The early diagnosis of cancer in primary care: A qualitative exploration of the patient's role and acceptable safety-netting strategies

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.

Patients' and clinicians' views on the appropriate use of safety-netting advice in consultations-an interview study from Sweden

BACKGROUND

A promising approach to manage clinical uncertainty and thereby reduce the risk of preventable diagnostic harm is to use safety-netting advice (ie, communicating structured information to patients about when and where to reconsult healthcare).

AIM

To explore clinicians' and patients' views on when and how safety-netting can be successfully applied in primary-care and emergency-care settings.

DESIGN AND SETTING

An exploratory qualitative research design; we performed focus groups and interviews in a Swedish setting.

PARTICIPANTS

Nine physicians working in primary or emergency care and eight patients or caregivers participated. The participants were an ethnically homogeneous group, originating from Western European or Australian backgrounds.

METHOD

Data were analysed inductively, using the framework method. The results are reported according to the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research guidelines for reporting qualitative research.

RESULTS

In order to manage diagnostic uncertainty using safety-netting, clinicians and patients emphasised the need to understand the preconditions for the consultation (ie, the healthcare setting, the patient's capacity and existing power imbalance). Furthermore, participants raised the importance of establishing a mutual understanding regarding the patient's perspective and the severity of the situation before engaging in safety-netting advice.

CONCLUSION

The establishment of a shared mental model between clinician and patient of the preconditions for the clinical encounter is a vital factor affecting how safety-netting advice is communicated and received and its ability to support patients in problem detection and planning after the visit. We suggest that successful safety-netting can be viewed as a team activity, where the clinician and patient collaborate in monitoring how the patient's condition progresses after the care visit. Furthermore, our findings suggest that to be successfully implemented, safety-netting advice needs to be tailored to the clinical context in general and to the patient-clinician encounter in particular.

Partnering with patients and families living with chronic conditions to coproduce diagnostic safety through OurDX: a previsit online engagement tool

OBJECTIVE

Patients and families are key partners in diagnosis, but methods to routinely engage them in diagnostic safety are lacking. Policy mandating patient access to electronic health information presents new opportunities. We tested a new online tool ("OurDX") that was codesigned with patients and families, to determine the types and frequencies of potential safety issues identified by patients/families with chronic health conditions and whether their contributions were integrated into the visit note.

METHODS

Patients/families at 2 US healthcare sites were invited to contribute, through an online previsit survey: (1) visit priorities, (2) recent medical history/symptoms, and (3) potential diagnostic concerns. Two physicians reviewed patient-reported diagnostic concerns to verify and categorize diagnostic safety opportunities (DSOs). We conducted a chart review to determine whether patient contributions were integrated into the note. We used descriptive statistics to report implementation outcomes, verification of DSOs, and chart review findings.

RESULTS

Participants completed OurDX reports in 7075 of 18 129 (39%) eligible pediatric subspecialty visits (site 1), and 460 of 706 (65%) eligible adult primary care visits (site 2). Among patients reporting diagnostic concerns, 63% were verified as probable DSOs. In total, probable DSOs were identified by 7.5% of pediatric and adult patients/families with underlying health conditions, respectively. The most common types of DSOs were patients/families not feeling heard; problems/delays with tests or referrals; and problems/delays with explanation or next steps. In chart review, most clinician notes included all or some patient/family priorities and patient-reported histories.

CONCLUSIONS

OurDX can help engage patients and families living with chronic health conditions in diagnosis. Participating patients/families identified DSOs and most of their OurDX contributions were included in the visit note.

Barriers to Early Presentation amongst Rural Residents Experiencing Symptoms of Colorectal Cancer: A Qualitative Interview Study

Rural cancer inequalities are evident internationally, with rural cancer patients 5% less likely to survive than their urban counterparts. There is evidence to suggest that diagnostic delays prior to entry into secondary care may be contributing to these poorer rural cancer outcomes. This study explores the symptom appraisal and help-seeking decision-making of people experiencing symptoms of colorectal cancer in rural areas of England. Patients were randomly invited from 4 rural practices, serving diverse communities. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 40 people who had experienced symptoms of colorectal cancer in the preceding 8 weeks. Four key themes were identified as influential in participants' willingness and timeliness of consultation: a desire to rule out cancer (facilitator of help-seeking); stoicism and self-reliance (barrier to help-seeking); time scarcity (barrier to help-seeking); and GP/patient relationship (barrier or facilitator, depending on perceived strength of the relationship). Self-employed, and "native" rural residents most commonly reported experiencing time scarcity and poor GP/patient relationships as a barrier to (re-)consultation. Targeted, active safety-netting approaches, and increased continuity of care, may be particularly beneficial to expedite timely diagnoses and minimise cancer inequalities for rural populations.

