Difficulties in disclosing the diagnosis of dementia: a qualitative study in general practice

Background

Dementia is an insidious and stigmatised condition, and research indicates that GPs find communicating this diagnosis particularly problematic. Delays in diagnosis may impede optimal patient care. Little research has been published on Australian GPs’ perceptions of barriers to disclosing the diagnosis of dementia.

Aim

To explore GPs’ perceptions of barriers to disclosing the diagnosis of dementia.

Design and setting

Qualitative study in the general practice consultation context.

Method

Semi-structured, audiorecorded interviews were conducted with GPs from three capital cities and one regional centre in Australia. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis was conducted.

Results

GPs’ lack of confidence in having a correct diagnosis, concern to act in patients’ best interests, and the stigma associated with the ‘dementia’ label influenced the disclosure process. GPs found it challenging to identify dementia in the consultation context. It was difficult to raise the issue when both the patient and their family/carer(s) ignore/are unaware of symptoms of cognitive decline. Referral to a specialist was favoured to confirm suspicions, although this did not always result in a definitive diagnosis. Opinions differed as to whether the GP or the specialist was better placed to deliver the diagnosis. GPs preferred disclosure to the patient with his/her family/carer(s) present; associated issues of confidentiality and the importance of offering hope emerged. The severity of the patient’s dementia also guided the diagnostic disclosure process. GPs often used euphemisms for dementia when disclosing the diagnosis, to soften the message.

Conclusion

Complex issues surround the disclosure of dementia. Communicating this diagnosis remains particularly challenging for many GPs.     

Diagnosing headache in primary care: a qualitative study of GPs’ approaches

Background

Headache is one of the most common symptoms in primary care. Most headaches are due to primary headaches and many headache sufferers do not receive a specific diagnosis. There is still a gap in research on how GPs diagnose and treat patients with headache.

Aim

To identify GPs’ diagnostic approaches in patients presenting with headache.

Design and setting

Qualitative study with 15 GPs in urban and rural practices.

Method

Interviews (20–40 minutes) were conducted using a semi-structured interview guideline. GPs described their individual diagnostic strategies by means of patients presenting with headache that they had prospectively identified during the previous 4 weeks. Interviews were taped and transcribed verbatim. Qualitative analysis was conducted by two independent raters.

Results

Regarding GPs’ general diagnostic approach to patients with headache, four broad themes emerged during the interviews: ‘knowing the patient and their background’, ‘first impression during consultation’, ‘intuition and personal experience’ and ‘application of the test of time’. Four further themes were identified regarding the management of diagnostic uncertainty: ‘identification of red flags’, ‘use of the familiarity heuristic’, ‘therapeutic trial’, and ‘triggers for patient referral’.

Conclusion

GPs apply different strategies in the early diagnostic phase when managing patients with headache. Identification of potential adverse outcomes accompanied by other strategies for handling uncertainty seem to be more important than an exact diagnosis. Established guidelines do not play a role in the diagnostic workup.     

Use of alarm features in referral of febrile children to the emergency department: an observational study

Background

The diagnostic value of alarm features of serious infections in low prevalence settings is unclear.

Aim

To explore to what extent alarm features play a role in referral to the emergency department (ED) by GPs who face a febrile child during out-of-hours care.

Design and setting

Observational study using semi-structured, routine clinical practice data of febrile children (<16 years) presenting to GP out-of-hours care.

Method

Logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the association between alarm features of serious infections (selected from two guidelines and one systematic review) and referral to the ED. Adherence to the guideline was explored by a 2×2 contingency table.

Results

In total 794 (8.1%) of 9794 eligible patients were referred to the ED. Alarm signs most strongly associated with referral were ‘age <1 month’, ‘decreased consciousness’, ‘meningeal irritation’, and ‘signs of dehydration’. Nineteen percent of 3424 children with a positive referral indication according to the guideline were referred to the ED. The majority of those not referred had only one or two alarm features present. A negative referral indication was adhered to for the majority of children. Still, in 20% of referred children, alarm features were absent.

