Objectives The 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, participants We 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. Results Changes 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. Conclusions The 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.

Geriatric care increasingly needs more multidisciplinary health care services to deliver the necessary complex and continuous care. The aim of this study is to summarize indicators of effective interprofessional outcomes for this population. A systematic review is performed in the Cochrane Library, Pubmed (Medline), Embase, Cinahl and Psychinfo with a search until June 2014. Overall, 689 references were identified of which 29 studies met the inclusion criteria. All outcome indicators were summarized in three categories: collaboration, patient level outcome and costs. Seventeen out of 24 outcome indicators within the category of 'collaboration' reached significant difference in advantage of the intervention group. On 'patient outcome level' only 15 out of 32 outcome parameters met statistical significance. In the category of 'costs' only one study reached statistical significance. The overall effects of interprofessional interventions for elderly are positive, but based on heterogeneous outcomes. Outcome indicators of interprofessional collaboration for elderly with a significant effect can be summarized in three main categories: 'collaboration', patient level' and 'costs'. For 'collaboration' the outcome indicators are key elements of collaboration, involved disciplines, professional and patient satisfaction and quality of care. On 'patient level' the outcome indicators are pain, fall incidence, quality of life, independence for daily life activities, depression and agitated behaviour, transitions, length of stay in hospital, mortality and period of rehabilitation. 'Costs' of interprofessional interventions on short- and long-term for elderly need further investigation. When organizing interprofessional collaboration or interprofessional education these outcome indicators can be considered as important topics to be addressed. Overall more research is needed to gain insight in the process of interprofessional collaboration and so to learn to work interprofessionally.

Background and Aim: Caregivers in the home environment have an important role in timely detecting and responding to abuse. The aim of this review was to provide insight into both the existing tools for the assessment of and interventions for elder abuse by formal and informal caregivers in the home environment, and to categorize them according to a public health perspective, into primary, secondary, tertiary or quaternary prevention. Methods: We selected the assessment tools and interventions that can be used by caregivers in the home environment included in previous reviews by Gallione et al (2017) and Fearing et al (2017). To identify published studies after these reviews, a search was performed using PubMed, Cochrane Database, CINAHL and Web of Science. Results: In total, fifteen assessment tools and twelve interventions were included. The number of assessment tools for elder abuse for use in the home environment is increasing; however, tools must be validated over different cultures and risk groups. In addition, the tools lack attention for the needs of vulnerable older persons such as persons with dementia. Existing interventions for caregivers in the home environment lack evidence for addressing elder abuse and do not address potential adverse effects (quaternary prevention). Conclusion: Assessment tools for elder abuse need further testing for validity and reliability for use by caregivers in the home environment. For interventions, meaningful outcome measures are needed. Important to note is that quaternary prevention requires more attention. This argues for taking into account perspectives of (abused) older persons and caregivers in the development of assessment tools and interventions protocols.

From a systematic literature review (SLR), it became clear that a consensually validated tool was needed by European General Practitioner (GP) researchers in order to allow multi-centred collaborative research, in daily practice, throughout Europe. Which diagnostic tool for depression, validated against psychiatric examination according to the DSM, would GPs select as the best for use in clinical research, taking into account the combination of effectiveness, reliability and ergonomics? A RAND/UCLA, which combines the qualities of the Delphi process and of the nominal group, was used. GP researchers from different European countries were selected. The SLR extracted tools were validated against the DSM. The Youden index was used as an effectiveness criterion and Cronbach’s alpha as a reliability criterion. Ergonomics data were extracted from the literature. Ergonomics were tested face-to-face. The SLR extracted 7 tools. Two instruments were considered sufficiently effective and reliable for use: the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Hopkins Symptoms Checklist-25 (HSCL-25). After testing face-to-face, HSCL-25 was selected. A multicultural consensus on one diagnostic tool for depression was obtained for the HSCL-25. This tool will provide the opportunity to select homogeneous populations for European collaborative research in daily practice.

The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and antibiotic resistance patterns of bacterial isolates from inpatients and outpatients in Mbale and Soroti regional referral hospitals in Eastern Uganda. A retrospective analysis of culture and antibiotic sensitivity test results from the microbiology laboratories of the two tertiary hospitals was conducted for a 3-year period (January 2016-December 2018). Microbiology records of 3092 patients were reviewed and analysed, with 1305 (42.1%) samples yielding clinical isolates. The most prevalent isolates were Escherichia coli (n = 442; 33.9%), Staphylococcus aureus (n = 376; 28.8%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (n = 237; 18.2%), and Streptococcus pneumoniae (n = 76; 5.8%). High rates of antimicrobial resistance were detected across both Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria. Escherichia coli and K. pneumoniae were resistant to several agents such as amoxicillin/clavulanate (83.5%; 64.6%), cefotaxime (74.2%; 52.7%), ciprofloxacin (92.1%; 27.8%), gentamicin (51.8%; 76%), imipenem (3.2%; 10.5%), tetracycline (98%; 74.5%), and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (74.1%; 74.3%), respectively. Staphylococcus aureus and S. pneumoniae exhibited the following resistance profile: cefoxitin (44.4%; 40.9%), chloramphenicol (69.1%; 27.6%) clindamycin (21.5%; 24.4%), gentamicin (83.2%; 66.9%), penicillin (46.5%; -) tetracycline (85.6%; 97.6%), trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (88%; 91.3%), and vancomycin (41.2%; -). We observed high resistance rates to antibiotics among the majority of microorganisms that were isolated from the samples collected from patients in Eastern Uganda. Furthermore, measures should be undertaken locally to improve microbiology diagnostics and to prevent the spread of antibiotic-resistant strains as this impedes the optimal treatment of bacterial infections and narrows the choice of effective therapeutic options.

This study aimed to explore the experiences and views of healthcare professionals on antibiotic prescription in Eastern Uganda. This was an exploratory qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Participants included 16 healthcare professionals from Mbale and Soroti Regional Referral Hospitals. Additionally, two workshops were held (one in each hospital) with a total of 56 healthcare professionals to discuss the findings. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Healthcare professionals' prescriptions are influenced by (i) healthcare workers' perceptions and practices, (ii) patients' perceptions and beliefs, and (iii) contextual factors. Healthcare workers' prescriptions depend on the presence of bacterial infection and the severity of the condition, the availability and cost of medication, previous experience with antibiotic prescribing, patient characteristics, and trial and error. They also have limited knowledge and share little information on the use of antibiotics with patients. Patient factors included demand for a particular antibiotic, inability to afford expensive drugs, and limited knowledge about antibiotic use and resistance. Contextual factors that contributed to antibiotic prescribing were an overburdened healthcare system, the influence of pharmaceutical companies and pharmacies, the use of (treatment) guidelines, and difficulties with laboratory services. This study showed that healthcare professionals are aware of the problem of antibiotic resistance but do not feel ownership of the problem. Instead, they rather blame the overburdened system, local drug shops, pharmacies, drug representatives and patients. There is a need for a multisectoral and holistic approach toward fighting antibiotic resistance.