Introduction: Health systems offer access to unscheduled care through numerous routes; however, it is typically provided by general practitioners (GPs), by emergency medicine doctors in in emergency departments (EDs) and by GPs in out-of-hours GP services such as practitioner cooperatives. Unscheduled healthcare constitutes a substantial portion of healthcare delivery. A systematic review was conducted to establish the factors that influence parents’ decision making when seeking unscheduled healthcare for their children. The systematic review question was “What are the factors that influence the decision making of parents and families seeking unscheduled paediatric healthcare?” Method: Five databases (CINAHL, PubMed, SCOPUS, PsycInfo, EconLit) and four grey literature databases (Proquest, Lenus, OpenGrey, Google Scholar) were searched. The titles and abstracts of 3746 articles were screened and full-text screening was performed on 177 of these articles. Fifty-six papers were selected for inclusion in the review. Data relating to different types of unscheduled health services (namely primary care, the emergency department and out-of-hours services) were extracted from these articles. A narrative approach was used to synthesise the extracted data. Results: Several factors were identified as influencing parental preferences and decision making when seeking unscheduled healthcare for their children. A number of the included studies identified pre-disposing factors such as race, ethnicity and socioeconomic status (SES) as impacting the healthcare-seeking behaviour of parents. Unscheduled healthcare use was often initiated by the parent’s perception that the child’s condition was urgent and their need for reassurance. The choice of unscheduled service was influenced by a myriad of factors such as: waiting times, availability of GP appointments, location of the ED, and the relationship that the parent or caregiver had with their GP. Conclusion: Policy and planning initiatives do not always reflect how patients negotiate the health system as a single entity with numerous entry points. Altering patients’ behaviour through public health initiatives that seek to improve, for instance, health literacy or reducing emergency hospital admissions through preventative primary care requires an understanding of the relative importance of factors that influence behaviour and decision making, and the interactions between these factors.

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.

Background: General practice plays a central role in the Irish health system. This study aimed to determine a baseline estimate of the number of consultations completed in general practice in Ireland annually to facilitate evidence-based healthcare planning. Methods: A survey was emailed to all 3378 individual members of the Irish College of General Practitioners in February 2020 asking each practice to report on consultations by general practitioners and practice nurses occurring on the previous day of practice. Results: A total of 507 practices responded to the survey, reporting 34,594 general practitioner consultations and 13,161 nurse consultations on one day. Extrapolating this figure nationally, we estimate 21,353,731 GP consultations and 7,749,615 practice nurse consultations occur in Ireland annually. An Irish person visits their GP an estimated 4.34 times a year and the average consultation time is 13.7 min. Conclusions: This study shows that over 29.1 million consultations take place in Irish general practice every year. Innovative interventions to increase the capacity of general practice are needed to ensure high-quality care continues to be accessible in Ireland.

Objectives How general practice is delivered in many countries has drastically changed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to answer the question of how general practice has changed in Ireland in response to COVID-19. Design The Irish College of General Practitioners surveyed its membership before and after the global pandemic hit Ireland using a cross-sectional online survey instrument. Setting This study focuses on primary care, specifically general practice, in Ireland. Participants In February 2020 before the global pandemic, 526 general practices across Ireland submitted responses to the survey; 538 general practices responded to the second survey during the pandemic in June 2020. This covers 32% and 33% of practices in Ireland, respectively. Main outcome measures The type of consultations by general practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses in both surveys is the main outcome measure reported in this paper. Other changes such as the perceived change in attendance by certain patient groups and practice income are also reported. Results Face-to-face consultations significantly (p<0.001) decreased from a median of 26 (IQR 21.3–30) to a median of 8 (IQR 6–13). GP telemedicine consultations increased (p<0.001) from a median of 2.4 (IQR 0–5.3) to a median of 11.3 (IQR 6–19). The majority of practices (80.0%) reported reduced practice profit. Respondents reported a decline in non-COVID-19-related consultations among certain patient cohorts—92.0% for children under 6 years old; 79.5% for patients over 70 years. Conclusions It is likely that the way general practice is delivered will not return to as it was before the COVID-19 pandemic and increased telemedicine can be expected. However, it is necessary to assess the impact of this shift on patient health and to assess healthcare provider and patient experience to ensure continued high-quality care and patient safety.

