Diagnostic uncertainty in primary care: what is known about its communication, and what are the associated ethical issues?

How do we explain painful non-traumatic knee conditions to adolescents? A multiple-method study to develop credible explanations

BACKGROUND

Perceived diagnostic uncertainty can leave adolescents confused about their condition and impede their ability to understand "what's wrong with me". Our aim is to develop credible explanations about the condition for adolescents suffering from non-traumatic knee pain.

METHODS

This multiple-method study integrated findings from two systematic literature searches of qualitative and quantitative studies, an Argumentative Delphi with international experts (n = 16) and think-aloud interviews with adolescents (n = 16). Experts provided feedback with arguments on how to communicate credible explanations to meet adolescents' needs; we analysed feedback using thematic analysis. The explanations were tailored based on the adolescent end-users' input.

RESULTS

We screened 3239 titles/abstracts and included 16 papers exploring diagnostic uncertainty from adolescents' and parents' perspectives. Five themes were generated: (1) understanding causes and contributors to the pain experience, (2) feeling stigmatized for having an invisible condition, (3) having a name for pain, (4) controllability of pain, and (5) worried about something being missed. The Argumentative Delphi identified the following themes: (1) multidimensional perspective, (2) tailored to adolescents, (3) validation and reassurance, and (4) careful wording. Merging findings from the systematic search and the Delphi developed three essential domains to address in credible explanations: "What is non-traumatic knee pain and what does it mean?", "What is causing my knee pain?" and "How do I manage my knee pain?"

CONCLUSIONS

Six credible explanations for the six most common diagnoses of non-traumatic knee pain were developed. We identified three domains to consider when tailoring credible explanations to adolescents experiencing non-traumatic knee pain.

SIGNIFICANCE

This study provides credible explanations for the six most common diagnoses of non-traumatic knee pain. Additionally, we identified three key domains that may need to be addressed to reduce diagnostic uncertainty in adolescents suffering from pain complaints. Based on our findings, we believe that clinicians will benefit from exploring adolescents' own perceptions of why they experience pain and perceived management strategies, as this information might capture important clinical information when managing these young individuals.

Uncertainty in serious illness: A national interdisciplinary consensus exercise to identify clinical research priorities

BACKGROUND

Serious illness is characterised by uncertainty, particularly in older age groups. Uncertainty may be experienced by patients, family carers, and health professionals about a broad variety of issues. There are many evidence gaps regarding the experience and management of uncertainty.

AIM

We aimed to identify priority research areas concerning uncertainty in serious illness, to ensure that future research better meets the needs of those affected by uncertainty and reduce research inefficiencies.

METHODS

Rapid prioritisation workshop comprising five focus groups to identify research areas, followed by a ranking exercise to prioritise them. Participants were healthcare professionals caring for those with serious illnesses including geriatrics, palliative care, intensive care; researchers; patient/carer representatives, and policymakers. Descriptive analysis of ranking data and qualitative framework analysis of focus group transcripts was undertaken.

RESULTS

Thirty-four participants took part; 67% female, mean age 47 (range 33-67). The highest priority was communication of uncertainty, ranked first by 15 participants (overall ranking score 1.59/3). Subsequent priorities were: 2) How to cope with uncertainty; 3) healthcare professional education/training; 4) Optimising clinical approaches to uncertainty; and 5) exploring in-depth experiences of uncertainty. Research questions regarding optimal management of uncertainty were given higher priority than questions about experiences of uncertainty and its impact.

CONCLUSIONS

These co-produced, clinically-focused research priorities map out key evidence gaps concerning uncertainty in serious illness. Managing uncertainty is the most pressing issue, and researchers should prioritise how to optimally manage uncertainty in order to reduce distress, unlock decision paralysis and improve illness and care experience.

Understanding the patient's experience of coeliac disease diagnosis: a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

Coeliac disease (CD) presents with non-specific symptoms, and delays to diagnosis are common. The traditional diagnostic pathway involves serological testing followed by endoscopic biopsy; however, the evidence is increasing about the effectiveness of a diagnosis without the need for a biopsy.

AIM

To understand the patient's experience of being diagnosed with CD.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A qualitative study was conducted, which involved semi-structured interviews with adults diagnosed with CD living in the UK.

