BackgroundTime constraints during patient visits play a major role for the work stress of primary care physicians. Several studies suggest that there is a critical situation in terms of time constraints in primary care in Germany. Therefore, the following research questions are addressed: (1) What is the time allocated and needed for different types of consultations among primary care physicians in an urban area in Germany? (2) What is the extent of time stress? (3) Are there differences in time stress according to physician characteristics (gender and length of experience) and practice type (single vs. group/shared practice)?MethodsData stem from a face-to-face survey of primary care doctors in Hamburg and adjacent regions. A sample of 128 physicians stratified by a combination of physicians’ gender and length of experience (≤15 years or > 15 years) was used. Physicians were asked about the time needed (in minutes) to provide high quality of care for patients regarding six types of consultations: (1) new patient appointment, (2) routine consultation, (3) complete physical examination, (4) symptom-oriented examination, (5) check-up, and (6) home visit (without drive). Afterwards, they were asked about the average minutes allocated for the six consultations. Time stress was measured by calculating minutes needed minus minutes available.ResultsAverage perceived time needed was higher than time allocated for all six types of consultation. However, there were differences in the magnitude of time stress between the consultation types. Time stress was most pronounced and most prevalent in case of a new patient visit. No significant differences in time stress between male and female primary care physicians were found, while less experienced physicians reported more time stress than those with more experience (> 15 years). Physicians working in a single practice had less time stress than those working in a group or shared practice in case of a check-up visit.ConclusionsPerceived time needed is higher than time allocated for various types of consultation among primary care physicians in Germany. Time stress in primary care is particularly pronounced in case of new patient appointments. Early-career physicians are particularly affected by time stress.

Background: Knowledge and beliefs about health and health care are part of the general concept of health literacy. Studies demonstrated that large parts of the population report inadequate health literacy. There are only few studies specifically addressing public knowledge and beliefs about emergency care. We examine magnitude and social variations of public knowledge about emergency care in Germany.Methods: Analyses make use of a telephone survey conducted in Hamburg, Germany. Random sample consisted of 1,207 adult respondents. We asked whether the respondents know various emergency care services. Moreover, capabilities of dealing with an emergency case were assessed. Sex, age, education, and migration background were introduced as predictors into regression models.Results: 98% of the respondents stated to know the rescue service, while 74% knew the medical on call service and 49% were aware of an emergency practice nearby. About 71% of the interviewees said it was easy for them to find out whom to turn to in a case of a medical emergency. Fewer respondents found it easy to evaluate when to use emergency medical services and to evaluate whether a health problem is a medical emergency. Knowledge and capabilities were positively associated with education and negatively related to migration background.Conclusions: This study indicates a lack of public knowledge about emergency care and social inequalities in public knowledge according to education and migration status. Findings suggest that interventions are needed to improve public knowledge and that considering social inequalities should be a basic principle for such interventions.

No abstract

ObjectivesTo examine variations in intended healthcare utilisation in severe cases of COVID-19 and inflammatory gastrointestinal disease (IGD).DesignRepresentative cross-sectional telephone survey.Setting and participants1207 randomly drawn adults of the city of Hamburg, Germany, between November 2020 and January 2021.Outcome measuresDifferent vignettes with severe symptoms were presented varying in sex, age (child, middle-aged person, older person), daytime (Tuesday morning or Tuesday evening) and disease (COVID-19 or IGD), while the degree of urgency was equivalent for all cases. The respondents were asked for the intended healthcare utilisation resulting in three different alternatives: general practitioner (GP)/paediatrician, medical on-call service (‘116117’) and emergency care (accident and emergency department, emergency practice, rescue service). In multivariate analyses, associations of characteristics of the vignettes and participants (sex, age, education, migration background) with intended healthcare utilisation were tested. In a further step, analyses were conducted separately for IGD and COVID-19.ResultsRegarding the vignettes’ characteristics, intended utilisation of GP/paediatrician is associated with female sex, higher age, daytime (morning) and COVID-19 symptoms, the medical on-call service with male sex, daytime (evening) and COVID-19 symptoms and the emergency medicine with younger age, daytime (evening) and IGD. Women chose more often the GP/paediatrician, men preferred emergency medicine. Only in case of IGD, higher educated persons more often chose the medical on-call service while people with a migration background decided less often for medical on-call service and emergency medicine.ConclusionsDespite comparable urgency, the findings suggest variations of intended healthcare utilisation depending on various characteristics of the vignettes and respondents. Depending on the type of disease inequalities vary. Overall, information about healthcare alternatives in severe cases has to be improved and clear pathways to facilitate healthcare utilisation has to be further developed.