Bridging the gap in Long COVID care: identifying core competencies for primary care curriculum development and evaluation, 2026, Geyer et al.

[Chandelier]

Bridging the gap in Long COVID care: identifying core competencies for primary care curriculum development and evaluation

Spoiler: Authors

Geyer, Rachel E.; O’Loughlin, Kristen M.; Theobald, Cassie; Rivera, Donovan; Bender, Jessica; Chopra, Anita; Friedly, Janna; Gentile, Nicole L.

Abstract​

Background​

There is an unmet need for Long COVID care within our healthcare system. Primary care clinicians (PCPs) face challenges in providing effective care due to limited relevant Long COVID training and lack of standardized clinical resources. Pre-CME (continuing medical education) survey data indicates that 62% of clinicians experience difficulty diagnosing and managing Long COVID. There is a need for competency-based curricula to equip PCPs with tools for interdisciplinary, patient-centered care.

Methods​

A mixed-methods Delphi needs assessment process was designed to gather stakeholder input to guide the development of Long COVID core competencies. Participants were recruited through word of mouth and completed a 30-minute survey on barriers and facilitators for Long COVID care, case scenarios, and topic preferences. They also participated in a 1-hour Zoom focus group using an unstructured question guide to review survey responses, which were then examined with summary templates and a matrix analysis.

Results​

The study enrolled 26 participants, 21 of whom also participated in focus groups. Areas of convergence and divergence in participant perspectives were used to inform development of core competencies that ultimately could be categorized in alignment with the six competency-based domains defined by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME).

Conclusions​

This study establishes a consensus-based framework of competencies for PCPs managing Long COVID, reflecting the condition’s evolving nature and the importance of continuous, relationship-centered care. Implementing these competencies in training and professional development can enhance care quality, standardize practices, and improve outcomes for patients facing complex, multisystem health challenges.

Web | DOI | PMC | PDF | BMC Primary Care | Open Access

 

[Sean]

Anybody else becoming increasingly jaded with the capacity of processes like Delphi, et al, to deliver the goods? Just increasingly look to me like performative rituals to avoid having to admit they got nothing.

I mean, how much actual progress and benefit have they delivered so far for us?
.
.
.
.
.
*crickets*

 

[Eleanor]

PCPs reported that patients frequently bring emerging research and treatment ideas to appointments. Both PCPs and Experts emphasized the need for training in critical appraisal, navigating limited or conflicting evidence, and discussing negative findings within shared decision-making conversations.

There was strong consensus on the importance of identifying PEM, which affects approximately 25% of people with Long COVID, and on ensuring cautious use of exercise-based therapies, as these may be contraindicated for some patients [22].

22 is https://www.archives-pmr.org/article/S0003-9993(25)00501-5/fulltext

Additional studies are also needed to assess adaptability of the competencies across diverse primary care settings and to rigorously evaluate educational initiatives—such as the forthcoming Long COVID certificate course—at the clinician, patient, and system levels.

Do we know about this?

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

This looks like further bureaucratic treacle with no intelligent content and probably worse.

 

[Chandelier]

such as the forthcoming Long COVID certificate course

Do we know about this?

From the Introduction:

To date, no consensus-driven competency framework exists to guide PCP training in Long COVID care, and stakeholder-informed evidence to shape such training is lacking. Addressing this gap is essential to ensure that future educational initiatives are relevant, comprehensive, and grounded in the realities of primary care practice. Thus, as an initial step in developing a Long COVID certificate course for PCPs to address critical gaps in clinician training, this mixed-methods study aimed to (1) conduct a targeted needs assessment through surveys and focus groups with key stakeholders using a Delphi process to identify knowledge gaps and define essential learning priorities; and (2) establish core competencies for Long COVID care to guide future education and training.

That probably explains the Framework-speak in this paper.

 

[rvallee]

Pre-CME (continuing medical education) survey data indicates that 62% of clinicians experience difficulty diagnosing and managing Long COVID

The other 38% is the most concerning thing here. No citation, so impossible to say what they answered.

Reading this is really dreadful. Everything done so far is just steps in no direction at all, basically random shuffling that loops around itself as it carves comfortable ruts and sticks to them. Every slightly relevant discussion of any issue is immediately undone by misunderstanding, and how it's not just medicine or the health care industry that are not prepared for this, but our entire societies. Hell, human nature itself.

They talk of being careful about recommendations for referrals to rehabilitation, mainly for PEM (with no mention of ME/CFS, of course), but no one seems to ask or consider what even is the value for those who don't. There has been zero credible demonstration of useful benefits with or without PEM, so the entire discussion is almost entirely superfluous, focused on a sideshow instead of the main event. It all derives from belief in the guiding healing hands of people who don't even know what to do. A leader who has no idea where to go and no interest in getting there cannot lead.

There is talk of trauma, without anyone seemingly considering that no one should be dealing with the consequences and that it should be stopped at the source. Which is the medical profession. There is zero recognition that all of this derives from standard practices derived from psychosomatic ideology and that it's more widespread and influential than ever. None of this is accidental, it all happens intentionally.

There is very little actual substance. About the only major theme, in addition to rehab and trauma-awareness, is non-pharmaceutical treatments, which include rehab but obviously also include weird useless therapy stuff, only emphasizes that there are no actual pharmaceutical treatments anyway, and so the discussion defaults to it. Nothing that gets to the source of things, which is normal given the undying obsession with weird psychosocial causation.

Basically studies like this only emphasize how absolutely nothing has been actually learned, and nothing has actually adapted to it. Everything in the industry is built to never budge and break if needed, there is simply no sway, no bending.

Yeah, humans can't handle this.

 

[Sean]

There is talk of trauma, without anyone seemingly considering that no one should be dealing with the consequences and that it should be stopped at the source. Which is the medical profession.

Wash your mouth out. How dare you defame such a noble heroic profession, so selflessly dedicated entirely to healing the afflicted.