METHOD

Participants (n = 20) were purposefully sampled from 200 adults who had completed a diagnostic confidence survey. Interviews were conducted via video-conferencing software (Zoom), recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Interviewees faced pre-diagnostic uncertainty, presenting with non-specific symptoms that many experienced for several years and may have normalised. GPs often attributed their symptoms to alternative diagnoses, commonly, irritable bowel syndrome or anaemia. Investigations caused further uncertainty, with half of the interviewees unaware that their initial serology included a test for CD, and reporting long waits for endoscopy and challenges managing their diet around the procedure. Their uncertainty reduced once they received their biopsy results. Endoscopy was presented as the 'gold standard' for diagnosis and most interviewees believed that the procedure was necessary for diagnostic confidence and conviction in a lifelong gluten-free diet.

CONCLUSION

Patients experience uncertainty on the pathway to a diagnosis of CD. GPs could improve their experiences by being mindful of the possibility of CD and sharing information about serological testing. Policy and guidance should address the time to endoscopy and diet during diagnosis. If diagnosis without biopsy is adopted, then consideration should be given to clinical pathway implementation and communication approaches to reduce patient uncertainty.

How and why do doctors communicate diagnostic uncertainty: An experimental vignette study

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic uncertainty is common, but its communication to patients is under-explored. This study aimed to (1) characterise variation in doctors' communication of diagnostic uncertainty and (2) explore why variation occurred.

METHODS

Four written vignettes of clinical scenarios involving diagnostic uncertainty were developed. Doctors were recruited from five hospitals until theoretical saturation was reached (n = 36). Participants read vignettes in a randomised order, and were asked to discuss the diagnosis/plan with an online interviewer, as they would with a 'typical patient'. Semi-structured interviews explored reasons for communication choices. Interview transcripts were coded; quantitative and qualitative (thematic) analyses were undertaken.

RESULTS

There was marked variation in doctors' communication: in their discussion about differential diagnoses, their reference to the level of uncertainty in diagnoses/investigations and their acknowledgement of diagnostic uncertainty when safety-netting. Implicit expressions of uncertainty were more common than explicit. Participants expressed both different communication goals (including reducing patient anxiety, building trust, empowering patients and protecting against diagnostic errors) and different perspectives on how to achieve these goals. Training in diagnostic uncertainty communication is rare, but many felt it would be useful.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant variation in diagnostic uncertainty communication exists, even in a controlled setting. Differing communication goals-often grounded in conflicting ethical principles, for example, respect for autonomy versus nonmaleficence-and differing ideas on how to prioritise and achieve them may underlie this. The variation in communication behaviours observed has important implications for patient safety and health inequalities. Patient-focused research is required to guide practice.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

In the design stage of the study, two patient and public involvement groups (consisting of members of the public of a range of ages and backgrounds) were consulted to gain an understanding of patient perspectives on the concept of communicating diagnostic uncertainty. Their feedback informed the formulations of the research questions and the choice of vignettes used.

Improving general practice management of patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain: Interdisciplinarity, coherence, and concerns

OBJECTIVES

Management of patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) remains a challenge in general practice. The general practitioner (GP) often experiences diagnostic uncertainty despite frequently referring patients with CMP to specialized departments. Therefore, it remains imperative to gain insights on how to optimize and reframe the current setup for the management of patients with CMP. The objective was to explore GP's perspectives on the challenges, needs, and visions for improving the management of patients with CMP.

METHODS

A qualitative study with co-design using the future workshop approach. Eight GPs participated in the future workshop (five females). Insights and visions emerged from the GP's discussions and sharing of their experiences in managing patients with CMP. The audio-recorded data were subjected to thematic text analysis.

RESULTS

The thematic analysis revealed four main themes, including (1) challenges with current pain management, (2) barriers to pain management, (3) the need for a biopsychosocial perspective, and (4) solutions and visions. All challenges are related to the complexity and diagnostic uncertainty for this patient population. GPs experienced that the patients' biomedical understanding of their pain was a barrier for management and underlined the need for a biopsychosocial approach when managing the patients. The GPs described taking on the role of coordinators for their patients with CMP but could feel ill-equipped to handle diagnostic uncertainty. An interdisciplinary unit was recommended as a possible solution to introduce a biopsychosocial approach for the examination, diagnosis, and management of the patient's CMP.

CONCLUSIONS

The complexity and diagnostic uncertainty of patients with CMP warrants a revision of the current setup. Establishing an interdisciplinary unit using a biopsychosocial approach was recommended as an option to improve the current management for patients with CMP.

