tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
PLoS One. 2015 Aug 27;10(8):e0135666. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0135666.
[h=1]Experiences of General Practitioners and Practice Assistants during the Influenza A(H1N1) Pandemic in the Netherlands: A Cross-Sectional Survey.[/h] van Dijk CE[SUP]1[/SUP], Hooiveld M[SUP]1[/SUP], Jentink A[SUP]1[/SUP], Isken LD[SUP]2[/SUP], Timen A[SUP]2[/SUP], Yzermans CJ[SUP]1[/SUP].
[h=3]Author information[/h]
[h=3]Abstract[/h] [h=4]OBJECTIVES:[/h] Since few pandemics have occurred since the Spanish influenza pandemic, we should learn from every (mild) pandemic that occurs. The objective of this study was to report on general practitioners' and practice assistants' acceptance of the chosen national policy, and experiences in the Netherlands during the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 pandemic.
[h=4]METHODS:[/h] Data on experience and acceptance of the chosen national policy were obtained by structured questionnaires for general practitioners (n = 372) and practice assistants (n = 503) in April 2010.
[h=4]RESULTS:[/h] The primary policy chosen for general practice was not always accepted and complied with by general practitioners, although the communication (of changes) and collaboration with involved organisations were rated as positive. In particular, the advised personal protective measures were difficult to implement in daily work and thus not executed by 44% of general practitioners. Half of the general practitioners were not satisfied with the patient information provided by the government. The influenza A(H1N1) pandemic highly impacted on general practitioners' and practice assistants' workloads, which was not always deemed to be adequately compensated.
[h=4]DISCUSSION:[/h] Involvement of general practitioners in future infectious disease outbreaks is essential. This study addresses issues in the pandemic policy which might be critical in a more severe pandemic.
PMID: 26313147 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
[h=1]Experiences of General Practitioners and Practice Assistants during the Influenza A(H1N1) Pandemic in the Netherlands: A Cross-Sectional Survey.[/h] van Dijk CE[SUP]1[/SUP], Hooiveld M[SUP]1[/SUP], Jentink A[SUP]1[/SUP], Isken LD[SUP]2[/SUP], Timen A[SUP]2[/SUP], Yzermans CJ[SUP]1[/SUP].
[h=3]Author information[/h]
[h=3]Abstract[/h] [h=4]OBJECTIVES:[/h] Since few pandemics have occurred since the Spanish influenza pandemic, we should learn from every (mild) pandemic that occurs. The objective of this study was to report on general practitioners' and practice assistants' acceptance of the chosen national policy, and experiences in the Netherlands during the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 pandemic.
[h=4]METHODS:[/h] Data on experience and acceptance of the chosen national policy were obtained by structured questionnaires for general practitioners (n = 372) and practice assistants (n = 503) in April 2010.
[h=4]RESULTS:[/h] The primary policy chosen for general practice was not always accepted and complied with by general practitioners, although the communication (of changes) and collaboration with involved organisations were rated as positive. In particular, the advised personal protective measures were difficult to implement in daily work and thus not executed by 44% of general practitioners. Half of the general practitioners were not satisfied with the patient information provided by the government. The influenza A(H1N1) pandemic highly impacted on general practitioners' and practice assistants' workloads, which was not always deemed to be adequately compensated.
[h=4]DISCUSSION:[/h] Involvement of general practitioners in future infectious disease outbreaks is essential. This study addresses issues in the pandemic policy which might be critical in a more severe pandemic.
PMID: 26313147 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]