With the onset of COVID-19, general practitioners (GPs) and patients worldwide swiftly transitioned from face-to-face to digital remote consultations. There is a need to evaluate how this global shift has impacted patient care, healthcare providers, patient and carer experience, and health systems. We explored GPs’ perspectives on the main benefits and challenges of using digital virtual care. GPs across 20 countries completed an online questionnaire between June–September 2020. GPs’ perceptions of main barriers and challenges were explored using free-text questions. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. A total of 1,605 respondents participated in our survey. The benefits identified included reducing COVID-19 transmission risks, guaranteeing access and continuity of care, improved efficiency, faster access to care, improved convenience and communication with patients, greater work flexibility for providers, and hastening the digital transformation of primary care and accompanying legal frameworks. Main challenges included patients’ preference for face-to-face consultations, digital exclusion, lack of physical examinations, clinical uncertainty, delays in diagnosis and treatment, overuse and misuse of digital virtual care, and unsuitability for certain types of consultations. Other challenges include the lack of formal guidance, higher workloads, remuneration issues, organisational culture, technical difficulties, implementation and financial issues, and regulatory weaknesses. At the frontline of care delivery, GPs can provide important insights on what worked well, why, and how during the pandemic. Lessons learned can be used to inform the adoption of improved virtual care solutions and support the long-term development of platforms that are more technologically robust and secure.

The Spanish healthcare system is one of Europe’s most efficient, but urgent reform is needed if it is to cope with changing demands and rising costs, argue Jose M Martin-Moreno and colleagues

Introduction: Depression occurs frequently in primary care. Its broad clinical variability makes it difficult to diagnose. This makes it essential that family practitioner (FP) researchers have validated tools to minimize bias in studies of everyday practice. Which tools validated against psychiatric examination, according to the major depression criteria of DSM-IV or 5, can be used for research purposes?Method: An international FP team conducted a systematic review using the following databases: Pubmed, Cochrane and Embase, from 2000/01/01 to 2015/10/01.Results: The three databases search identified 770 abstracts: 546 abstracts were analyzed after duplicates had been removed (224 duplicates); 50 of the validity studies were eligible and 4 studies were included. In 4 studies, the following tools were found: GDS-5, GDS-15, GDS-30, CESD-R, HADS, PSC-51 and HSCL-25. Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive Predictive Value, Negative Predictive Value were collected. The Youden index was calculated.Discussion: Using efficiency data alone to compare these studies could be misleading. Additional reliability, reproducibility and ergonomic data will be essential for making comparisons.Conclusion: This study selected seven tools, usable in primary care research, for the diagnosis of depression. In order to define the best tools in terms of efficiency, reproducibility, reliability and ergonomics for research in primary care, and for care itself, further research will be essential.

Background: STOPP (screening tool of older persons’ prescriptions)/START (screening tool to alert doctors to right treatment) criteria aim to identify potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) due to mis-, over- and under-prescription in older patients. Initially developed by Irish experts, their applicability has been demonstrated in primary health care (PHC). Objective: To quantify and identify the most frequent PIM at PHC level using STOPP/START criteria. To identify factors that may modulate the onset of PIM. Methods: Audit of a random sample of 272 electronic health records (including prescription, diagnosis and laboratory results) of patients ≥ 65 years old, with at least one prescription in the last three months, from a PHC setting in the Vigo Health Authority (Spain). Original STOPP/START criteria were used, as well as a version adapted to Spanish PHC. Descriptive statistics and generalized linear models were applied. Results: The median number of medicines per patient was 5 (inter-quartile range: 3–7). The prevalence of PIM identified by the STOPP criteria was 37.5% and 50.7%, with the original criteria and the Spanish version, respectively. Using both versions of the START tool, the prevalence of under-prescription was 45.9% and 43.0%, respectively. A significant correlation was found between the number of STOPP PIM and number of prescriptions, and between the number of START PIM with Charlson comorbidity index and number of prescriptions. Of 87 criteria, 20 accounted for 80% of PIM. Conclusion: According to STOPP/START criteria, there is a high level of PIM in PHC setting. To prevent PIM occurring, action must be taken.