Understanding diagnostic conversations in clinical practice: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Summarize frameworks to understand diagnostic conversations and assessments of diagnostic conversations in practice.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane, and other databases from inception to July 2022 for reports of diagnostic conversations. Two authors independently reviewed studies for eligibility, assessed methodological quality with the mixed methods appraisal tool and extracted information related to study characteristics, frameworks and components evaluated in assessments of diagnostic conversations and results.

RESULTS

Eight studies were included. One study reported an empiric framework of diagnostic conversations that included the following components: identifying the problem that requires diagnosis, obtaining information, and delivering the diagnosis and treatment plan. Thematic analyses highlighted communication between patients and clinicians as central in diagnostic conversations as it allows a) patient's presentation of their symptoms which guide subsequent diagnostic steps, b) negotiation of the significance of the patient's symptoms through conversation and c) introducing and resolving diagnostic uncertainty.

CONCLUSION

Despite the importance of diagnostic conversation only one empiric framework described its components. Additionally, limited available evidence suggests patients can have an important role in the diagnostic process that expands beyond patients as an information source.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Patients should be included as active partners in co-development of diagnostic plans of care.

Developing a Framework and Electronic Tool for Communicating Diagnostic Uncertainty in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study

IMPORTANCE

Communication of information has emerged as a critical component of diagnostic quality. Communication of diagnostic uncertainty represents a key but inadequately examined element of diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE

To identify key elements facilitating understanding and managing diagnostic uncertainty, examine optimal ways to convey uncertainty to patients, and develop and test a novel tool to communicate diagnostic uncertainty in actual clinical encounters.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A 5-stage qualitative study was performed between July 2018 and April 2020, at an academic primary care clinic in Boston, Massachusetts, with a convenience sample of 24 primary care physicians (PCPs), 40 patients, and 5 informatics and quality/safety experts. First, a literature review and panel discussion with PCPs were conducted and 4 clinical vignettes of typical diagnostic uncertainty scenarios were developed. Second, these scenarios were tested during think-aloud simulated encounters with expert PCPs to iteratively draft a patient leaflet and a clinician guide. Third, the leaflet content was evaluated with 3 patient focus groups. Fourth, additional feedback was obtained from PCPs and informatics experts to iteratively redesign the leaflet content and workflow. Fifth, the refined leaflet was integrated into an electronic health record voice-enabled dictation template that was tested by 2 PCPs during 15 patient encounters for new diagnostic problems. Data were thematically analyzed using qualitative analysis software.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Perceptions and testing of content, feasibility, usability, and satisfaction with a prototype tool for communicating diagnostic uncertainty to patients.

RESULTS

Overall, 69 participants were interviewed. A clinician guide and a diagnostic uncertainty communication tool were developed based on the PCP interviews and patient feedback. The optimal tool requirements included 6 key domains: most likely diagnosis, follow-up plan, test limitations, expected improvement, contact information, and space for patient input. Patient feedback on the leaflet was iteratively incorporated into 4 successive versions, culminating in a successfully piloted prototype tool as an end-of-visit voice recognition dictation template with high levels of patient satisfaction for 15 patients with whom the tool was tested.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this qualitative study, a diagnostic uncertainty communication tool was successfully designed and implemented during clinical encounters. The tool demonstrated good workflow integration and patient satisfaction.

Communication of Diagnostic Uncertainty in Primary Care and Its Impact on Patient Experience: an Integrative Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic uncertainty is a pervasive issue in primary care where patients often present with non-specific symptoms early in the disease process. Knowledge about how clinicians communicate diagnostic uncertainty to patients is crucial to prevent associated diagnostic errors. Yet, in-depth research on the interpersonal communication of diagnostic uncertainty has been limited. We conducted an integrative systematic literature review (PROSPERO CRD42020197624, unfunded) to investigate how primary care doctors communicate diagnostic uncertainty in interactions with patients and how patients experience their care in the face of uncertainty.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Linguistics and Language Behaviour Abstracts (LLBA) from inception to December 2021 for MeSH and keywords related to 'communication', 'diagnosis', 'uncertainty' and 'primary care' environments and stakeholders (patients and doctors), and conducted additional handsearching. We included empirical primary care studies published in English on spoken communication of diagnostic uncertainty by doctors to patients. We assessed risk of bias with the QATSDD quality assessment tool and conducted thematic and content analysis to synthesise the results.

