Abstract
Background
In Germany, general practitioners (GPs) provide basic and primary care in the ambulatory sector and refer patients to other specialists when necessary. Often, GPs present the first point of contact for patients in the German healthcare system. During the COVID-19 pandemic, GPs and other medical specialists in the ambulatory setting suddenly were confronted with unprecedented challenges.
Objective
To answer the following research questions: How did COVID-19-related challenges affect the work climate? Do physicians with deteriorated work climate simultaneously report a worsened provision of patient care? Which challenges were the most burdening?
Methods
In the course of the project COVID-GAMS more than 18 000 physicians of various specialties had been invited to a quantitative cross-sectional online survey (in Summer 2020). Analyses were conducted separately for the groups of GPs and other medical specialists. Group differences were analysed statistically and burdening factors were identified.
Results
1703 participants were included in the analysis. 22.2% of GPs (other medical specialists: 19.9%) stated, their work climate had deteriorated. Physicians with a deteriorated work climate showed a tendency towards poorer personal provision of patient care (M = 3.75, SD = 0.98 versus M = 3.93, SD = 0.99) compared to unchanged or improved work climate. The lack of protective material in March/April 2020, changes in practice management and possible economic impacts on the practice were the most burdening factors reported by GPs.
Conclusion
GPs who reported a negative impact on the work climate in the course of the first pandemic lockdown also tend to see own deficits in the provision of patient care.
Keywords: COVID-19, cross-sectional studies, general practitioners, pandemics, patient care team, primary healthcare
Key Messages.
-
-
22.2% of GPs report that their work climate has deteriorated.
-
-
GPs with deteriorated work climate report poorer patient care.
-
-
GPs state inadequate protective equipment as the highest burdening factor.
Background
In Germany, primary care almost entirely takes place in the ambulatory sector. During the increasing expansion of SARS-CoV-2, governmental measures had been introduced that led to a massive restriction of public life, first in March and April 2020. General practitioners (GPs) and other medical specialists had been confronted with the sudden standstill twofold: on the one hand it led to a strong decline in patient numbers, (1–3) on the other hand the outpatient sector was responsible for the main quantitative burden in the care of COVID-19 patients (4). Studies showed that during the COVID-19 pandemic and the past SARS outbreak healthcare workers in hospitals providing treatment and care for infected patients are under an increased risk of psychosocial burdens such as depression, anxiety, distress and burnout (5–7). As physicians working in primary care are the first point of contact for patients of various diseases including a suspected COVID-19 infection in Germany, these professionals were confronted with comparable challenges. Everyday work in practice was dominated by worries about the virus and insecurities due to lacking protective equipment such as medical face masks (8). An increasing number of studies show the various consequences of the pandemic for patient care in all medical specialities: emergency treatments as well as routine care and medical check-ups are affected (9–12). Research on the impact of the crisis regarding physicians in the ambulatory sector is still rather rare (8,13,14). The study COVID-GAMS (‘The COVID-19 Crisis and its impact on the German ambulatory sector—the physicians’ view’) investigates the pandemic effects on physicians’ work in the ambulatory setting.
Besides other aspects, the study COVID-GAMS focused on the influence of SARS-CoV-2 on work climate. For the purpose of this study, we defined work climate as the interaction of different healthcare professionals such as GPs and practice assistants, constituting one healthcare team and striving for the same goal: The provision of high-quality patient care. Prior research has shown that good work climate in healthcare teams can serve as a protective factor against stressors at work and increases resilience, (15) and positively influences job satisfaction and intention to stay, (16) whereas a low satisfaction with work climate is associated with increased risk of mental health disorders (17) and burnout (18). However, findings differ concerning the influence of work climate on the quality of patient care. While Hann et al. cannot determine work climate as a predictor for quality of patient care, (19) a more recent study from Shaheen et al. significantly associates occupational stress, work climate and employee development with quality of care (20).
Results of the first of three COVID-GAMS survey waves, which investigated physicians’ experiences during the first lockdown period in March and April shall be reported here with a focus on changes of the work climate. Since several medical specialist groups had been integrated into the survey, we focus on the GPs’ perspective and contrast them with all others.