Conclusion

In contrast to guidance, GPs working in primary out-of-hours care seem more conservative in referring febrile children to the ED, especially if only one or two alarm features of serious infection are present. In addition, in 20% of referred children, alarm features were absent, which suggests that other factors may be important in decisions about referral of febrile children to the hospital ED.     

Reasons why doctors choose or reject careers in general practice: national surveys

Background

Less than one-third of newly qualified doctors in the UK want a career in general practice. The English Department of Health expects that half of all newly qualified doctors will become GPs.

Aim

To report on the reasons why doctors choose or reject careers in general practice, comparing intending GPs with doctors who chose hospital careers.

Design and setting

Questionnaire surveys in all UK medical graduates in selected qualification years.

Method

Questions about specialty career intentions and motivations, put to the qualifiers of 1993, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2005, 2008, and 2009, 1 year after qualification, and at longer time intervals thereafter.

Results

‘Enthusiasm for and commitment to the specialty’ was a very important determinant of choice for intending doctors, regardless of chosen specialty. ‘Hours and working conditions’ were a strong influence for intending GPs (cited as having had ‘a great deal’ of influence by 75% of intending GPs in the first year after qualification), much more so than for doctors who wanted a hospital career (cited by 30%). Relatively few doctors had actually considered general practice seriously but then rejected it; 78% of the doctors who rejected general practice gave ‘job content’ as their reason, compared with 32% of doctors who rejected other specialties.

Conclusion

The shortfall of doctors wanting a career in general practice is not accounted for by doctors considering and rejecting it. Many do not consider it at all. There are very distinctive factors that influence choice for, and rejection of, general practice.     

The ‘added value’ GPs bring to commissioning: a qualitative study in primary care

Background

The 2012 Health and Social Care Act in England replaced primary care trusts with clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) as the main purchasing organisations. These new organisations are GP-led, and it was claimed that this increased clinical input would significantly improve commissioning practice.

Aim

To explore some of the key assumptions underpinning CCGs, and to examine the claim that GPs bring ‘added value’ to commissioning.

Design and setting

In-depth interviews with clinicians and managers across seven CCGs in England between April and September 2013.

Method

A total of 40 clinicians and managers were interviewed. Interviews focused on the perceived ‘added value’ that GPs bring to commissioning.

Results

Claims to GP ‘added value’ centred on their intimate knowledge of their patients. It was argued that this detailed and concrete knowledge improves service design and that a close working relationship between GPs and managers strengthens the ability of managers to negotiate. However, responders also expressed concerns about the large workload that they face and about the difficulty in engaging with the wider body of GPs.

Conclusion

GPs have been involved in commissioning in many ways since fundholding in the 1990s, and claims such as these are not new. The key question is whether these new organisations better support and enable the effective use of this knowledge. Furthermore, emphasis on experiential knowledge brings with it concerns about representativeness and the extent to which other voices are heard. Finally, the implicit privileging of GPs’ personal knowledge ahead of systematic public health intelligence also requires exploration.     

Quality deviations in cancer diagnosis: prevalence and time to diagnosis in general practice

Background

High quality in every phase of cancer diagnosis is important to optimise the prognosis for the patient. General practice plays an important role in this phase.

Aim

The aim was to describe the prevalence and the types of quality deviations (QDs) that arise during the diagnostic pathway in general practice as assessed by GPs and to analyse the association between these QDs, the cancer type, and the GP’s interpretation of presenting symptoms as well as the influence on the diagnostic interval.

Design and setting

A Danish retrospective cohort study based on questionnaire data from 1466 GPs on 5711 incident patients with cancer identified in the Danish National Patient Registry (response rate = 71.4%). The GP was involved in diagnosing in 4036 cases.

Method

Predefined QDs were prompted with the possibility for free text. QD prevalence was estimated as was the association between QDs and diagnosis, the GP’s symptom interpretation, and time to diagnosis.

