primary care in catalonia

Institut Català de la Salut Gerència Territorial Catalunya Central

1

Primary Care in Catalonia: The stance

and opinion of attendees of the 1st Conference on Primary Care in Rural

Areas (2011)

Abbreviated title: 1st Conference on

Primary Care in rural areas (2011)

Autors: Màrius Fígols Pedrosa1,2,3, Laia Font-Ribera4, Joan Deniel Rosanas1,2,3, Josep Vidal-Alaball3,5, Lurdes Alonso Vallès3,6, Maria Gassó Tarrés3,7 1 Unitat de Suport a la Recerca Catalunya Central. IDIAP Jordi Gol. 2 Unitat Docent de MFiC Catalunya Central. 3 Institut Català de la Salut. Gerència Territorial Catalunya Central. 4 Institut Municipal d’Investigacions Mèdiques (IMIM – Barcelona) 5 Equip d’Atenció Primària de l’Alt Berguedà 6 Col�legi Oficial de Metges de Barcelona 7 Equip d’Atenció Primària de Berga.

Contact information for correspondence: Màrius Fígols Pedrosa Unitat de Suport a la Recerca de la Catalunya Central C/ Pica d’Estats, 13-15 08272 (Sant Fruitós de Bages) Telephone: 936 930 040 Fax: 938 788 876 Email: [email protected]


2

Abstract:

Objective: To describe the professional stance and opinion of the attendees of

the 1st Conference on Primary Care (PC) in rural areas (Berga, May 6th, 2011)

Design: Descriptive cross-sectional study

Participants: Conference attendees were invited to participate. A total of 77

(58.3%) responded.

Primary method of measurement: Self-completed questionnaire

of 22 closed-ended questions about the profession, employment situation in PC,

and their opinions about PC.

Results:Of the respondents, 61% were family medicine physicians and 75%

worked in rural PC. The majority worked at PC clinics more than 10km or 20min

from their reference hospital. Almost 59% did not encounter other professionals of

their field more than once a week. About 96% thought a rural medicine rotation

was necessary for family medicine and community medicine residents, while 80.4%

believe it was necessary for other specialties as well. The most important

advantage to rural medicine is the integrated approach to patients, and the main

inconvenience is professional isolation. Rural PC professionals feel more valued by

their patines (4.43/5) than their colleagues in other settings (2.48) or in

administration (2.32).

Conclusions: The main disadvantage of rural PC is the greater feeling of

isolation. One positive aspect of rural PC is the integrated approach to patients.

Rural PC professionals feel more valued by patients than their counterparts in urban

settings or in administration.

Key words: primary care, rural areas, rural medicine, professional isolation


3

Introduction

The concept of a rural setting is difficult to define and has been attempted by

various organizations. The Organization of Economical Growth and Development

(1) uses population density to delineate rural zones as less than 150 inhabitants

per square kilometer while the European Union adds geographic extension to the

definition as a region with less than 100 inhabitants per square kilometer in an area

less than or equal to 100 square kilometers (2). In Spain, the National Institute of

Statistics uses the number of inhabitants to describe a rural setting, stating that a

population less than 2,000 inhabitants is considered rural, while the National

Healthcare System adds other parameters, such as geographic dispersion, to the

definition (3).

Medicine in a rural setting has certain characteristics that distinguish it from urban

medicine (4), such as the multi-facetted nature and integrated attention to patients

(5,6). The three characteristics that can influence this are the geographical

isolation, the unique relationship with patients and easy access to a rural physician

(7).

The field of family and community medicine approved in 2005 (8) includes a

required rotation in a rural clinic for residents. Since the incorporation of this

rotation, residents’ experiences have been positive: residents consider the

relationship with patients and their community, as well as their role as a

“moderator” as highlights of rural medicine (9). Teachers emphasize the personal

and professional incentive provided by rural medicine to residents (9).

At the end of 2010, the Official College of Physicians of Barcelona (OCPB) proposed

the creation of a conference dedicated to Primary Care (PC) in the rural setting.