We addressed the following questions: How did the various challenges during this time affect the work climate? Do physicians with deteriorated work climate simultaneously report a deteriorated provision of patient care? Which challenges were the most burdening?
Methods
Study design and recruitment
COVID-GAMS comprises a trend analysis with three written online survey waves carried out within 18 months. The first survey, which is reported here, took place from July to September 2020. In collaboration with the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians a random sample of 18 000 physicians was invited to participate in the study: GPs (n = 6500) and six other medical specialist groups (pediatrics n = 2000, cardiologists n = 1000, gastroenterologists n = 500, gynaecologists n = 2000, ENT-specialists n = 2000 and dentists n = 4000). For the first survey wave a quantitative cross-sectional online survey with qualitative components had been conducted. Physicians were invited via fax and e-mail, followed by three reminders. Due to an expected low response rate, the acquisition target for participants was n = 1800 (10%). Since the response remained below this target, additionally, the respective professional associations had been encouraged to distribute the survey invitation among their members until the target was reached.
Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the University of Cologne (approval no. 20-1169_1).
Measurement and statistical analyses
The data was collected as part of a comprehensive written online survey, which collected the interpersonal, economic and organizational challenges and their impact on patient care during the outbreak of COVID-19. To answer the research question, items on possible stress factors, on the work climate and on the physicians’ subjective assessment of their patient care were developed and pretested. The survey items were translated from German into English for this paper.
As these burdening factors are specific, pandemic-related challenges, it was not possible to use validated scales. In order to explore possible challenges from the physicians’ practical view, preliminary interviews were conducted with physicians from the medical fields concerned. On the basis of these qualitative results as well as publications of the physician-related institutions, possible challenges were collected and transformed into closed items for the questionnaire. Since we pursued an exploratory approach, the goal was to include a broad a range of different issues. The wording of the questions concerning the burdening factors is stated in Table 5. The participants were asked to indicate to what extent these factors had a burdening effect on the practice team on a response format from not at all burdensome (1) to very burdensome (4). If a factor queried did not exist in the practice, participants could opt for not applicable.
Table 5.
Burdens on the practice teams of general practitioners and other medical specialists due to COVID-19-related changes, separately by groups of physicians who indicated a deteriorated, unchanged or improved work climate respectively (March/April 2020)
| To what extent have the following factors had a burdening effect on the practice team? | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | General practitioners, n = 535 | Other medical specialists, n = 1168 |
P-value (GPs versus others) |
|
| Inadequate protective equipment | 1604 | |||
| Work climate deteriorated, Mean (SD) | 3.53 (0.7) | 3.58 (0.7) | 0.456 | |
| Work climate unchanged, Mean (SD) | 3.54 (0.8) | 3.43 (0.8) | 0.023 | |
| Work climate improved, Mean (SD) | 3.62 (0.7) | 3.45 (0.9) | 0.239 | |
| Not applicable/missing | 99 | |||
| Changes made in practice management | 1626 | |||
| Work climate deteriorated, Mean (SD) | 3.43 (0.7) | 3.36 (0.7) | 0.382 | |
| Work climate unchanged, Mean (SD) | 2.99 (0.8) | 2.93 (0.8) | 0.299 | |
| Work climate improved, Mean (SD) | 2.81 (0.8) | 2.96 (0.8) | 0.198 | |
| Not applicable/missing | 77 | |||
| Possible economic impact on the practice | 1619 | |||
| Work climate deteriorated, Mean (SD) | 3.31 (0.7) | 3.51 (0.7) | 0.013 | |
| Work climate unchanged, Mean (SD) | 3.01 (0.9) | 3.26 (0.8) | <0.001 | |
| Work climate improved, Mean (SD) | 2.87 (0.9) | 3.14 (0.8) | 0.031 | |
| Not applicable/missing | 84 | |||
| Patients’ fears about the risk of contracting the virus | 1634 | |||
| Work climate deteriorated, Mean (SD) | 3.25 (0.7) | 3.08 (0.7) | 0.037 | |
| Work climate unchanged, Mean (SD) | 2.96 (0.8) | 2.74 (0.8) | <0.001 | |