Results

QDs were present for 30.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 29.0 to 31.9) of cancer patients. The most prevalent QD was ‘retrospectively, one or more of my clinical decisions were less optimal’. QDs were most prevalent among patients with vague symptoms (24.1% for alarm symptoms versus 39.5% for vague symptoms [P<0.001]). QD presence implied a 41-day (95% CI = 38.4 to 43.6) longer median diagnostic interval.

Conclusion

GPs noted at least one QD, which often involved clinical decisions, for one-third of all cancer patients. QDs were more likely among patients with vague symptoms and increased the diagnostic interval considerably.     

Childhood long-term conditions in primary care: a qualitative study of practitioners’ views

Background

Improving child health and wellbeing in England was the key focus of the Chief Medical Officer’s Annual Report 2012, which recommended that all children with long-term conditions (LTCs) have a named GP responsible for their care. Little is known, however, about practitioners’ views and experiences of supporting children with LTCs in primary care.

Aim

To explore practitioners’ views of supporting children with LTCs and their families in primary care.

Design and setting

Qualitative interview study in primary care settings in South Yorkshire, England.

Method

Interviews explored practitioners’ views and experiences of supporting children with asthma, cystic fibrosis, type 1 diabetes, and epilepsy. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using the framework approach.

Results

Nineteen practitioners were interviewed: 10 GPs, five practice nurses, and four nurse practitioners. The GPs’ clinical roles included prescribing and concurrent illness management; nurse practitioners held minor illness clinics; and practice nurses conduct asthma clinics and administer immunisations. GPs were coordinators of care and provided a holistic service to the family. GPs were often unsure of their role with children with LTCs, and did not feel they had overall responsibility for these patients. Confidence was dependent on experience; however, knowledge of GPs’ own limits and accessing help were felt to be more important than knowledge of the condition.

Conclusion

Primary care has a valuable role in the care of children with LTCs and their families. This study suggests that improving communication between services would clarify roles and help improve the confidence of primary care practitioners.     

Missed opportunities for diagnosis: lessons learned from diagnostic errors in primary care

Background

Because of the difficulties inherent in diagnosis in primary care, it is inevitable that diagnostic errors will occur. However, despite the important consequences associated with diagnostic errors and their estimated high prevalence, teaching and research on diagnostic error is a neglected area.

Aim

To ascertain the key learning points from GPs’ experiences of diagnostic errors and approaches to clinical decision making associated with these.

Design and setting

Secondary analysis of 36 qualitative interviews with GPs in Oxfordshire, UK.

Method

Two datasets of semi-structured interviews were combined. Questions focused on GPs’ experiences of diagnosis and diagnostic errors (or near misses) in routine primary care and out of hours. Interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically.

Results

Learning points include GPs’ reliance on ‘pattern recognition’ and the failure of this strategy to identify atypical presentations; the importance of considering all potentially serious conditions using a ‘restricted rule out’ approach; and identifying and acting on a sense of unease. Strategies to help manage uncertainty in primary care were also discussed.

Conclusion

Learning from previous examples of diagnostic errors is essential if these events are to be reduced in the future and this should be incorporated into GP training. At a practice level, learning points from experiences of diagnostic errors should be discussed more frequently; and more should be done to integrate these lessons nationally to understand and characterise diagnostic errors.     

Norwegian General Practitioners’ Perspectives on Implementation of a Guided Web-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Depression: A Qualitative Study

Background

Previous research suggests that Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (ICBT) has a positive effect on symptoms of depression. ICBT appears to be more effective with therapist support, but it is unclear what this support should comprise. General practitioners (GPs) have positive attitudes toward ICBT. However, ICBT is rarely used in regular care in general practice. More research is warranted to integrate the potential of ICBT as part of regular care.

Objective

The aim of this study was to explore aspects perceived by GPs to affect the implementation of guided ICBT in daily practice. Understanding their perspectives may contribute to improving the treatment of depression in the context of general practice.

