ObjectivesThe current COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the measures taken to control it, have a profound impact on healthcare. This study was set up to gain insights into the consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak on the core competencies of general practice, as they are experienced by general practitioners (GPs) on the frontline.Design, setting, participantsWe performed a descriptive study using semistructured interviews with 132 GPs in Flanders, using a topic list based on the WONCA definition of core competencies in general practice. Data were analysed qualitatively using framework analysis.ResultsChanges in practice management and in consultation strategies were quickly adopted. There was a major switch towards telephone triage and consults, for covid-related as well as for non-covid related problems. Patient-centred care is still a major objective. Clinical decision-making is largely focused on respiratory assessment and triage, and GPs feel that acute care is compromised, both by their own changed focus and by the fact that patients consult less frequently for non-covid problems. Chronic care is mostly postponed, and this will have consequences that will extend and become visible after the corona crisis. Through the holistic eyes of primary care, the current outbreak—as well as the measures taken to control it—will have a profound impact on psychological and socioeconomic well-being. This impact is already visible in vulnerable people and will continue to become clear in the medium and long terms. GPs think that they are at high risk of getting infected. Dropping out and being unable to contribute their part or becoming virus transmitters are reported to be greater concerns than getting ill themselves.ConclusionsThe current times have a profound impact on the core competences of primary care. Although the vast increase in patients soliciting medical help and the necessary separate covid and non-covid flows have been dealt with, GPs are worried about the continuity of regular care and the consequences of the anticovid measures. These may become a threat for the general health of the population and for the provision of primary healthcare in the near and distant future.

Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by European Geriatric Medicine Society. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be selfarchived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com".

IntroductionInformal caregivers are important resources for community-dwelling frail elderly. But caring can be challenging. To be able to provide long-term care to the elderly, informal caregivers need to be supported as well. The aim of this study is to review the current best evidence on the effectiveness of different types of support services targeting informal caregivers of community-dwelling frail elderly.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed in Medline, PsychINFO, Ovid Nursing Database, Cinahl, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and British Nursing Index in september 2010.ResultsOverall, the effect of caregiver support interventions is small and also inconsistent between studies. Respite care can be helpful in reducing depression, burden and anger. Interventions at the individual caregivers’ level can be beneficial in reducing or stabilizing depression, burden, stress and role strain. Group support has a positive effect on caregivers’ coping ability, knowledge, social support and reducing depression. Technology-based interventions can reduce caregiver burden, depression, anxiety and stress and improve the caregiver’s coping ability.ConclusionIntegrated support packages where the content of the package is tailored to the individual caregivers’ physical, psychological and social needs should be preferred when supporting informal caregivers of frail elderly. It requires an intense collaboration and coordination between all parties involved.

No abstract

Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, general practitioners worldwide re-organise care in very different ways because of the lack of evidence-based protocols. Objective This paper describes the organisation and the characteristics of consultations in Belgian out-of-hours primary care during five weekends at the peak of a COVID-19 outbreak and compares it to a similar period in 2019. Methods Real-time observational study using pseudonymised routine clinical data extracted out of reports from home visits, telephone- and physical consultations (iCAREdata). Nine general practice cooperatives (GPCs) participated covering a population of 1 513 523. Results All GPCs rapidly re-organised care in order to handle the outbreak and provide a safe working environment. The average consultation rate was 222 per 100 000 citizens per weekend. These consultations were handled by telephone alone in 40% (N = 6293). A diagnosis at risk of COVID-19 was registered in 6692 (43%) consultations,. Out of 5311 physical consultations, 1460 were at risk of COVID-19 of which 443 (30%) did not receive prior telephone consultation to estimate this risk. Compared to 2019, the workload initially increased due to telephone consultations but afterwards declined drastically. The physical consultation rate declined by 45% with a marked decline in diagnoses unrelated to COVID-19. Conclusions General practitioners can rapidly re-organise out-of-hours care to handle patient flows during a COVID-19 outbreak. Forty percent of the out-of-hours primary care contacts are handled by telephone consultations alone. We recommend to give a telephone consultation to all patients and not to rely on call takers to differentiate between infectious and regular care. The demand for physical consultations declined drastically provoking questions about patient’s safety for care unrelated to COVID-19.

Probiotics have been proposed for a number of urogenital infectious conditions. In this study, we examine a possible effect on human papillomavirus (HPV)-related precancerous lesions in cervical cytology. We conducted a prospective controlled pilot study, in which 54 women with an HPV+low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion diagnosis in their PAP smear were followed for 6 months. The intervention group consumed a daily probiotic drink during the study period; the control group received no treatment, according to common care policy. Outcome measures were the control PAP smear and HPV status after 6 months. Probiotic users had a twice as high chance of clearance of cytological abnormalities (60 vs. 31%, P=0.05). HPV was cleared in 19% of control patients versus 29% of probiotic users (P=0.41). This exploratory pilot study suggests that the probiotic studied promotes the clearance of HPV-related cytological abnormalities. If confirmed, this would represent an entirely new option to manage cervical cancer precursors.

Controversy has arisen regarding the effectiveness of neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs), especially against influenza-related complications. A literature search was performed to critically assess the evidence collected by the available systematic reviews (SRs) regarding the benefits and disadvantages of NIs (oseltamivir, zanamivir) compared to placebos in healthy and at-risk individuals of all ages for prophylaxis and treatment of seasonal influenza. A SR was done using the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Health Technology Assessment Database, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Medline (January 2006–July 2012). Two reviewers selected SRs based on randomized clinical trials, which were restricted to intention-to-treat results, and they assessed review (AMSTAR) and study quality indicators (GRADE). The SRs included (N = 9) were of high quality. The efficacy of NIs in prophylaxis ranged from 64% (16–85) to 92% (37–99); the absolute risk reduction ranged from 1.2% to 12.1% (GRADE moderate to low). Clinically relevant treatment benefits of NIs were small in healthy adults and children suffering from influenza-like illness (GRADE high to moderate). Oseltamivir reduced antibiotic usage in healthy adults according to one SR, but this was not confirmed by other reviews (GRADE low). Zanamivir showed a preventive effect on antibiotic usage in children (95% (77–99);GRADE moderate) and on the occurrence of bronchitis in at-risk individuals (59% (30–76);GRADE moderate). No evidence was available on the treatment benefits of NIs in elderly and at-risk groups and their effects on hospitalization and mortality. In oseltamivir trials, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea were significant side-effects. For zanamivir trials, no adverse effects have been reported. The combination of diagnostic uncertainty, the risk for virus strain resistance, possible side effects and financial cost outweigh the small benefits of oseltamivir or zanamivir for the prophylaxis and treatment of healthy individuals. No relevant benefits of these NIs on complications in at-risk individuals have been established.

Consumer-led care and the active participation of the informal caregiver in the decision-making process for building the care plan need to become more prominent.