What are the similarities and differences in lung cancer symptom appraisal and help-seeking according to smoking status? A qualitative study with lung cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

Lung cancer in never-smokers represents a growing proportion of patients. The relationship between smoking status, symptom appraisal and help-seeking behaviour is complex. Little is known about cancer symptom-related health behaviours according to smoking status. The aim of the study was to explore lung cancer patients' experiences of a lung cancer diagnosis, identifying differences by smoking history.

METHOD

This was a qualitative study involving telephone interviews with 40 lung cancer patients (20 never smokers, 11 former smokers and 9 current smokers). We used framework analysis to analyse the data using the Common Sense Model of Illness Self-Regulation as a theoretical framework, developed after initial analysis.

RESULTS

All patients were likely to delay seeking help for symptoms in primary care regardless of smoking history, but for different reasons. Smoking history was instrumental to how individuals perceived and responded to early symptoms of lung cancer. Differences in interpretation and coping responses to new symptoms seemed to be caused by the higher presence of comorbidities due to smoking, and perceptions of the current state of health. Individuals with a smoking history reported acting with urgency in seeking help and follow up, whereas patients who experienced low levels of concern were more easily reassured by clinicians, resulting in delays.

CONCLUSIONS

Never and former smokers perceive, interpret, and respond to symptoms of lung cancer differently to smokers. However, few people attribute their lung symptoms to cancer initially, even with a smoking history. Interventions that drive increased urgency and vigilance in never smokers may be effective.

How does safety netting for lung cancer symptoms help patients to reconsult appropriately? A qualitative study

Background

Safety netting in primary care is considered an important intervention for managing diagnostic uncertainty. This is the first study to examine how patients understand and interpret safety netting advice around low-risk potential lung cancer symptoms, and how this affects reconsultation behaviours.

Methods

Qualitative interview study in UK primary care. Pre-covid-19, five patients were interviewed in person within 2–3 weeks of a primary care consultation for potential lung cancer symptom(s), and again 2–5 months later. The general practitioner (GP) they last saw was interviewed face-to-face once. During the covid-19 pandemic, an additional 15 patients were interviewed only once via telephone, and their GPs were not interviewed or contacted in any way. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive thematic analysis.

Results

The findings from our thematic analysis suggest that patients prefer active safety netting, as part of thorough and logical diagnostic uncertainty management. Passive or ambiguous safety netting may be perceived as dismissive and cause delayed reconsultation. GP safety netting strategies are not always understood, potentially causing patient worry and dissatisfaction. Telephone consultations and the diagnostic overshadowing of COVID-19 on respiratory symptoms impacted GPs’ safety netting strategies and patients’ appetite for active follow up measures.

Conclusions

Safety netting guidelines do not yet offer solutions that have been proven to promote symptom vigilance and timely reconsultation for low-risk lung cancer symptoms. This may have been affected by primary care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients prefer active or pre-planned safety netting coupled with thorough consultation techniques and a comprehensible diagnostic strategy, and may respond adversely to passive safety netting advice.

Optimising GPs' communication of advice to facilitate patients' self-care and prompt follow-up when the diagnosis is uncertain: a realist review of 'safety-netting' in primary care

BACKGROUND

Safety-netting has become best practice when dealing with diagnostic uncertainty in primary care. Its use, however, is highly varied and a lack of evidence-based guidance on its communication could be harming its effectiveness and putting patient safety at risk.

OBJECTIVE

To use a realist review method to produce a programme theory of safety-netting, that is, advice and support provided to patients when diagnosis or prognosis is uncertain, in primary care.