Methods

A training package (3-day course) introducing a Norwegian translation of the ICBT program MoodGYM was developed and presented to GPs in Norway. Following training, GPs were asked to include guided ICBT in their regular care of patients with symptoms of depression by providing brief, face-to-face follow-up consultations between modules. We interviewed 11 GPs who had taken the course. Our interview guide comprised open questions that encouraged GPs to frame their responses using examples from their experiences when implementing ICBT. Thematic analysis was chosen to explore patterns across the data.

Results

An overall belief that ICBT would benefit both the patients’ health and the GPs’ own work satisfaction prompted the GPs to take the ICBT course. ICBT motivated them to invest time and effort in improving treatment. The most important motivating aspects in MoodGYM were that a program based on cognitive behavioral therapy could add a structured agenda to their consultations and empower depressed patients. Organizational aspects, such as a lack of time and varied practice, inhibited the use of ICBT. Inadequate knowledge, recalling the program, and changing own habits were also challenging. The GPs were ambivalent about whether ICBT had a negative impact on the doctor–patient interaction in the module follow-ups. Generally, GPs made an effort to recommend MoodGYM, but the expected module follow-ups were often not provided to patients and instead the GPs returned to standard treatment.

Conclusions

GPs’ feedback in the present study contribute to our understanding of the challenges of changing treatment for depression. Our findings indicated that recommending ICBT could add to the GP’s toolkit. Offering training and highlighting the following aspects may increase recommendation of ICBT by GPs: (1) ICBT is theory-based and credible, (2) ICBT increases the GPs’ work satisfaction by having a tool to offer, and (3) ICBT facilitates empowerment of patients in their own health. In addition, the present study also indicated that complex aspects must be accommodated before module follow-ups can be incorporated into GPs’ treatment of depression.     

GPs’ job satisfaction: doctors who chose general practice early or late

Background

In the UK many practising GPs did not choose general practice as their first choice of career when they originally graduated as doctors.

Aim

To compare job satisfaction of GPs who chose general practice early or later in their career.

Design and setting

Questionnaires were sent to all UK-trained doctors who graduated in selected years between 1993 and 2000.

Method

Questionnaires were sent to the doctors 1, 3, 7 and 10 years after graduation.

Results

Of all 3082 responders working in general practice in years 7 and 10, 38% had first specified general practice as their preferred career when responding 1 year after graduation, 19% by year 3, 21% by year 5, and 22% after year 5. Job satisfaction was high and, generally, there was little difference between the first three groups (although, when different, the most positive responses were from the earliest choosers); but there were slightly lower levels of job satisfaction in the ‘more than 5 years’ group. For example, in response to the statement ‘I find enjoyment in my current post’, the percentages agreeing in the four groups, respectively, were 91.5%, 91.1%, 91.0% and 88.2%. In response to ‘I am doing interesting and challenging work’ the respective percentages were 90.2%, 88.0%, 86.6% and 82.6%.

Conclusions

Job satisfaction levels were generally high among the late choosers as well as the early choosers. On this evidence, most doctors who turn to general practice, after preferring another specialty in their early career, are likely to have a satisfying career.     

Patient-reported areas for quality improvement in general practice: a cross-sectional survey

Background

GPs are often a patient’s first point of contact with the health system. The increasing demands imposed on GPs may have an impact on the quality of care delivered. Patients are well placed to make judgements about aspects of care that need to be improved.

Aim

To determine whether general practice patients perceive that the care they receive is ‘patient-centred’ across eight domains of care, and to determine the association between sociodemographic, GP and practice characteristics, detection of preventive health risks, and receipt of patient-centred care.

Design and setting

Cross-sectional survey of patients attending Australian general practice clinics.

Method

Patients completed a touchscreen survey in the waiting room to rate the care received from their GP across eight domains of patient-centred care. Patients also completed the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and self-reported health risk factors. GPs completed a checklist for each patient asking about the presence of health risk factors.

Results

In total 1486 patients and 51 GPs participated. Overall, 83% of patients perceived that the care they received was patient-centred across all eight domains. Patients most frequently perceived the ‘access to health care when needed’ domain as requiring improvement (8.3%). Not having private health insurance and attending a practice located in a disadvantaged area were significantly associated with perceived need for improvements in care (P<0.05).