With the collaboration of various professional associations, such as the Catalan


4

Society of Family and Community Medicine (CSFCM), the Catalan Society of

Pediatrics and the Catalan Institute of Health (CIH), the first conference was help

on May 6th, 2011 in Berga at the base of the Catalan Pyrenees. One hundred thirty

individuals attended the conference, representing a range of professional

experience from post-graduate to professors. This only highlights that rural PC is

multidisciplinary and requires the attention of many healthcare professionals.

The Catalonian Central Unit for Research took advantage of this opportunity to

collect the opinions and perspectives of the attendees through a questionnaire and

carry out a study of their responses. The objective of the study was to describe the

professional stance of the attendees of the First Conference of PC in rural areas

and evaluate their opinions about rural PC in 2011.


5

Methods

Study design and population A descriptive and cross-sectional study was performed on 132 attendees of the 1st

Conference of PC in Rural Areas in Berga, Catalonia on May 6th, 2011. Though the

conference was open to the public, high attendance by primary care professionals,

especially from rural areas of Catalonia, was expected. The cost of attendance to

the conference was 50 euros.

Data collection A brief questionnaire was distributed to attendees in paper form, with 22 multiple-

choice questions. The questionnaire inquired about demographic characteristics,

profession, perspectives their employment (years of experience, number of

patients, number of PC centers, distance and time from the reference hospital,

contact with other professionals, experiences in rural and urban PC), opinion about

the need for a residency rotation in rural medicine, the relationship between

doctors and pediatricians, and the access to further education. The attendees also

commented on the positive and negative aspects of working in rural PC and to

assess the fulfillment of their job in a rural, urban or administrative setting.

Statistical analysis The statistical analysis of data was performed using SPSS v. 13. Categorical

variables were described by frequencies and continuous variables were described as

the calculated mean.

Ethics approval detail As this was a questionnaire for physicians who works in rural areas, voluntarily

answered for participants in a rural medical congress and anonimously

collected, the local Institutional Review Board didn’t send any consideration

concerning it.


6

Results A total of 77 responses were obtained from the 132 attendees (58.3% response

rate). Among the attendees who responded to the questionnaire, the majority

were women between 30 and 45 years of age, and 61% were family medicine

doctors (Table 1). Fifty-eight (75.3%) of the individuals who completed the

questionnaire indicated they worked in rural PC. The majority of those who stated

they worked in rural PC also indicated they are from a rural setting (79% were born

in a community of less than 15,000 inhabitants).

The majority of rural PC professionals work in more than one clinic, and 19.3%

work in more than 3 clinics (Table 2). The reference hospital is more than 20

minutes away from where 76.4% of the professionals practice and more than 20

kilometers for 24.6% of respondents who practice in rural PC. Only 58.6%

encountered other professionals of their specialty at least once a week. Sixty-nine

percent had also worked in an urban setting, and 78.4% chose to work in a rural

setting (it was unclear for 3.5%).

More than 90% of the respondents considered a residency rotation in rural

medicine as necessary for family and community medicine residents and only 71%

considered it necessary for other specialties. Similar views were observed among

professionals from rural and urban settings regarding family medicine residents

(96.3% and 93.3%, respectively), whereas views differed among professionals

from rural and urban settings regarding other specialties (80.4% and 56.3%

respectively).

Rural PC professionals believed that their relationship with pediatricians was better

than in an urban setting, while the access to educational activities was more

difficult (Figure 1). This was not the opinion of professionals outside of rural PC.

The most frequently mentioned positive aspects of work in PC were the possibility

to practice an integrated approach to patients, the quality of personal life, the

autonomy of decisions, and familiarity of colleagues (Figure 2). The 16

professionals from urban settings also commented on the high quality of life and


7

only moderate level of stress found in rural PC. The most frequently mentioned

negative aspects included the professional isolation of the rural setting and difficulty

to perform or participate in research. The two disadvantages of rural PC that were

mentioned by professionals from outside the field were the interference with

personal life and personal isolation.