METHODS

Five electronic databases, web searches, and grey literature were searched for studies assessing outcomes related to understanding and communicating safety-netting advice or risk communication, or the ability of patients to self-care and re-consult when appropriate. Characteristics of included documents were extracted into an Excel spreadsheet, and full texts uploaded into NVivo and coded. A random 10% sample was independently double -extracted and coded. Coded data wasere synthesised and itstheir ability to contribute an explanation for the contexts, mechanisms, or outcomes of effective safety-netting communication considered. Draft context, mechanism and outcome configurations (CMOCs) were written by the authors and reviewed by an expert panel of primary care professionals and patient representatives.

RESULTS

95 documents contributed to our CMOCs and programme theory. Effective safety-netting advice should be tailored to the patient and provide practical information for self-care and reconsultation. The importance of ensuring understanding and agreement with advice was highlighted, as was consideration of factors such as previous experiences with healthcare, the patient's personal circumstances and the consultation setting. Safety-netting advice should be documented in sufficient detail to facilitate continuity of care.

CONCLUSIONS

We present 15 recommendations to enhance communication of safety-netting advice and map these onto established consultation models. Effective safety-netting communication relies on understanding the information needs of the patient, barriers to acceptance and explanation of the reasons why the advice is being given. Reduced continuity of care, increasing multimorbidity and remote consultations represent threats to safety-netting communication.

The Shared Safety Net Action Plan (SSNAP): a co-designed intervention to promote greater involvement of patients to support the timely diagnosis of cancer in primary care

Background

Safety netting in primary care may help diagnose cancer earlier, but it is unclear what the format and content of an acceptable safety-netting intervention would be. This project aimed to co-design a safety-netting intervention with and for primary care patients and staff.

Aim

This work sought to address how a safety-netting intervention would be implemented in practice; and, if and how a safety-netting intervention would be acceptable to all stakeholders.

Design and setting

Patient representatives, GPs, and nurse practitioners were invited to a series of co-design workshops. Patients who had and had not received a diagnosis of cancer and primary care practices took part in separate focus groups.

Method

Three workshops using creative co-design processes developed the format and content of the intervention prototype. The COM-B Framework underpinned five focus groups to establish views on capability, opportunity, and motivation to use the intervention to assist with prototype refinement.

Results

Workshops and focus groups suggested the intervention format and content should incorporate visual and written communication specifying clear timelines for monitoring symptoms and when to present back; be available in paper and electronic forms linked to existing computer systems; and be able to be delivered within a 10-minute consultation. Intervention use themes included ‘building confidence through partnership’, ‘using familiar and current procedures and systems’, and ‘seeing value’.

Conclusion

The Shared Safety Net Action Plan (SSNAP) — a safety-netting intervention to assist the timely diagnosis of cancer in primary care, was successfully co-designed with and for patients and primary care staff.

Factors affecting the documentation of spoken safety-netting advice in routine GP consultations: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have reported how often safety-netting is documented in medical records, but it is not known how this compares with what is verbalised and what factors might influence the consistency of documentation.

AIM

To compare spoken and documented safety-netting advice and to explore factors associated with documentation.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A cross-sectional study, using an existing GP consultations archive.

METHOD

Observational coding involving classifying and quantifying medical record entries and comparison with spoken safety-netting advice in 295 video-/audio-recorded consultations. Associations were tested using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Two-thirds of consultations (192/295) contained spoken safety-netting advice that applied to less than half of the problems assessed (242/516). Only one-third of consultations (94/295) had documented safety-netting advice, which covered 20.3% of problems (105/516). The practice of GPs varied widely, from those that did not document their safety-netting advice to those that nearly always did so (86.7%). GPs were more likely to document their safety-netting advice for new problems (P = 0.030), when only a single problem was discussed in a consultation (P = 0.040), and when they gave specific rather than generic safety-netting advice (P = 0.007). In consultations where multiple problems were assessed (n = 139), the frequency of spoken and documented safety-netting advice decreased the later a problem was assessed.

CONCLUSION

GPs frequently do not document the safety-netting advice they have given to patients, which may have medicolegal implications in the event of an untoward incident. GPs should consider how safely they can assess and document more than one problem in a single consultation and this risk should be shared with patients to help manage expectations.