Conclusion

Patients in general practice report that accessibility is an aspect of care that could be improved. Further investigation of how indicators of lower socioeconomic status interact with the provision of patient-centred care and health outcomes is required.     

Accuracy of General Practitioners’ Assessment of Chest Pain Patients for Coronary Heart Disease in Primary Care: Cross-sectional Study with Follow-up

Aim

To estimate how accurately general practitioners’ (GP) assessed the probability of coronary heart disease in patients presenting with chest pain and analyze the patient management decisions taken as a result.

Methods

During 2005 and 2006, the cross-sectional diagnostic study with a delayed-type reference standard included 74 GPs in the German state of Hesse, who enrolled 1249 consecutive patients presenting with chest pain. GPs recorded symptoms and findings for each patient on a report form. Patients and GPs were contacted 6 weeks and 6 months after the patients’ visit to the GP. Data on chest complaints, investigations, hospitalization, and medication were reviewed by an independent panel, with coronary heart disease being the reference condition. Diagnostic properties (sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values) of the GPs’ diagnoses were calculated.

Results

GPs diagnosed coronary heart disease with the sensitivity of 69% (95% confidence interval [CI], 62-75) and specificity of 89% (95% CI, 87-91), and acute coronary syndrome with the sensitivity of 50% (95% CI, 36-64) and specificity of 98% (95% CI, 97-99). They assumed coronary heart disease in 245 patients, 41 (17%) of whom were referred to the hospital, 77 (31%) to a cardiologist, and 162 (66%) to electrocardiogram testing.

Conclusions

GPs’ evaluation of chest pain patients, based on symptoms and signs alone, was not sufficiently accurate for diagnosing or excluding coronary heart disease or acute coronary syndrome.When general practitioners (GP) treat patients with chest pain, they have to decide whether there is a serious underlying pathology requiring urgent action or whether a “wait and see” strategy can be applied. Chest pain can be caused by a wide range of different illnesses, among which life-threatening cardiac disease is of the greatest immediate concern (1,2). However, chest pain is caused by coronary heart disease (CHD) in only around 12-15% of primary care patients (3-5). For most of patients with chest pain, the GP remains the main point of entry into the health care system. The effectiveness of GPs’ gatekeeping role, ie, identifying patients with CHD and protecting patients from over-diagnosis and treatment, depends on the accuracy of their provisional diagnosis after taking the patient’s history and performing the basic clinical examination. So far, a limited number of studies have addressed this question (6-10). There is a need for additional data on GPs’ management decisions after assumed CHD diagnosis, derived from a large and consecutively recruited sample of chest pain patients in primary care.In this study, we aimed to investigate how accurately GPs’ assessed the probability of CHD in patients presenting with chest pain and to analyze management decisions taken as a result.     

Appropriateness of antidepressant prescribing: an observational study in a Scottish primary-care setting

Background

Since the 1990s, Scottish community-based antidepressant prescribing has increased substantially.

Aim

To assess whether GPs prescribe antidepressants appropriately.

Design of study

Observational study of adults (aged ≥16 years) screened with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) attending a GP.

Setting

Four practices in Grampian, Scotland.

Method

Patients (n = 898) completed the HADS, and GPs independently estimated depression status. Notes were scrutinised for evidence of antidepressant use, and the appropriateness of prescribing was assessed.

Results

A total of 237 (26%) participants had HADS scores indicating ‘possible’ (15%) or ‘probable’ (11%) depression. The proportion of participants rated as depressed by their GP differed significantly by HADS depression subscale scores. Odds ratio for ‘possible’ versus ‘no’ depression was 3.54 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.17 to 5.76, P<0.001); and for ‘probable’ versus ‘possible’ depression was 3.59 (95% CI = 2.06 to 6.26, P<0.001). Similarly, the proportion of participants receiving antidepressants differed significantly by HADS score. Odds ratio for ‘possible’ versus ‘no’ depression was 2.79 (95% CI = 1.70 to 4.58, P<0.001); and for ‘probable’ versus ‘possible’ was 2.12 (95% CI = 1.21 to 3.70, P = 0.009). In 101 participants with ‘probable’ depression, GPs recognised 53 (52%) participants as having a clinically significant depression. Inappropriate initiation of antidepressant treatment occurred very infrequently. Prescribing to participants who were not symptomatic was accounted for by the treatment of pain, anxiety, or relapse prevention, and for ongoing treatment of previously identified depression.

