ArticleGesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany))2022
[Experiences with Regional Medical Coordinators in Ambulatory Care in the Early COVID-19 Phase 2020 in Bavaria: Survey of Regional Ambulatory Coordinators and General Practitioners].
Article in Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [General Practitioners' Experiences with COVID-19: a Survey After the First Wave of the Pandemic in March/April 2020].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDuring the state of emergency in Bavaria in the early Corona phase 2020, some physicians in ambulatory care were appointed as regional medical coordinators (RMCs). The aim of the present study was to evaluate this newly introduced but temporary position.
methodsIn November 2020, a paper-based questionnaire was sent out to all 85 RMCs who could be identified through an internet research and to all 197 teaching practices of the Institute of General Practice and Health Services Research at the Technical University of Munich. The data analysis was descriptive and anonymised.
resultsOverall, 75 (88%) RMCs and 156 (79%) general practitioners (GPs) were included. 97% of the RMCs and 67% of the GPs assessed the introduction of RMCs in ambulatory care as reasonable, but also as an intervention concerning the self-administration of physicians (RMCs: 59% and GPs: 42%). 37% of the GPs stated that RMCs should be avoided as far as possible in future pandemic situations. Overall, GPs with more intensive contact to an RMC showed higher levels of agreement. Both groups rated the collaboration and communication strategies of politics, authorities and the Bavarian Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians as difficult and often contradictory. However, most of the RMCs assessed the cooperation with politics and authorities at the local level as positive. The lack of medical protective equipment at the beginning of the pandemic was judged critically by both groups of the respondents.
conclusionsThe establishment of RMCs in the early Corona phase 2020 in Bavaria was considered sensible by almost all RMCs and the majority of the surveyed GPs. For the future, it seems necessary to involve primary care physicians more intensively and permanently in decision-making processes and to strengthen existing structures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.