Ambulante Versorgung  in der Corona-Krise

Hardt, Wolfgang

doi:10.1007/s15011-020-3147-4

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The wording of the questions concerning the burdening factors is stated in Table 5. The participants were asked to indicate to what extent these factors had a burdening effect on the practice team on a response format from not at all burdensome (1) to very burdensome (4). If a factor queried did not exist in the practice, participants could opt for not applicable.…”

Section: Measurement and Statistical Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…During the increasing expansion of SARS-CoV-2, governmental measures had been introduced that led to a massive restriction of public life, first in March and April 2020. General practitioners (GPs) and other medical specialists had been confronted with the sudden standstill twofold: on the one hand it led to a strong decline in patient numbers, (1)(2)(3) on the other hand the outpatient sector was responsible for the main quantitative burden in the care of COVID-19 patients (4). Studies showed that during the COVID-19 pandemic and the past SARS outbreak healthcare workers in hospitals providing treatment and care for infected patients are under an increased risk of psychosocial burdens such as depression, anxiety, distress and burnout (5)(6)(7).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Work climate in pandemic times: which burdens do German physicians in primary care report?

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In Germany, general practitioners (GPs) provide basic and primary care in the ambulatory sector and refer patients to other specialists when necessary. Often, GPs present the first point of contact for patients in the German healthcare system. During the COVID-19 pandemic, GPs and other medical specialists in the ambulatory setting suddenly were confronted with unprecedented challenges. Objective To answer the following research questions: How did COVID-19-related challenges affect the work climate? Do physicians with deteriorated work climate simultaneously report a worsened provision of patient care? Which challenges were the most burdening? Methods In the course of the project COVID-GAMS more than 18 000 physicians of various specialties had been invited to a quantitative cross-sectional online survey (in Summer 2020). Analyses were conducted separately for the groups of GPs and other medical specialists. Group differences were analysed statistically and burdening factors were identified. Results 1703 participants were included in the analysis. 22.2% of GPs (other medical specialists: 19.9%) stated, their work climate had deteriorated. Physicians with a deteriorated work climate showed a tendency towards poorer personal provision of patient care (M = 3.75, SD = 0.98 versus M = 3.93, SD = 0.99) compared to unchanged or improved work climate. The lack of protective material in March/April 2020, changes in practice management and possible economic impacts on the practice were the most burdening factors reported by GPs. Conclusion GPs who reported a negative impact on the work climate in the course of the first pandemic lockdown also tend to see own deficits in the provision of patient care.

show abstract

Section: Measurement and Statistical Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Work climate in pandemic times: which burdens do German physicians in primary care report?

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, during the acute situation of the pandemic, an increased demand for outpatient care, arised as well [ 10 ]. General practitioners (GPs) or physicians working in the outpatient care (POC) stood in the frontline throughout the COVID-19 pandemic [ 18 ]. In fact, 85% of patients with COVID-19 were treated by GPs [ 18 , 19 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…General practitioners (GPs) or physicians working in the outpatient care (POC) stood in the frontline throughout the COVID-19 pandemic [ 18 ]. In fact, 85% of patients with COVID-19 were treated by GPs [ 18 , 19 ]. Moreover, nearly 94% of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests for suspected COVID-19 infections were provided in the outpatient care during the first quarter of 2020 in Germany.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mental distress of physicians in the outpatient care throughout the COVID-19 pandemic: emotional and supportive human relations matter – Cross-sectional results of the VOICE-study

Mogwitz

Albus

Beschoner

et al. 2023

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The aim of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate the course of self-reported mental distress and quality of life (QoL) of physicians, working in the outpatient care (POC). Outcomes were compared with a control group of physicians working in the inpatient care (PIC), throughout the Corona Virus Disease (COVID)-19 pandemic. The impact of risk and protective factors in terms of emotional and supportive human relations on mental distress and perceived QoL of POC were of primary interest. Methods Within the largest prospective, multi-center survey on mental health of health care workers (HCW), conducted during the first (T1) and second (T2) wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe, we investigated the course of current burden (CB), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-2), anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2) and QoL, cross-sectionally, in n = 848 POC (T1: n = 536, T2: n = 312). The primary outcomes were compared with an age- and gender-matchted control group of n = 458 PIC (T1: n = 262, T2: n = 196). COVID-19-, work-related, social risk and protective factors were examined. Results At T1, POC showed no significant differences with respect to CB, depression, anxiety, and QoL, after Bonferroni correction. Whereas at T2, POC exhibited higher scores of CB (Cohen´s d/ Cd = .934, p < .001), depression (Cd = 1.648, p < 001), anxiety (Cd = 1.745, p < .001), work-family conflict (Cd = 4.170, p < .001) and lower QoL (Cd = .891, p = .002) compared with PIC. Nearly all assessed parameters of burden increased from T1 to T2 within the cohort of POC (e.g. depression: CD = 1.580, p < .001). Risk factors for mental distress of POC throughout the pandemic were: increased work-family conflict (CB: ß = .254, p < .001, 95% CI: .23, .28; PHQ-2: ß = .139, p = .011, 95% CI: .09, .19; GAD-2: ß = .207, p < .001, 95% CI: .16, .26), worrying about the patients´ security (CB: ß = .144, p = .007, 95% CI: .07, .22; PHQ-2: ß = .150, p = .006, 95% CI: .00, .30), fear of triage situations (GAD-2: ß = .132, p = .010, 95% CI: -.04, .31) and burden through restricted social contact in spare time (CB: ß = .146, p = .003, 95% CI: .07, .22; PHQ-2: ß = .187, p < .001, 95% CI: .03, .34; GAD-2: ß = .156, p = .003, 95% CI: -.01, .32). Protective factors for mental distress and QoL were the perceived protection by local authorities (CB: ß = -.302, p < .001, 95% CI: -.39, -.22; PHQ-2: ß = -.190, p < . 001, 95% CI: -.36, -.02; GAD-2: ß = -.211, p < .001, 95% CI: -.40, -.03; QoL: ß = .273, p < .001, 95% CI: .18, .36), trust in colleagues (PHQ-2: ß = -.181, p < .001, 95% CI: -.34, -.02; GAD-2: ß = -.199, p < .001, 95% CI: -.37, -.02; QoL: ß = .124, p = .017, 95% CI: .04, .21) and social support (PHQ-2: ß = -.180, p < .001, 95% CI: -.22, -.14; GAD-2: ß = -.127, p = .014, 95% CI: -.17, -.08; QoL: ß = .211, p < .001, 95% CI: .19, .23). Conclusions During the pandemic, the protective role of emotional and supportive human relations on the mental distress and quality of life of POC should be taken into account more thoroughly, both in practice and future research.

show abstract