Conclusion

There was little evidence of prescribing without relevant indication. Around half of patients with significant symptoms were not identified by their GP as suffering from a depressive disorder: this varied inversely with severity ratings. Rather than prescribing indiscriminately (as has been widely assumed), it is likely that GPs are initiating antidepressant treatment conservatively.     

Motivation and satisfaction in GP training: a UK cross-sectional survey

Background

Recruitment to general practice has had periods of difficulty, but is currently going through a phase of relative popularity in the UK.

Aim

To explore motivators for career choice and career satisfaction among UK GP trainees and newly qualified GPs.

Design and setting

Cross-sectional web-based questionnaire of GP trainees and GPs within the first 5 years of qualification in the UK.

Method

All 9557 UK GP trainees and 8013 GPs who were within the first 5 years of qualification were invited to participate by email. Further publicity was conducted via general practice publications and the internet.

Results

Overall, there were 2178 responses to the questionnaire (12.4% response rate, 61.5% women, 61.8% trainees). Levels of satisfaction were high, with 83% of responders stating that they would choose to be a doctor again; of these, 95% would choose to be a GP again. The most frequently cited reason for choosing general practice was ‘compatibility with family life’, which was chosen by 76.6% of women and 63.2% of men (P<0.001). Other reasons given were: ‘challenging medically diverse discipline’ (women 59.8%, men 61.8%, P = 0.350), ‘the one-to-one care general practice offers’ (women 40.0%, men 41.2%, P = 0.570), ‘holistic approach’ (women 41.4%, men 30.1%, P<0.001), ‘autonomy and independence’ (women 18.0%, men 34.8%, P<0.001), ‘communication’ (women 20.6%, men 12.2%, P<0.001), ‘negative experiences in hospital’ (women 12.8%, men 9.8%, P= 0.036), and ‘good salary’ (women 7.8%, men 14.9%, P<0.001).

Conclusion

The most important reason for both women and men choosing general practice as a career in the UK is its compatibility with family life. As such, changes to UK primary care that decrease family compatibility could negatively impact on recruitment.     

Chest pain for coronary heart disease in general practice: clinical judgement and a clinical decision rule

Background

The Marburg Heart Score (MHS) is a simple, valid, and robust clinical decision rule assisting GPs in ruling out coronary heart disease (CHD) in patients presenting with chest pain.

Aim

To investigate whether using the rule adds to the GP’s clinical judgement.

Design and setting

A comparative diagnostic accuracy study was conducted using data from 832 consecutive patients with chest pain in general practice.

Method

Three diagnostic strategies were defined using the MHS: diagnosis based solely on the MHS; using the MHS as a triage test; and GP’s clinical judgement aided by the MHS. Their accuracy was compared with the GPs’ unaided clinical judgement.

Results

Sensitivity and specificity of the GPs’ unaided clinical judgement was 82.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 72.4 to 89.9) and 61.0% (95% CI = 56.7 to 65.2), respectively. In comparison, the sensitivity of the MHS was higher (difference 8.5%, 95% CI = −2.4 to 19.6) and the specificity was similar (difference −0.4%, 95% CI = −5.3 to 4.5); the sensitivity of the triage was similar (difference −1.5%, 95% CI = −9.8 to 7.0) and the specificity was higher (difference 11.6%, 95% CI = 7.8 to 15.4); and both the sensitivity and specificity of the aided clinical judgement were higher (difference 8.0%, 95% CI = −6.9 to 23.0 and 5.8%, 95% CI = −1.6 to 13.2, respectively).

Conclusion

Using the Marburg Heart Score for initial triage can improve the clinical diagnosis of CHD in general practice.