Background: Shared decision making (SDM) is a process within the physician–patient relationship applicable to any clinical action, whether diagnostic, therapeutic, or preventive in nature. It has been defined as a process of mutual respect and participation between the doctor and the patient. The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of decision aids (DA) in primary care based on changes in adherence to treatments, knowledge, and awareness of the disease, conflict with decisions, and patients’ and health professionals’ satisfaction with the intervention. Methods: A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was conducted in Medline, CINAHL, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database. The inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials as study design; use of SDM with DA as an intervention; primary care as clinical context; written in English, Spanish, and Portuguese; and published between January 2007 and January 2019. The risk of bias of the included studies in this review was assessed according to the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Results: Twenty four studies were selected out of the 201 references initially identified. With the use of DA, the use of antibiotics was reduced in cases of acute respiratory infection and decisional conflict was decreased when dealing with the treatment choice for atrial fibrillation and osteoporosis. The rate of determination of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in the prostate cancer screening decreased and colorectal cancer screening increased. Both professionals and patients increased their knowledge about depression, type 2 diabetes, and the perception of risk of acute myocardial infarction at 10 years without statins and with statins. The satisfaction was greater with the use of DA in choosing the treatment for depression, in cardiovascular risk management, in the treatment of low back pain, and in the use of statin therapy in diabetes. Blinding of outcomes assessment was the most common bias. Conclusions: DA used in primary care are effective to reduce decisional conflict and improve knowledge on the disease and treatment options, awareness of risk, and satisfaction with the decisions made. More studies are needed to assess the impact of shared decision making in primary care.

Aims: To describe the level of work engagement of active health care professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic, and its relationship with psychological distress according to the professional category. Background: Health care professionals working on the front line of the COVID-19 pandemic are at risk of psychological distress, and work engagement could be a positive attitude that could serve as a protective factor. Methods: Cross-sectional observational study of 1,459 health care professionals. Psychological distress was measured with the General Health Questionnaire and work engagement with the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Data were analysed with bivariate analyses and correlations.Results: Psychological distress was reported by 80.6% of health care professionals. Work engagement as high with a total mean score of 5.04 (SD = 1.14). The results showed that distressed professionals showed significantly lower levels of work engagement. Conclusions:The present study identified psychological distress and work engagement experienced by health care professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic. Most of the variables included in the study revealed a significant relationship with psychological distress and work engagement. Implications for Nursing Management:The relationship between the working conditions with psychological distress and work engagement suggests that improvements in the workplace are needed to promote protective measure for the mental health of health care professionals.

Potentially inappropriate medications are associated with polypharmacy and polypathology. Some interventions such as pharmacotherapy reviews have been designed to reduce the prescribing of inappropriate medications. The objective of this study is to evaluate how effective a decision-making support tool is for determining medication appropriateness in patients with one or more chronic diseases (hypertension, dyslipidaemia, and/or diabetes) and polypharmacy in the primary care setting. For this, a quasi-experimental study (randomised, controlled and multicentre) has been developed. The study compares an intervention group, which assesses medication appropriateness by applying a decision support tool, with a control group that follows the usual clinical practice. The intervention included a decision support tool in paper format, where participants were informed about polypharmacy, inappropriate medications, associated problems and available alternatives, as well as shared decision-making. This is an informative guide aimed at helping patients with decision-making by providing them with information about the secondary risks associated with inappropriate medications in their treatment, according to the Beers and START/STOPP criteria. The outcome measure was the proportion of medication appropriateness. The proportion of patients who confirmed medication appropriateness after six months of follow-up is greater in the intervention group (32.5%) than in the control group (27.9%) p = 0.008. The probability of medication appropriateness, which was calculated by the proportion of drugs withdrawn or replaced according to the STOPP/Beers criteria and those initiated according to the START criteria, was 2.8 times higher in the intervention group than in the control group (OR = 2.8; 95% CI 1.3–6.1) p = 0.008. In patients with good adherence to the treatment, the percentage of appropriateness was 62.1% in the shared decision-making group versus 37.9% in the control group (p = 0.005). The use of a decision-making support tool in patients with potentially inappropriate medications increases the percentage of medication appropriateness when compared to the usual clinical practice.

The aim of this study was to develop a specific scale to measure anxiety and fear levels in the general Spanish population. For this, a transcultural adaptation to Spanish of the fear of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) scale, in its original version of 10 items, was carried out. Then, the Anxiety and Fear of COVID-19 Assessment Scale (AMICO, for its acronym in Spanish) was designed by translating the tool and Delphi technique into three rounds. Ten experts participated voluntarily, and inter-observer match rates and the reliability study of the designed scale were calculated. A pilot study was carried out with the final version of the scale for the validity and reliability study. The instrument did not raise problems in semantic and cultural terms during the first and second rounds of the translation process, with an overall weighted Kappa value of 0.9. In the third round, eight new items were designed and consensual, obtaining a weighted overall value of 0.89. The pilot study sample was made up of 445 subjects, of which 60.3% were women with a mean age of 46.2 years. The final version consisted of 16 items, 2 factors, and a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.92. The AMICO scale was developed to assess the level of anxiety and fear of COVID-19 and proved to be valid and reliable for its use in the adult Spanish population.

Diagnosis and home follow-up of patients affected by COVID-19 is being approached by primary health care professionals through telephone consultations. This modality of teleconsultation allows one to follow the evolution of patients and attend early to possible complications of the disease. The purpose of the study was to analyze the evolution of a cohort of patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 disease followed by primary care professionals and to determine the factors that are associated with hospital admission. A prospective cohort study was carried out on 166 patients selected by consecutive sampling that showed symptoms compatible with COVID-19. The follow-up was approached via telephone for 14 days analyzing hospitalization and comorbidities of the patients. There were 75% of the hospitalized patients that were male (p = 0.002), and 70.8% presented comorbidities (p < 0.001). In patients with diabetes, the risk of hospitalization was 4.6-times larger, in hypertension patients it was 3.3-times, those suffering from renal insufficiency 3.8-times, and immunosuppressed patients 4.8-times (IC 95%: 1.9–11.7). In 86.7% of the cases, clinical deterioration was diagnosed in the first seven days of the infection, and 72% of healing was reached from day seven to fourteen. Monitoring from primary care of patients with COVID-19 allows early diagnosis of clinical deterioration and detection of comorbidities associated with the risk of poor evolution and hospital admission.

In Spain, the average waiting time for a specialist consultation is 58 days. A determinant factor that contributes to this situation is the poor communication between primary care and specialised care, which is mainly due to the waiting days for a consultation, number of avoided/avoidable face-to-face referrals, and waiting days for the resolution of the process. DETELPROG is a referral system in which the family physician requests a scheduled outpatient internal medicine consultation, integrated into the usual consultations agenda of both physicians, the family, and the outpatient clinic physician, in order to have a telephone consultation. A randomized controlled clinical trial has been carried out to assess the effectiveness of DELTELPROG. In a sample of 255 patients, the experimental group was referred via a scheduled telephone call, and those in the control group, by face-to-face hospital consultation area. The results showed statistically significant differences between both groups of 27 days (95% confidence interval (CI): 20–33) regarding specialised consultation, 47 days (95% CI: 17–74) as for the resolution of the process, and 91.7% for avoided face-to-face consultations. The DETELPROG resulted as a low coverage system (53%), which makes it a complementary referral model. It is necessary to make an in-depth analysis of the causes that have led to this technologically low coverage.

No abstract

No abstract