Table 2 Comparison of Belgium to 36 other European countries and between the Belgian regions: descriptive statistics and adjusted binary logistic regression models for the six dimensions of quality of care

Person-centered and equitable care

 The practice extracted a list of at least one group of patients with a chronic disorder from the electronic medical record system. (yes)

19.6%

Q3

28.6%

17.1%

19.5%

1.62 (0.65–4.04)

1.05 (0.56–1.98)

1.54 (0.65–3.66)

The practice actively reached out to …

 patients with a chronic condition who needed follow-up care (yes)

50.2%

Q3

55.8%

43.7%

52.6%

1.53 (0.72–3.25)

1.03 (0.64–1.67)

1.48 (0.72–3.05)

 psychologically vulnerable patients (yes)

35.6%

Q2

37.8%

31.9%

37%

1.02 (0.46–2.24)

0.81 (0.48–1.48)

1.26 (0.60–2.66)

 patients with known problems of domestic violence or families with a known problematic parenting situation (yes)

14.9%

Q2

27.5%

10.2%

15.5%

2.78* (1.04–7.41)

1.15 (0.55–2.40)

2.42 (0.99–5.90)

Change of roles compared to before COVID-19, including a greater involvement of…

 GP or GP trainees: actively reaching out to patients that might postpone healthcare (yes)

50.2%

Q2

53.3%

56.8%

45.6%

0.84 (0.42–1.69)

0.65 (0.41–1.04)

1.29 (0.66–2.53)

 Staff members^a: actively reaching out to patients that might postpone healthcare (yes)

42.3%

Q4

52.9%

55.0%

36.8%

0.59 (0.19–1.89)

2.47* (1.22–7.94)

1.46 (0.49–4.33)

 Staff members^a: giving information or explanation about what the caregiver said to illiterate patients, patients with low health literacy, or migrants (yes)

64.6%

Q2

70.6%

67.2%

62.7%

0.88 (0.26-3.00)

1.74 (0.83–3.64)

1.53 (0.48–4.85)

The availability of multilingual communication in the practice regarding…

 the practice answering machine (yes)

9.5%

Q2

30.8%

3.5%

9.6%

11.81***(3.65–38.23)

2.86 (1.00-8.17)

4.12**(1.70-10.06)

 the practice leaflet (yes)

13.1%

Q2

50.0%

4.6%

12.2%

34.83***(5.70-212.9)

3.91 (0.82–18.66)

8.91*** (2.63–30.22)

 the leaflet with information on COVID-19 (yes)

25.1%

Q3

75.0%

8.0%

29.2%

26.14***(6.59–103.7)

3.82**(1.44–10.16)

6.84** (1.89–24.73)

 the practice website (yes)

13.5%

Q3

53.8%

8.5%

10.9%

11.44***(3.61–36.27)

1.24 (0.48–3.16)

9.24***(3.53–24.20)

The GP or GP trainee checked …

 the feasibility of isolation at home when indicated. (always)

32.1%

Q1

26.1%

25.2%

36.6%

0.95 (0.43–2.09)

1.53 (0.93–2.52)

0.62 (0.29–1.30)

 the feasibility of transport to another facility in case of a referral. (always)

43.4%

Q2

39.5%

49.3%

41.0%

0.61 (0.30–1.25)

0.61* (0.39–0.97)

0.99 (0.50–1.98)

The GP or GP trainee screened whether a patient experienced …

 Domestic violence (more or much more than before COVID-19)

17.1%

Q1

22.7%

17.4%

16.0%

1.22 (0.53–2.84)

0.74 (0.41–1.35)

1.65 (0.73–3.70)

 financial problems (more or much more than before COVID-19)

40.9%

Q1

50.0%

46.4%

36.2%

1.11 (0.55–2.24)

0.54* (0.34–0.87)

2.04 (1.03–4.02)

Safe and effective care

Building/infrastructure of the practice

 Experiences of limitations to be able to provide high-quality care^b. (to a large or limited extent)

55.5%

Q2

53.2%

39.1%

64.6%

1.65 (0.80–3.41)

1.94** (1.21–3.10)

0.85 (0.43–1.70)

 Considering making adjustments in future^b. (to a large or limited extent)

37.1%

Q1

39.1%

32.0%

39.8%

1.20 (0.57–2.51)

1.03 (0.64–1.68)

