(1) Background: Workflows are a daily challenge in general practices. The desired smooth work processes and patient flows are not easy to achieve. This study uses an operational research approach to illustrate the general effects of patient arrival and consultation times on waiting times. (2) Methods: Stochastic simulations were used to model complex daily workflows of general practice. Following classical queuing models, patient arrivals, queuing discipline, and physician consultation times are three key factors influencing work processes. (3) Results: In the first scenario, with patients arriving every 7.6 min and random consultation times, the individual patients’ maximum waiting time increased to more than 200 min. The second scenario with random patient arrivals and random consultation times increased the average waiting time by up to 30 min compared to patients arriving on schedule. A busy morning session based on the second scenario was investigated to compare two alternative intervention strategies to reduce subsequent waiting times. Both could reduce waiting times by a multiple for each minute of reduced consultation time. (4) Conclusions: Aiming to improve family physicians’ awareness of strategies for improving workflows, this simulation study illustrates the effects of strategies that address consultation times and patient arrivals.

General practitioners (GPs) played a vital role during the COVID-19 pandemic. Little is known about GPs’ view of their role, leadership, participation in regional services and preferences for future pandemic preparedness. This representative study of German GPs comprised a web-based survey and computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI). It addressed GPs’ satisfaction with their role, self-perceived leadership (validated C-LEAD scale), participation in newly established health services, and preferences for future pandemic preparedness (net promotor score; NPS; range −100 to +100%). Statistical analyses were conducted using Spearman’s correlation and Kruskal–Wallis tests. In total, 630 GPs completed the questionnaire and 102 GPs the CATI. In addition to their practice duties, most GPs (72.5%) participated in at least one regional health service, mainly vaccination centres/teams (52.7%). Self-perceived leadership was high with a C-LEAD score of 47.4 (max. 63; SD ± 8.5). Overall, 58.8% were not satisfied with their role which correlated with the feeling of being left alone (r = −0.349, p < 0.001). 77.5 % of respondents believed that political leaders underestimated GPs’ potential contribution to pandemic control. Regarding regional pandemic services, GPs preferred COVID-19 focus practices (NPS +43.7) over diagnostic centres (NPS −31). Many GPs, though highly engaged regionally, were dissatisfied with their role but had clear preferences for future regional services. Future pandemic planning should integrate GPs’ perspectives.

Background: In the COVID-19 pandemic, novel regional services and communication channels emerged across all sectors of the German healthcare system. To contribute to pandemic preparedness, this study aims to describe newly established services in response to the COVID-19 pandemic from a stakeholder perspective and to examine the interprofessional communication channels, applying a nationwide cross-sectional approach. Methods: A nationwide sample of German healthcare stakeholders comprising general practitioners, associations of statutory health insurance physicians, hospital medical directors, local health departments, rescue coordination centres, medical directors of emergency services, outpatient nursing services, nursing homes, community care access centres, and hospital nursing managers was surveyed. A web-based questionnaire asked for their level of participation in newly implemented regional COVID-19 services and communication channels. Stakeholders’ level of recommendation was measured using the Net Promotor Score (NPS), a metric that assesses their satisfaction towards the services surveyed. Results: In total, 1312 healthcare stakeholders participated in the survey. Diagnostic centres (23.0–90.9%), COVID-19 wards in hospitals (40.5–92.1%), emergency medical vehicles designated solely for COVID-19 patients (16.5–68.4%), and crisis intervention teams (11.6–30.6%) exhibited the highest rates of engagement. The services receiving the highest recommendation for future use were COVID-19 focus practices (NPS: 33.4–43.7), COVID-19 wards in hospitals (NPS: 47.6–84.4), transportation of COVID-19 patients exclusively by predefined professional groups (NPS: 12.5–36.4), and newly implemented digitally supported nursing services (NPS: 58.3–100.0). Telephones emerged as the most frequently used communication channel (58.0–96.7%), while email was the primary digital channel (23.7–81.5%). Conclusions: During the COVID-19 pandemic, Germany experienced significant variation in the implementation of pandemic-related services across healthcare sectors, with stakeholders prioritising services built on existing healthcare structures. Developing a proactive digital infrastructure to connect healthcare professionals from different sectors is crucial for better future pandemic management.