| Work climate improved, Mean (SD) | 2.86 (0.8) | 2.79 (0.8) | 0.602 | |
| Not applicable/missing | 69 | |||
| Change in patient volume | 1619 | |||
| Work climate deteriorated, Mean (SD) | 3.17 (0.9) | 3.41 (0.7) | 0.013 | |
| Work climate unchanged, Mean (SD) | 2.87 (0.9) | 3.04 (0.9) | 0.003 | |
| Work climate improved, Mean (SD) | 2.65 (0.8) | 2.96 (0.9) | 0.008 | |
| Not applicable/missing | 84 | |||
| Practice staff’s fears about the risk of contracting the virus | 1635 | |||
| Work climate deteriorated, Mean (SD) | 2.97 (0.7) | 3.16 (0.8) | 0.019 | |
| Work climate unchanged, Mean (SD) | 2.63 (0.8) | 2.69 (0.8) | 0.326 | |
| Work climate improved, Mean (SD) | 2.55 (0.8) | 2.77 (0.9) | 0.087 | |
| Not applicable/missing | 68 | |||
| Communication of the guidelines and changes to the employees | 1625 | |||
| Work climate deteriorated, Mean (SD) | 2.89 (0.8) | 2.95 (0.8) | 0.589 | |
| Work climate unchanged, Mean (SD) | 2.34 (0.9) | 2.29 (0.8) | 0.544 | |
| Work climate improved, Mean (SD) | 2.24 (1.0) | 2.25 (0.9) | 0.721 | |
| Not applicable/missing | 78 |
P-values below 0.05 are provided in boldface.
Response format: ‘not at all burdensome’ (1), ‘rather not burdensome’ (2), ‘rather burdensome’ (3), ‘very burdensome’ (4), not applicable (not scored/missing).
The work climate and the provision of care were surveyed by self-developed items as well. This was necessary in order to enquire about the explicit influence of COVID-19 on the work climate. The use of validated scales on work climate would have required data of the work climate before the pandemic in order to assess the impact of pandemic-related challenges on the work climate in a follow-up survey at pandemic time. Due to the in-house development, the impact of the pandemic could be explicitly included in the framing of the question, so that more suitable information can be obtained for our research question. The item for recording the impact of the pandemic on the work climate was phrased as follows: “What is the overall impact of the challenges posed by the crisis so far on the work climate in your practice team?”. Participants were asked to give their assessment using one of the following response options: ‘The challenges have (a) worsened/(b) not changed/(c) improved the work climate in the practice’. The subjective impact on patient care was measured using the question ‘Do you feel that you personally were able to provide adequate care to your patients during the period of March and April?’ and a 5-point response format (1 = not at all, 2 = rather no, 3 = indecisive, 4 = rather yes, 5 = yes, absolutely).
Analyses were conducted separately for the groups of GPs and other medical specialists using descriptive measures. Mean values in this paper are calculated by transforming Likert responding formats into metric variables (21). Missing values were excluded for statistical analyses. In addition, Mann–Whitney U tests were performed to detect possible group differences between GPs and other medical specialists concerning the specific burdens and the provision of adequate care. Mann–Whitney U test was chosen as non-parametric alternative to t-test due to lacking normal distribution of the variable adequate provision of care. To investigate the relationship between the variables adequate provision of care and work climate, a one-way ANOVA was performed. In case of significance, a further post hoc pairwise t-test was conducted.
Results
With both recruitment ways, 1904 physicians participated in the survey. The response rate of the random sample was 7.6%. The number of study participants could be increased by the professional associations’ distribution of the study invitation (response rate cannot be reported due to the open recruitment format). After removing participants who did not state their medical specialty (n = 201), 1703 participants could be included in the analysis, among them 535 GPs. The majority of GPs were between 51 and 60 years old (40.6%; other medical specialities 45.0%), 48.1% of GPs were female, compared to 51.9% in other medical specialities, and most of GPs were self-employed (89.8%; other medical specialities 88.6%). The area of medical practice was evenly distributed for GPs with 21.1% of GPs working in rural communities (other medical specialities 5.1%), 24.7% in small towns (other medical specialities 24.5%), 25.5% in cities (other medical specialities 30.3%) and 28.7% in big cities (other medical specialities 40.0%). Table 1 shows characteristics of all participants.
Table 1.