1.16 (0.58–2.32)

Appointment system

 Online appointment: informative message about symptoms patients may not enter the practice (yes)

81.5%

Q1

66.7%

56.0%

89.2%

1.21 (0.38–3.81)

4.27*** (1.85–9.83)

0.28* (0.10–0.82)

 Online appointment: patients needed to give a reason for encounter (yes)

68.2%

Q2

59.1%

60.0%

71.2%

0.74 (0.25–2.15)

1.31 (0.62–2.79)

0.56 (0.22–1.44)

 Appointment by phone: patients needed to give a reason for encounter (yes)

85.4%

Q3

81.8%

84.4%

86.5%

0.81 (0.31–1.80)

1.07 (0.57–2.03)

0.75 (0.31–1.80)

Protocol for answering phone calls from potential COVID-19 patients

 Availability of a protocol (yes)

68.7%

Q4

69.8%

61.8%

72.1%

1.26 (0.57–2.76)

1.11 (0.68–1.82)

1.13 (0.52–2.44)

Triage

 Using a protocol for answering calls if this was available. (always)

26.3%

Q4

20.0%

29.1%

26.0%

0.56 (0.20–1.56)

0.69 (0.36–1.31)

0.81 (0.30–2.16)

 Calling patients who made an online appointment to check infection risk. (always)

28.0%

Q3

26.5%

21.8%

31.1%

0.94 (0.36–2.40)

1.44 (0.83–2.50)

0.65 (0.27–1.58)

 Availability of a GP as a backup when a non-GP does the telephonic triage. (always)

79.8%

Q2

55.0%

70.9%

86.3%

0.31* (0.10–0.94)

1.80 (0.85–3.80)

0.17** (0.06–0.51)

 Availability of the most recent information on how to refer a patient to a triage station in each GP consultation room. (yes)

75.2%

Q3

72.5%

75.4%

76.4%

0.88 (0.38–2.02)

1.09 (0.63–1.91)

0.81 (0.37–1.75)

Cleaning the practice

 Using a detailed cleaning protocol by cleaning employees during COVID-19.(always)

57.2%

Q4

46.7%

58.3%

58.6%

0.50 (0.24–1.05)

0.98 (0.61–1.57)

0.52 (0.26–1.04)

 Sufficient time between consultations for the disinfection. (always)

38.5%

Q2

46.7%

41.4%

35.4%

1.18 (0.59–2.39)

0.83 (0.52–1.32)

1.43 (0.73–2.80)

Home visits

 Availability of a separate medical bag for (possible) infection-related consultations. (yes)

27.9%

Q4

22.7%

36.3%

24.0%

0.47 (0.20–1.07)

0.66 (0.41–1.09)

0.70 (0.31–1.59)

Timely care

Occurrence of a safety incident in which a patient with an urgent condition was seen late because 

 the patient did not come to the practice sooner^b. (yes)

70.9%

Q4

61.9%

62.7%

76.5%

0.93 (0.44–1.99)

1.47 (0.88–2.46)

0.63 (0.30–1.33)

 the patient did not know how to reach a GP^b. (yes)

39.3%

Q4

48.6%

22.8%

46.9%

2.58* (1.14–5.82)

2.63***(1.53–4.53)

0.98 (0.46–2.09)

 the situation was assessed as non-urgent during the telephonic triage^b. (yes)

26.0%

Q4

18.4%

26.0%

26.9%

0.74 (0.29–1.90)

1.13 (0.65–1.98)

0.66 0.27–1.62)

 Occurrence of safety incident because a patient with a fever caused by a non-COVID infection was seen late due to the COVID-19 protocol^b. (yes)

47.9%

Q4

46.3%

48.5%

48.0%

0.67 (0.32–1.42)

0.68 (0.42–1.11)

0.98 (0.48–2.01)

Efficient care

Change of roles compared to before COVID-19 including a greater involvement of

 Staff members^a: triaging of patients (yes)

91.1%

Q1

88.9%

80.3%

95.2%

1.46 (0.27–7.98)

0.34 (0.11–1.02)

0.49 (0.08–2.90)

 Staff members^a: giving information and recommendations to patients contacting the practice by phone (yes)

85.4%

Q3

88.9%

75.8%

88.5%

1.94 (0.35–10.65)

0.85 (0.34–2.11)

1.65 (0.29–9.21)