RESULTS

Inclusion criteria were met for 19 out of 1281 studies. Doctors used two main communication strategies to manage diagnostic uncertainty: (1) patient-centred communication strategies (e.g. use of empathy), and (2) diagnostic reasoning strategies (e.g. excluding serious diagnoses). Linguistically, diagnostic uncertainty was either disclosed explicitly or implicitly through diverse lexical and syntactical constructions, or not communicated (omission). Patients' experiences of care in response to the diverse communicative and linguistic strategies were mixed. Patient-centred approaches were generally regarded positively by patients.

DISCUSSION

Despite a small number of included studies, this is the first review to systematically catalogue the diverse communication and linguistic strategies to express diagnostic uncertainty in primary care. Health professionals should be aware of the diverse strategies used to express diagnostic uncertainty in practice and the value of combining patient-centred approaches with diagnostic reasoning strategies.

Efficacy of a Decision Support Intervention on Decisional Conflict Related to Hepatocellular Cancer Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial

The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of decision support intervention on treatment knowledge, decision self-efficacy, decisional conflict, and decision satisfaction in patients with hepatocellular cancer. The study was a randomized controlled trial. In all, 69 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) were recruited and randomly assigned to a decision support group or a control group. Data were collected at baseline, post-test, and follow-up using self-report questionnaires. After controlling for baseline scores, the between-group difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) for treatment-related knowledge in post-test scores was 11.9 (6.1, 17.8). After controlling for baseline scores, the between-group difference (95% CI) for decisional conflict was -7.0 (-12.0, -2.0). There was no statistically significant between-group difference in decision self-efficacy and decision satisfaction. Findings supported the efficacy of decision support intervention to improve treatment knowledge and reduce decisional conflict but had no significant effect on decision self-efficacy and decision satisfaction in patients with HCC.

How do electronic risk assessment tools affect the communication and understanding of diagnostic uncertainty in the primary care consultation? A systematic review and thematic synthesis

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review and synthesise qualitative research of electronic risk assessment tools (eRATs) in primary care, examining how they affect the communication and understanding of diagnostic risk and uncertainty. eRATs are computer-based algorithms designed to help clinicians avoid missing important diagnoses, pick up possible symptoms early and facilitate shared decision-making.

DESIGN

Systematic search, using predefined criteria of the published literature and synthesis of the qualitative data, using Thematic Synthesis. Database searches on 27 November 2019 were of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science, and a secondary search of the references of included articles. Included studies were those involving electronic risk assessment or decision support, pertaining to diagnosis in primary care, where qualitative data were presented. Non-empirical studies and non-English language studies were excluded. 5971 unique studies were identified of which 441 underwent full-text review. 26 studies were included for data extraction. A further two were found from citation searches. Quality appraisal was via the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Program) tool. Data extraction was via line by line coding. A thematic synthesis was performed.

SETTING

Primary care.

RESULTS

eRATs included differential diagnosis suggestion tools, tools which produce a future risk of disease development or recurrence or calculate a risk of current undiagnosed disease. Analytical themes were developed to describe separate aspects of the clinical consultation where risk and uncertainty are both central and altered via the use of an eRAT: 'Novel risk', 'Risk refinement', 'Autonomy', 'Communication', 'Fear' and 'Mistrust'.

CONCLUSION

eRATs may improve the understanding and communication of risk in the primary care consultation. The themes of 'Fear' and 'Mistrust' could represent potential challenges with eRATs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD219446.

Anatomy of diagnosis in a clinical encounter: how clinicians discuss uncertainty with patients

Background

Studies consider the clinical encounter as linear, comprising six phases (opening, problem presentation, history-taking, physical examination, diagnosis, treatment and closing). This study utilizes formal conversation analysis to explore patient-physician interactions and understanding diagnostic utterances during these phases.

Methods

This study is a qualitative sub-analysis that explores how the diagnosis process, along with diagnostic uncertainty, are addressed during 28 urgent care visits. We analyzed physicians’ hypothesis-generation process by focusing on: location of diagnostic utterances during the encounter; whether certain/uncertain diagnostic utterances were revised throughout the encounter; and how physicians tested their hypothesis-generation and managed uncertainty. We recruited 7 primary care physicians (PCPs) and their 28 patients from Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) in 3 urgent care settings. Encounters were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded using NVivo12 qualitative data analysis software. Data were analyzed inductively and deductively, using formal content and conversation analysis.