Characteristics of 1703 study participants (March/April 2020)
| Variable | N | General practitioners, n = 535 |
Other medical specialists, n = 1168 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (in years), % (n) | 1692 | ||
| Younger than 30 | 0.0 (0) | 0.6 (7) | |
| 31 to 40 | 11.0 (59) | 7.2 (83) | |
| 41 to 50 | 25.8 (138) | 25.9 (300) | |
| 51 to 60 | 40.6 (217) | 45.0 (521) | |
| Older than 60 | 22.5 (120) | 21.3 (247) | |
| Missing | (1) | (10) | |
| Gender, % (n) | 1690 | ||
| Male | 51.7 (276) | 47.9 (554) | |
| Female | 48.1 (257) | 51.9 (600) | |
| Divers | 0.2 (1) | 0.2 (2) | |
| Missing | (1) | (12) | |
| Work experience (in years), Mean (SD) | 1678 | 16.6 (10.04) | 18.0 (9.74) |
| Missing, (n) | (6) | (19) | |
| Mode of employment, % (n) | 1695 | ||
| Self-employed | 89.8 (478) | 88.6 (1030) | |
| Employed | 10.2 (54) | 11.4 (133) | |
| Missing | (3) | (5) | |
| Type of medical practice, % (n) | 1693 | ||
| Single practice | 49.7 (265) | 55.4 (643) | |
| Joint practice | 50.3 (268) | 44.6 (517) | |
| Missing | (2) | (8) | |
| Number of physicians in medical practice, Mean (SD) | 1658 | 2.4 (1.63) | 2.4 (1.82) |
| Missing, (n) | (10) | (35) | |
| Area of medical practice, % (n) | 1687 | ||
| Rural community (< 5000 inhabitants) | 21.1 (112) | 5.1 (59) | |
| Small town (> 5000–20 000 inhabitants) | 24.7 (131) | 24.5 (284) | |
| City (> 20 000–100 000 inhabitants) | 25.5 (135) | 30.3 (351) | |
| Big city (> 100 000 inhabitants) | 28.7 (152) | 40.0 (463) | |
| Missing | (5) | (11) |
We asked for challenges around the pandemic up to this point in Summer 2020 and what impact on the work climate these challenges have had so far. Most of the participants reported no change in the work climate (GPs: 62.6%, others: 64.9%), some indicated an improvement (GPs: 15.1%, others: 15.2%) and 22.2% of GPs (others: 19.9%) stated the work climate had deteriorated.
The majority of physicians, 71.9% of GPs and 80.5% of other medical specialists, reported adequate care (yes, absolutely and rather yes). The mean values were lower for the group of general practitioners (M = 3.91, SD = 1.0) compared to the other medical specialists (M = 4.15, SD = 0.9). The Mann–Whitney U test confirmed this group difference (P < 0.001). Physicians with a deteriorated work climate report that they supplied poorer patient care (GPs: n = 116, M = 3.75, SD = 0.98 versus others: n = 223, M = 3.93, SD = 0.99) compared to physicians who stated an improved or unchanged work climate. However, when performing ANOVA analysis (Tables 2 and 3), there was no significant effect of the variable work climate on provision of adequate care at the P < 0.05 level in the group of GPs [F(2, 452) = 2.02, P = 0.134] but in the group of all other medical specialists [F(2, 945) = 6.7, P = 0.001]. A pairwise post hoc t-test (Table 4) in the population of other medical specialists stated significance between the characteristics of the variable work climate unchanged and worsened (P = 0.001) as well as improved and worsened (P = 0.046).
Table 2.
One-way ANOVA with dependent variable provision of adequate care and independent variable work climate for the 535 participants classified as general practitioners (2020)
| General practitioners, n = 535 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Sum of square | df | Mean square | F-value | Sig. |
| Working climate | |||||
| Between Groups | 3.7 | 2 | 1.183 | 2.022 | 0.134 |
| Within Groups | 408.8 | 452 | 0.906 | ||
| Total | 412.5 | 454 | |||
| Missing | 80 |
Table 3.