Finally, the last question referred to the perception that the participants had about

the feeling of recognition or worth from others related to work in rural PC. On a

scale from 1 to 5, participants felt valued on a level of 2.48 by professionals that do

not work in rural areas, a level of 2.32 by administrative healthcare professionals

and a level of 4.43 by patients. Similar results were obtained from professionals

from rural and urban areas (Figure 3).


8

Discussion

Our study examined the present situation of rural primary care in Catalonia through

the professional situation and opinions of attendees of the 1st Conference of Primary

Care in Rural Areas, in May of 2011. One interesting finding was an elevated

feeling of professional isolation in rural primary care described as the main

disadvantage to working in rural PC. An integrated approach to patients and high

quality of personal life were two positive aspects described by the attendees.

Finally, rural PC professionals feel more valued by patients than their colleagues

from different specialties and than the healthcare administration.

Our study had two methodological limitations. The first is that the study sample

was created from convenience and may not be representative of the professionals

who work in PC in Catalonia. The participation in the conference could indicate a

higher level of recognition of rural PC, and our population may be representative of

other rural PC professionals who did not attend the conference. The geographical

location of the conference could have also influenced the number of attendees from

different areas, with a higher representation of individuals from central Catalonia.

The response rate to the questionnaire was 58%, thus the results may not be

accurately representative to rural PC in Catalonia. Furthermore, the study

population is small, which prevents the use of comparison of professionals from

rural settings and non-rural settings through more advanced statistical analyses.

Despite these limitations, our study reveals the opinions of rural medicine

professionals in Spain and offers new data that could be relevant to generate

discussion about rural PC.

The majority of rural PC professionals work in clinics that are between 10 and 20

kilometers from their reference hospital, which could take more than 20 minutes of

transportation. The feeling of professional isolation in rural areas is also

impressive. Four of every 10 rural PC professionals do not share their time in clinic


9

with colleagues of their same specialty. This was also noted most frequently as a

negative aspect of rural medicine. Physical isolation is a known disadvantage of

rural medicine, as described by various authors in the 1990s (10,11,12).

Performing research and training were also thought to be more difficult in rural

areas, which is likely related to professional isolation. It is important to not that

resource availability was not considered to be an important disadvantage to

working in a rural setting.

The most frequently mentioned advantage to working in rural PC was the

opportunity to use an integrated approach to patient care. The use of complete

and thorough medical care includes community activities and has been described in

previous publications (12). This integrated approach is also well-received by

patients, and in turn, the professionals feel more valued by their patients.

Conversely, the value felt from other professional colleagues and administration is

lower, possibly because of the difficulty in communication and teamwork in an

isolated setting (3).

Though a response was received from 16 professionals from non-rural areas, the

responses between professionals from rural and non-rural settings differed. The

professionals who work in non-rural areas noted less stress and higher quality of

personal life as positive aspects of the rural setting. However, neither of these

factors were noted among professionals who do work in a rural setting.

Professionals from non-rural settings also thought interference with personal life

and personal isolation could be considered disadvantages of working in a rural

setting, whereas the professionals from rural settings did not consider this a

significant disadvantage. Professionals from rural settings also commented on the

limited opportunity for research.


10

Overall a favorable opinion was found in regards to the necessity of a rural

medicine rotation for Family and Community Medicine residents. At the end of the

1990s, 58% of the Spanish Departments and Faculties believed that clinical

rotations in rural healthcare centers was important (Igual 1997). Opinions from

previous publications also support the incorporation of rural medicine for the

training of Family and Community Medicine residents (13,14,15) as well as for pre-

graduate training (13). However, current data suggests that the rural setting is

under-utilized in Spain for post-graduate training of Family and Community

Medicine residents (12,15). This is not true in other countries, such as Australia

and Canada, where rural medicine exists as a sub-specialty (16).

Finally, 79% of the professional from rural areas chose to work in a rural setting. If

this is a generalizable finding, it would be considered a positive aspect to working in

this setting and would also indicate that these professionals believe the advantages

of working in a rural setting outweigh the disadvantages.