Governmental debate in Ireland on the de facto decriminalisation of cannabis and legalisation for medical use is ongoing. A cannabis-based medicinal product (Sativex®) has recently been granted market authorisation in Ireland. This unique study aimed to investigate Irish general practitioner (GP) attitudes toward decriminalisation of cannabis and assess levels of support for use of cannabis for therapeutic purposes (CTP). General practitioners in the Irish College of General Practitioner (ICGP) database were invited to complete an online survey. Anonymous data yielded descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages) to summarise participant demographic information and agreement with attitudinal statements. Chi-square tests and multi-nominal logistic regression were included. The response rate was 15% (n = 565) which is similar to other Irish national GP attitudinal surveys. Over half of Irish GPs did not support the decriminalisation of cannabis (56.8%). In terms of gender, a significantly higher proportion of males compared with females (40.6 vs. 15%; p < 0.0001) agreed or strongly agreed with this drug policy approach. A higher percentage of GPs with advanced addiction specialist training (level 2) agreed/strongly agreed that cannabis should be decriminalised (54.1 vs. 31.5%; p = 0.021). Over 80% of both genders supported the view that cannabis use has a significant effect on patients’ mental health and increases the risk of schizophrenia (77.3%). Over half of Irish GPs supported the legalisation of cannabis for medical use (58.6%). A higher percentage of those who were level 1-trained (trained in addiction treatment but not to an advanced level) agreed/strongly agreed cannabis should be legalised for medical use (p = 0.003). Over 60% agreed that cannabis can have a role in palliative care, pain management and treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS). In the regression response predicator analysis, females were 66.2% less likely to agree that cannabis should be decriminalised, 42.5% less likely to agree that cannabis should be legalised for medical use and 59.8 and 37.6% less likely to agree that cannabis has a role in palliative care and in the treatment of multiple sclerosis (respectively) than males. The majority of Irish GPs do not support the present Irish governmental drug policy of decriminalisation of cannabis but do support the legalisation of cannabis for therapeutic purposes. Male GPs and those with higher levels of addiction training are more likely to support a more liberal drug policy approach to cannabis for personal use. A clear majority of GPs expressed significant concerns regarding both the mental and physical health risks of cannabis use. Ongoing research into the health and other effects of drug policy changes on cannabis use is required.

Patient self-management support is recognised as a key component of chronic care. Education and training for health professionals has been shown in the literature to be associated with better uptake, implementation and effectiveness of self-management programs, however, there is no clear evidence regarding whether this training results in improved health outcomes for patients with chronic conditions. A systematic review was undertaken using the PRISMA guidelines using the Cochrane Library, PubMEd, ERIC, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web searches, Hand searches and Bibliographies. Articles published from inception to September 1st, 2013 were included. Systematic reviews, Meta-analysis, Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), Controlled clinical trials, Interrupted time series and Controlled before and after studies, which reported on primary care health professionals’ continuing education or evidence-based medicine/education on patient self-management for any chronic condition, were included. A minimum of two reviewers participated independently at each stage of review. From 7533 abstracts found, only two papers provided evidence on the effectiveness of self-management education for primary healthcare professionals in terms of measured outcomes in patients. These two articles show improvement in patient outcomes for chronic back pain and diabetes based on RCTs. The educational interventions with health professionals spanned a range of techniques and modalities but both RCTs included a motivational interviewing component. Before and up to 2 years after the incorporation of patient empowerment for self-management into the WONCA Europe definition of general practice, there was a scarcity of high quality evidence showing improved outcomes for patients as a result of educating health professionals in patient self-management of chronic conditions.