One-way ANOVA and pairwise post hoc t-test with dependent variable provision of adequate care and independent variable work climate for the 1168 participants classified as other medical specialists (2020)
| Other medical specialists, n = 1168 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Sum of square | df | Mean square | F-value | Sig. |
| Work climate | |||||
| Between groups | 11.7 | 2 | 5.857 | 6.703 | 0.001 |
| Within groups | 825.8 | 945 | 0.874 | ||
| Total | 837.5 | 947 | |||
| Missing | 220 |
P-values below 0.05 are provided in boldface.
Table 4.
Pairwise post hoc t-test of characteristics of independent variable work climate for 1168 participants grouped as other medical specialists (2020)
| Other medical specialists, n = 1168 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Working climate | ||
| Working climate | Worsened | Unchanged | |
| Unchanged | P-valuea | 0.00086 | – |
| Improved | P-valuea | 0.04603 | 1.00000 |
P-values below 0.05 are provided in boldface.
a P-value adjusted with Bonferroni.
Table 5 provides a deeper look at specific challenges for the practice team, e.g. inadequate protective equipment or fears experienced by the practice staff. Aspects and values are grouped by changes in the work climate. Seven potential burdens associated to the pandemic had been queried with a 4-point Likert responding format. GPs and other medical specialists with deteriorated work climate showed the highest mean values in the queried burdens (GPs: 6 out of 7 burdening factors, other medical specialists: 7 out of 7 burdening factors) in contrast to physicians with improved or unchanged work climate. The lack of protective material in March and April 2020 was seen as most burdensome for all groups. Together with changes in practice management due to the pandemic and possible economic impacts on the practice, these aspects build the top 3 of burdening effects reported by GPs. On the GPs’ side the two groups with deteriorated and improved work climate respectively show the largest difference in values at changes in practice management (MD = 0.62) and the communication of the guidelines and changes to the employees (MD = 0.65). The most burdening factors for the group of other medical specialists were inadequate protective equipment, a change in patient volume and a possible economic impact on the practice.
Discussion
This study aimed at examining the association between COVID-19 related deterioration of work climate on the self-reported quality of patient care and at highlighting the most burdening challenges. More than 20% of general physicians in our sample feel that the challenges emerging from the COVID-19 pandemic had a deteriorating effect on the work climate. Furthermore, a deteriorated work climate tends to affect the provision of care as perceived by the GPs. However, this effect does not reach statistical significance.
Patient numbers had substantially dropped during the first lockdown across all groups of medical specialists in primary care in Germany, (2) which could lead to the assumption of a lower workload. The result that 22.2% percent of GPs reported a deteriorated work climate suggests an impact of specific burdens associated with the crisis and independent from patient numbers and the associated work load.
On the other side, 15.1% of GPs reported an improved work climate during the first months of work in the pandemic. This result is in line with other studies and reports, which highlight increasing solidarity and team cohesion in times of crisis (22,23).
In our sample, GPs with an improved work climate show a tendency towards higher ability to provide patient care compared to lower provision of adequate care when work climate had deteriorated. However, these differences do not reach statistical significance. Analyses of other medical specialists in our sample show significant differences between improved and deteriorated work climate, which may be induced by higher numbers of participants.
The results show the largest difference regarding the severity of burden between the two groups with deteriorated and improved work climate for changes in practice management and for the communication of guidelines and changes to the employees. This can be seen as an indication that change and communication matters are more likely to lead to a sustainable deterioration of the work climate. This interpretation can be supported by previous research highlighting organizational change as negatively impacting psychological distress (24). From this point of view, aspects of internal communication seem to have a higher potential regarding the impact on work climate than external factors such as patients’ fears or lack of protective materials.
Economic fears including worries about (lower) patient numbers also play an important role. This can be explained by large part with the situation of ambulatory physicians in Germany, who are mostly self-employed entrepreneurs (89.6% of GPs in the survey).
The practice staff’s fears about the risk of contracting the virus was—compared to the other factors—assessed as less burdensome in our sample. However, these fears still exist and are relevant which is supported by Denning et al. who report work safety aspects to be inversely associated with the risk of burnout in medical staff during the COVID-19 pandemic (7).
Limitations
Due to the retrospective assessment, effects of memory distortion cannot be ruled out completely, especially in regard to the dynamic development of the pandemic and the associated changes in German healthcare policy.