Some of the findings in our study about rural PC correlate with each other, but

some do not. A healthcare professional who works in an isolated clinic which is far

from the city may have a higher quality of living, but will also feel professionally

isolated and without many resources. This traditional image of a rural healthcare

provider has now changed with the incorporation of different medical professionals

in multidisciplinary teams and reduced distances. Nonetheless, professional

isolation appears to still be an important problem, and can result in limited access

to training and research. New communication technology could eliminate this

feeling of professional isolation in the rural setting (5).

Our study should serve as motivation to reflect on different aspects of the daily

practice of rural medicine and will offer data that generates further discussion for

future PC conferences in rural settings.


11

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the attendees of the 1st Conference on Primary Care in Rural

Areas for their participation in our questionnaire, and the members of the

Conference Organizing Committee, Pere Casafont, Marta Chandre, Joan Lozano,

Miquel Àngel Mercader, Mari Carmen Monzón, Josep Rovira, Jaume Banqué, Josep

Maria Benet, Elisa de Frutos, Sebastià Joncosa y Conxita Medina.


12

References 1. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Creating rural indicators for shaping territorial policy. OECD Publications, Paris, France. 1994.

2. European Comisión. Directorate General for Agriculture (DG VI). CAP 2000. Working Document.

3. Grupo de Trabajo de Medicina Rural de la SemFYC. El medio rural: una visión mirando al futuro. Documentos SemFYC 11. (Online) 1999. Available http://www.camfic.cat/CAMFiC/Seccions/GrupsTreball/Docs/Medicina_Rural/medio_rural.pdf (Accessed 20/1/2012)

4. Baldwin L.M, Rosenblatt R.A., Schneeweiss R. ,Lishner D.M. ,Hart L.G. Rural and urban physicians: does the content of their medicare practices differ?. The Journal of rural health. Spring 1999.15 (2) p. 240-251.

5. Gérvas J, Pérez Fernández M. Aventuras y desventuras de los navegantes solitarios en el Mar de las incertidumbres. Aten Primaria. 2005; 35:95-98.

6. Boerma WGN. Profilies of general practice in Europe. An international study of variation in the tasks of general practicioner (PhD thesis). Utrech University 2003.

7. Serrano E. La polivalencia rural desde la práctica urbana. Aten Primaria. 2009; 41:523-24.

8. Programa formativo de la especialidad de Medicina Familiar y Comunitaria. Ministerio de Sanidad y Ministerio de Educación. 2005. Available http://www.msc.es/profesionales/formacion/docs/medifamiliar.pdf (Accessed 20/1/2012)

9. Arroyo IA, Galán C. Primeros pasos de los residentes de familia en el mundo rural. Aten Primaria. 2008; 40:231-32.

10. Planes Magriñà A. Primary care in the rural environment. Aten Primaria. 1991 Nov;8(10):739-40.

11. Martín Zurro A. El equipo de atención primaria. En: Martín Zurro A, Cano Pérez JA, eds. Atención primaria. Conceptos, organización y práctica clínica. 3th edc. Barcelona: Mosby/Doyma Libros, 1995; 48-57.

12. Igual D, Fernández J, Comellas C, Palomo L. Situación de la formación postgraduada de la medicina familiar y comunitaria en el medio rural. Aten Primaria 1997. 20: 94-98.

13. Ana Mª Vázquez Torguet, Rafael Alonso Roca. Docencia en el medio rural ¿Hay algo que aportar al residente? Revista Electrònica RCEAP. Available http://www.fbjoseplaporte.org/rceap/articulo2.php?idnum=14&art=03 (Accessed 20/1/2012)

14. Arroyo IA, Guerrero O, Barneto A, Güímil T. Luces y sombras de la medicina rural: a propósito de la docencia. Aten Primaria. 2007; 39:219-20.

15. Banque Vidella, Jaume; Alonso Roca, Rafael; Vázquez Torguet, Ana M; García Fernández, Juan Jesús. La rotación rural: un reto y una oportunidad para mejorar. Aten Primaria. 2007;39:628-9. - vol.39 núm 11.

