Objective

This study aims to explore the expectations of pharmacists and general practitioners (GPs) regarding the exchange of medi­cal data via health networks.

Methodology

A quantitative questionnaire study was conducted among pharmacists and general practitioners in the Wallonia-Brussels Federation (FWB). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

Results

The questionnaire yielded a sample of 609 people. Overall, 83% of GPs wanted access to the medication dispensing history, 93% of pharmacists wanted to access the full Summarized Electronic Health Record (SUMEHR), and 62% of GPs favored sharing this SUMEHR with the pharmacists believing it would improve their collaboration and treatment control. However, less than 10% of GPs agreed with sharing more sensitive data such as medical reports or biological results, while 64% of doctors believed the indication for treatment should be shared with pharmacists on an optional basis. More than 70% of GPs and pharmacists preferred to use specific communication tools between themselves.

Conclusion

GPs and pharmacists are looking for health networks to facilitate communication, health data exchange, and access to medication history and patterns. Their underuse can be partially explained by insufficient knowledge of the tools, difficulty of access, bugs, respect for privacy, non-implementation of the tools in business software, time-consuming encoding and fear of judgment of drug prescriptions, or the transfer of the GP’s role to the pharmacist.

Introduction
Despite the prevalence of domestic violence (DV) in Belgium, few studies have examined the role of general medicine practice in the management of perpetrators of DV. What is the experience of Belgian general practitioners in the management of male perpetrators of domestic violence?
Method
A qualitative study examined the history of Belgian general practitioners in the supervision of men who commit domestic violence. Through a snowball sampling and individual semi-directed interviews, we were able to collect information from five general practitioners. The heterogeneity of profiles in terms of gender, age, years of experience, type, and location of practice was preferred to obtain a rich and diversified sample. These five interviews were marked out by an interview guide and then strictly transcribed.
Results
Three main themes related to the physicians' experience were identified: [1] by what means do the physicians identify male perpetrators of violence against women (VAW) and how can they be considered as patients? Their identification is mostly made by the female victims. There is little self-identification by the perpetrators of VAW. This is a victim-centered approach. The importance of the therapeutic relationship with the male perpetrators of violence is emphasized. [2] The second theme highlights a generalized taboo among respondents towards male perpetrators of sexual violence, which has an impact on their treatment. It proposes communication and verbalization in order to include [3] general medicine in a network- centered system on the male perpetrators of violence. This system is necessary to provide support and adequate multidisciplinary management of male perpetrators of domestic abuse.
Conclusion
There is a general taboo around male perpetrators of DV. General medicine practice contributes to this taboo. There is a lack of responsibility on the part of general practitioners, leading to a poor care for male perpetrators of domestic abuse. A network system is essential for their appropriate management. Further studies are needed to evaluate the role of the front liners in preventing domestic violence.

Why such a symposium?

In the winter of 2021, when the beginnings of a possible way out of the Covid-19 crisis were appearing, many of us made the same observation: primary care medicine, that is medicine that goes from individual or group medical practices to large urban policlinics and nursing homes, has certainly played an important role in the management of the pandemic, but its potential has been insufficiently exploited, particularly by the authorities in charge of public decisions. This observation has been confirmed by international bodies such as the WHO and the OECD. We therefore felt that it would be interesting to take our heads off the wheel, to distance ourselves from all of our activities deployed during the pandemic (care, screening, vaccination, etc.) and to organize an exchange of experiences in order to build a body of knowledge and propose recommendations in four countries: Belgium, Canada, France and Switzerland. The commonalities shared by these four countries, whether at the historical (thank you Napoleon!), linguistic, cultural, societal, academic and of course health system levels (universal coverage, private and/or public insurers, among others), facilitate such an exchange dynamic.

Informal caregivers of dependent elderly persons are currently increasing in number in Belgium. Because of the physical or mental burden induced by their role, they are vulnerable. Nine informal caregivers with varied profiles were questioned using semi-structured individual interviews, which were aimed to better understand their experiences and clarify the place that the general practitioner could assume in this environment. Analysis of the testimonies clearly reveals a physical and psychological interdependence between both the caregiver and elderly person, which may at the origin of numerous disagreements within the dyad, along with the lack of a centralized referral system of professional helpers. The general practitioner, who is in the first-line of care, could play a key role in the early identification of the caregiver’s suffering, provided he relies on a proactive approach. The general practitioner could also centralize the available help, while always informing both the caregiver and elderly person.