Prior research shows that especially in GPs achievable response rates are rather low. Muehlensiepen et al. report a response rate of 18.9% in German ambulatory physicians (25). Also, in a study conducted by Meyer and Wehling only 9.4% of German GPs addressed responded (26). The survey took place anonymously and online, without financial incentive. A financial incentive was not possible in this case due to the public funding and would have entailed special data protection requirements due to the anonymity of the survey. The time required to complete the survey was assumed to be 30 minutes and was openly communicated to the physicians. This, as well as the increased workload due to the COVID-19 pandemic, may have negatively influenced the response rate. Based on the experiences in the survey of physicians in the private practice sector, a response rate of only 10% was assumed in advance.
These limiting factors clearly restrain the representativity of our results and selection bias may have occurred. However, the sample of German physicians in the ambulatory sector is still the largest regarding COVID-19 studies with a focus on personal challenges and attitudes during the pandemic. In contrast with statistical data from the German Federal Registry of Physicians, our subsample of GPs is slightly younger than the average (27) and consists of a higher percentage of self-employed physicians (28). Nevertheless, it is comparable regarding gender distribution (29) and represents a balanced distribution concerning rural and urban areas.
Although a broad range of potential burdens for physicians have been addressed in the survey, it must be kept in mind that this list was not exhaustive and there might be other factors influencing the work climate. As the self-reported statements towards adequate provision of care was queried with one item only, results must be interpreted with caution.
Conclusion
Physicians in the German ambulatory sector who reported a negative impact on the work climate in the course of the first pandemic lockdown also tend to see own deficits in the provision of patient care. Moreover, almost all analysed aspects of pandemic related changes are reported the most burdensome within the group with deteriorated work climate. Possible burdening factors can be external and internal.
In particular, internal factors such as communication of the guidelines and changes to the employees or changes made in practice management seem to negatively influence the work climate in the practice. Therefore, when considering changes in the practice, one needs to be aware of potential negative side effects on work climate. To counteract these effects and to prevent jeopardizing quality patient care, time spent on thorough communication within the practice team is worthwhile even in times of high workload (24).
Declarations
Funding: COVID-GAMS is funded by Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (grant no. 01KI2099). The funding source had no role in the design, conduct or reporting of this study; or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Ethical approval: The project COVID-GAMS was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Cologne (20-1169_1).
Data availability: The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.
Conflict of interest: none.
References
- 1.Wang R, Helf C, Tizek L, et al. . The impact and consequences of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on a single university dermatology outpatient clinic in Germany. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020; 17(17): 6182. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Mangiapane S, Zhu L, Kretschmann J, Czihal T, von Stillfried D.. Veränderung Der Vertragsärztlichen Leistungsinanspruchnahme Während Der COVID-Krise: Tabellarischer Trendreport Für Das Jahr 2020; 2020. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Mehrotra A, Chernew M, Linetsky D, Hatch H, Cutler D.. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on outpatient visits: practices are adapting to the new normal. 2020. doi: 10.26099/2v5t-9y63 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Hardt W. Ambulante Versorgung in der Corona-Krise. Dtsch Dermatolog 2020; 68(4): 266–67. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Lai J, Ma S, Wang Yet al. . Factors associated with mental health outcomes among health care workers exposed to coronavirus disease 2019. JAMA Netw Open 2020; 3(3): e203976. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Styra R, Hawryluck L, Robinson S, Kasapinovic S, Fones C, Gold WL. Impact on health care workers employed in high-risk areas during the Toronto SARS outbreak. J Psychosom Res 2008; 64(2): 177–83. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Denning M, Goh ET, Tan Bet al. . Determinants of burnout and other aspects of psychological well-being in healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a multinational cross-sectional study. PLoS One 2021; 16(4): e0238666. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Paffenholz P, Peine A, Hellmich Met al. . Perception of the 2020 SARS-CoV-2 pandemic among medical professionals in Germany: results from a nationwide online survey. Emerg Microbes Infect 2020; 9(1): 1590–99. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Einstein AJ, Shaw LJ, Hirschfeld Cet al. ; the INCAPS COVID Investigators Group. International impact of COVID-19 on the diagnosis of heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2021; 77(2): 173–85. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Wong JSH, Cheung KMC. Impact of COVID-19 on orthopaedic and trauma service: an epidemiological study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2020; 102(14): e80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Zhang H, Guo LW, Gao YY, Yao H, Xie ZK, Zhang WX. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on pediatric clinical practice in Wenzhou, China: a retrospective study. Front Pediatr 2020; 8: 585629. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Chudasama YV, Gillies CL, Zaccardi Fet al. . Impact of COVID-19 on routine care for chronic diseases: a global survey of views from healthcare professionals. Diabetes Metab Syndr 2020; 14(5): 965–67. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Verhoeven V, Tsakitzidis G, Philips H, Van Royen P. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the core functions of primary care: will the cure be worse than the disease? A qualitative interview study in Flemish GPs. BMJ Open 2020; 10(6): e039674. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Bohlken J, Schömig F, Seehagen Tet al. . Experience of practice-based psychiatrists and neurologists during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychiatr Prax 2020; 47(4): 214–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Siebenhüner K, Battegay E, Hämmig O. Temporal work stressors and satisfaction with work, life and health among health professionals in Switzerland. Swiss Med Wkly 2020; 150: w20175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Caricati L, Sala RL, Marletta Get al. . Work climate, work values and professional commitment as predictors of job satisfaction in nurses. J Nurs Manag 2014; 22(8): 984–94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Jensen HK, Wieclaw J, Munch-Hansen T, Thulstrup AM, Bonde JP. Does dissatisfaction with psychosocial work climate predict depressive, anxiety and substance abuse disorders? A prospective study of Danish public service employees. J Epidemiol Community Health 2010; 64(9): 796–801. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Lubrańska A. Klimat organizacyjny a doświadczanie wypalenia zawodowego. Med Pr 2011; 62(6): 623–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Hann M, Bower P, Campbell S, Marshall M, Reeves D. The association between culture, climate and quality of care in primary health care teams. Fam Pract 2007; 24(4): 323–29. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Shaheen AM, El-Hneiti M, Albqoor M, Ahmad M. Predictors of quality of care provided for older adults. J Nurs Manag 2019; 27(8): 1747–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Carifio J, Perla RJ. Ten common misunderstandings, misconceptions, persistent myths and urban legends about Likert scales and Likert response formats and their antidotes. J of Social Sciences 2007; 3(3): 106–16. [Google Scholar]
- 22.Sun N, Wei L, Shi Set al. . A qualitative study on the psychological experience of caregivers of COVID-19 patients. Am J Infect Control 2020; 48(6): 592–98. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Liu Q, Luo D, Haase JEet al. . The experiences of health-care providers during the COVID-19 crisis in China: a qualitative study. Lancet Glob Health 2020; 8(6): e790–98. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Lavoie-Tremblay M, Bonin JP, Lesage AD, Bonneville-Roussy A, Lavigne GL, Laroche D. Contribution of the psychosocial work environment to psychological distress among health care professionals before and during a major organizational change. Health Care Manag (Frederick) 2010; 29(4): 293–304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Muehlensiepen F, Knitza J, Marquardt W, Engler J, Hueber A, Welcker M. Acceptance of telerheumatology by rheumatologists and general practitioners in Germany: nationwide cross-sectional survey study. J Med Internet Res 2021; 23(3): e23742. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Meyer L, Wehling M. Knowledge on and use of the FORTA (“Fit fOR The Aged”)-list and the FORTA App by general practitioners in Baden-Württemberg, Germany. Eur Geriatr Med 2020; 11(3): 499–503. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.German Federal Registry of Physicians. Anzahl Ärzte/Psychotherapeuten nach Alter: 2008–2020. Published 22 June 2021. https://gesundheitsdaten.kbv.de/cms/html/16397.php (accessed 22 June 2021).
- 28.German Medical Association. Ärztestatistik zum 31. Dezember 2020. https://www.bundesaerztekammer.de/fileadmin/user_upload/downloads/pdf-Ordner/Statistik_2020/2020-Statistik.pdf (accessed 22 June 2021).
- 29.German Federal Registry of Physicians. Anzahl Ärzte/Psychotherapeuten nach Geschlecht: 2008–2020. Published 22 June 2021. https://gesundheitsdaten.kbv.de/cms/html/16396.php (accessed 22 June 2021).