16. Worley P, Strasser R, Prideaux D. Can medical students learn specialist disciplines based in rural practice: lessons from students’ self reported experience

and competence. Rural and Remote Health 4: 338. (Online) 2004. Available http://www.rrh.org.au/publishedarticles/article_print_338.pdf (Accessed 20/1/2012)


13

Table 1. Description of the attendees to the 1st Conference on Primary Care in Rural Areas. May, 2011. N=77. N % Sex Men 30 39 Women 47 61 Age (years) <30 9 11.7 30-45 36 46.8 45-60 32 41.6 Inhabitants of birthplace* <1,000 12 15.6 1,000-5,000 15 19.5 5,001-15,000 31 40.3 >15,000 19 24.7 Profession Family Practitioner 47 61.0 Pediatrician 5 6.5 Family Medicine Nurse 6 7.8 Management and Services 7 9.1 Pediatric Nurse 1 1.3 Nurse, other specialty 9 11.7 Physician, other specialty 2 2.6 Employment in a rural setting Unknown

3 3.9

Yes 58 75.3 No 16 20.8

*Where attendee was born or grew up.


14

Table 2. Professional conditions for those who work in rural primary care (PC). N=58. N % Years of work in rural PC 0-5 9 15.5 6-15 25 43.1 16-30 22 37.9 >30 2 3.4 Number of consults at

workplace

1 24 42.1 2-3 22 38.6 >3 11 19.3 Distance from clinic to

reference hospital

(kilometers)

0-5 8 14.0 6-10 10 17.5 11-20 25 43.9 >20 14 24.6 Distance from clinic to

reference hospital (minutes)

0-10 1 1.8 11-20 12 21.8 21-40 37 67.3 >40 5 9.1 Patients attended <1,000 12 22.2 1,000-1,400 24 44.4 1,401-1,800 17 31.5 >1,800 1 1.9 Encounters with other

professionals of same field*

Yes 34 58.6 No 24 41.4 Live and work in same

community

Yes 21 36.2 No 37 63.8 Previous work in urban PC Yes 40 69.0 No 18 31.0 Years of work in urban PC 0-5 25 62.5 6-15 13 32.5 16-30 2 5.0 >30 0 0 Personal choice to work in

rural PC

Yes 45 7.9 No 10 1.5 Unclear 2 3.5

*At least once a week.


15

Figure 1. Value of the professional relationship between physicians and pediatritians, access to professional training in an urban setting compared to professionals in non-rural settings among professionals who work in a rural setting (N=58) compared to those who work in non-rural settings (N=16).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

rural no rural rural no rural

Relationship between physician anns pediatrician

Acces to training

Easiest Most difficult Equal Unknown


16

Figure 2. Value of the advantages and disadvantages of rural primary care by professionals from rural settings (N=58) and non-rural settings (N=16).

F

i

g

Advantages

0102030405060708090

100

So

cia

lre

cog

niti

on

Mo

de

rate

leve

lo

f str

ess

Lo

w w

ork

pla

cep

ress

ure

Pro

fess

ion

al

qu

alit

y o

f liv

e

Pe

rso

na

l qu

alit

yo

f liv

e

Co

mp

reh

en

sive

atte

ntio

n

Au

ton

om

y

Eco

no

mic

com

pe

nsa

tion

%Rural Non- rural

Disadvantages

0102030405060708090

100

Hig

h st

ress

Pro

fess

iona

lis

olat

ion

Per

sona

lis

olat

ion

Lim

itatio

ns fo

rre

sear

ch

Eco

nom

icco

mpe

nsat

ion

Diff

icul

tpr

ofes

sion

alca

reer

Lack

for

reso

urce

s

Per

sona

l life

% Rural Non-rural


17

Figure 3. Opinion about the value of primary care in rural areas according to other professionals, healthcare administration, and according to patients, by professional from rural settings (N=58) and non-rural settings (N=16).

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

Colleagues Sanitary administration Public

rural Non- rural

primary care in catalonia

Health & Medicine