAll patients of legal age registered at the emergency department or hospital reception desk. Exclusion criteria included immediate or very urgent need of treatment, high level of symptom burden and severe functional impairments in terms of hearing, vision and speech. We conducted standardised personal interviews. Additionally, clinical data were extracted from patient records.Primary and secondary outcome measuresOur target variable was subjectively perceived treatment urgency. Predictor variables included age, sex, education, health-related quality of life (EuroQol Five-Dimension Scale, value set UK), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), somatic symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire, 15 items version), self-reported health literacy (European Health Literacy Questionnaire, 16 questions version) and the commitment to the GP (Fragebogen zur Intensität der Hausarztbindung, ‘F-HaBi’). Data were analysed by multilevel, multivariable linear regression adjusted for random effects at the hospital level.ResultsOur sample comprised 276 patients with a mean age of 50.1 years and 51.8% women. A low treatment urgency (defined as 0–5 points on a Numerical Rating Scale) was reported by 111 patients (40.2%). In the final model, lower subjective treatment urgency was associated with male sex (β=0.84; 95% CI 0.11/1.57, p=0.024), higher health-related quality of life (−2.27 to –3.39/−1.15, p<0.001), lower somatic symptoms score (0.09, 0.004/0.17, p=0.040), higher anxiety score (−0.13 to –0.24/−0.01, p=0.027) and lower commitment to the GP (0.08, 0.01/0.14, p=0.029).ConclusionsA lower level of subjectively perceived treatment urgency was predicted by a lower willingness to use the GP as coordinator of treatment. Self-reported health literacy did not predict the patients’ urgency rating.

Background Patient numbers in emergency departments are on the rise. The DEMAND intervention aims to improve the efficacy of emergency services by computer-assisted structured initial assessment assigning patients to emergency departments or primary care practices. The aims of our study were to evaluate patient satisfaction with this intervention and to analyse if reduced patient satisfaction is predicted by sociodemographic data, health status or health literacy. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional patient survey in emergency departments and co-located primary care practices. Each intervention site was planned to participate for two observation periods, each with a duration of one full week. Study participants were recruited by the local staff. The patients filled out a written questionnaire during their waiting time. Patient satisfaction was assessed by agreement to four statements on a four point Likert scale. Predictors of patient satisfaction were identified by multilevel, multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for random effects at the intervention site level. Results The sample included 677 patients from 10 intervention sites. The patients had a mean age of 38.9 years and 59.0% were women. Between 67.5% and 55.0% were fully satisfied with aspects of the intervention. The most criticised aspect was that the staff showed too little interest in the patients’ personal situation. Full satisfaction (“clearly yes” to all items) was reported by 44.2%. Reduced patient satisfaction (at least one item rated as “rather yes”, “rather no”, “clearly no”) was predicted by lower age (odds ratio 0.79 for ten years difference, 95% confidence interval 0.67/0.95, p = 0.009), presenting with infections (3.08,1.18/8.05,p = 0.022) or injuries (3.46,1.01/11.82,p = 0.048), a higher natural logarithm of the symptom duration (1.23,1.07/1.30,p = 0.003) and a lower health literacy (0.71 for four points difference, 0.53/0.94,p = 0.019). Conclusions The patients were for the most part satisfied with the intervention. Assessment procedures should be evaluated a) regarding if all relevant patient-related aspects are included; and whether patient information can be improved b) for patients with strong opinions about cause, consequences and treatment options for their health problem; and c) for patients who have problems in the handling of information relevant to health and healthcare. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register (https://www.drks.de/drks_web/setLocale_EN.do) no. DRKS00017014.