Results

We identified 62 diagnostic communication utterances in 12 different clinical situations. In most (24/28, 86%) encounters, the diagnosis process was initiated before the diagnosis phase (57% during history taking and 64% during physical examination). In 17 encounters (61%), a distinct diagnosis phase was not observed. Findings show that the diagnosis process is nonlinear in two ways. First, nonlinearity was observed when diagnostic utterances occurred throughout the encounter, with the six encounter phases overlapping, integrating elements of one phase with another. Second, nonlinearity was noted with respect to the resolution of diagnostic uncertainty, with physicians acknowledging uncertainty when explaining their diagnostic reasoning, even during brief encounters.

Conclusions

Diagnosis is often more interactive and nonlinear, and expressions of diagnostic assessments can occur at any point during an encounter, allowing more flexible and potentially more patient-centered communication. These findings are relevant for physicians’ training programs and helping clinicians improve their communication skills in managing uncertain diagnoses.

Shared decision-making between older people with multimorbidity and GPs: focus group study

Background

Shared decision making (SDM), utilising the expertise of both patient and clinician, is a key feature of good-quality patient care. Multimorbidity can complicate SDM, yet few studies have explored this dynamic for older patients with multimorbidity in general practice.

Aim

To explore factors influencing SDM from the perspectives of older patients with multimorbidity and GPs, to inform improvements in personalised care.

Design and setting

Qualitative study. General practices (rural and urban) in Devon, England.

Method

Four focus groups: two with patients (aged ≥65 years with multimorbidity) and two with GPs. Data were coded inductively by applying thematic analysis.

Results

Patient acknowledgement of clinician medicolegal vulnerability in the context of multimorbidity, and their recognition of this as a barrier to SDM, is a new finding. Medicolegal vulnerability was a unifying theme for other reported barriers to SDM. These included expectations for GPs to follow clinical guidelines, challenges encountered in applying guidelines and in communicating clinical uncertainty, and limited clinician self-efficacy for SDM. Increasing consultation duration and improving continuity were viewed as facilitators.

Conclusion

Clinician perceptions of medicolegal vulnerability are recognised by both patients and GPs as a barrier to SDM and should be addressed to optimise delivery of personalised care. Greater awareness of multimorbidity guidelines is needed. Educating clinicians in the communication of uncertainty should be a core component of SDM training. The incorrect perception that most clinicians already effectively facilitate SDM should be addressed to improve the uptake of personalised care interventions.

Clinical decision support in primary care for better diagnosis and management of retinal disease

Misdiagnosis of retinal disease is a common problem in primary care that can lead to irreversible vision loss and false-positive referrals, resulting in inappropriate use of health services. Clinical decision support systems describe tools that leverage information technology to provide timely recommendations that assist clinicians in the decisions they make about the care of a patient. They, therefore, have the potential to reduce the rate of misdiagnosis by promoting evidence-based medicine and more effective and efficient healthcare. This narrative review aims to support primary care practitioners in better understanding the current and emerging capacity of clinical decision support systems in eye care. Different types of clinical decision support systems are discussed, using current examples and evidence from the available literature to demonstrate how they may improve diagnostic effectiveness and aid the management of retinal disease. Comments are made on the future directions of clinical decision support in primary eye care and the potential applications of artificial intelligence.

Patient and clinician experiences of uncertainty in the diagnostic process: Current understanding and future directions

OBJECTIVE

Uncertainty occurs throughout the diagnostic process and must be managed to facilitate accurate and timely diagnoses and treatments. Better characterization of uncertainty can inform strategies to manage it more effectively in clinical practice. We provide a comprehensive overview of current literature on diagnosis-related uncertainty describing (1) where patients and clinicians experience uncertainty within the diagnostic process, (2) how uncertainty affects the diagnostic process, (3) roots of uncertainty related to probability/risk, ambiguity, or complexity, and (4) strategies to manage uncertainty.

DISCUSSION

Each diagnostic process step involves uncertainty, including patient engagement with the healthcare system; information gathering, interpretation, and integration; formulating working diagnoses; and communicating diagnoses to patients. General management strategies include acknowledging uncertainty, obtaining more contextual information from patients (e.g., gathering occupations and family histories), creating diagnostic safety nets (e.g., informing patients what red flags to look for), engaging in worst case/best case scenario planning, and communicating diagnostic uncertainty to patients, families, and colleagues. Potential strategies tailored to various aspects of diagnostic uncertainty are also outlined.

CONCLUSION

Scientific knowledge on diagnostic uncertainty, while previously elusive, is now becoming more clearly defined. Next steps include research to evaluate relationships between management and communication of diagnostic uncertainty and improved patient outcomes.