Blood tests in primary care: A qualitative study of communication and decision-making between doctors and patients

GPs' perspectives on diagnostic tests for children: a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

Most healthcare contacts for children in the UK occur in general practice. Diagnostic tests can be beneficial in narrowing differential diagnoses; however, there is substantial variation in the use of tests for children in general practice. Unwarranted variation in testing can lead to variation in quality of care and may exacerbate health inequities. To our knowledge, no previous study has tried to understand why variation in testing exists for children in general practice.

AIM

To explore GPs' perspectives on using diagnostic tests for children in primary care and the underlying drivers of variation.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Qualitative study in which semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs and trainee GPs in England.

METHOD

Interviews were conducted with 18 GPs and two trainee GPs between April and June 2023. The interviews were transcribed and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

GPs reflected that their approach to testing in children differed from their approach to testing in adults: their threshold to test was higher, and their threshold to refer to specialists was lower. GPs' perceptions of test utility varied, including objective testing for asthma. Perceived drivers of variation in testing were intrinsic (clinician-specific) factors relating to their risk tolerance and experience; and extrinsic factors, including disease prevalence, parental concern and expectations of health care, workforce changes leading to fragmentation in care, time constraints, and differences in guidelines.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study identify actionable issues for clinicians, researchers, and policymakers to address gaps in education, evidence, and guidance, reduce unwarranted differences in test use, and improve the quality of health care delivered to children in general practice.

Adipose Dysfunction Indices as a Key to Cardiometabolic Risk Assessment-A Population-Based Study of Post-Myocardial Infarction Patients

Anthropometric indices, such as the BMI (body mass index), WC (waist circumference), and WHR (waist-hip ratio) are commonly used for cardiometabolic risk assessment. Consequently, in the context of evaluating cardiometabolic risk in the post-MI population, it is worthwhile to consider indices such as the Visceral Adiposity Index (VAI) and Body Adiposity Index (BAI), which have emerged as valuable risk assessment tools in clinical trials. The aim of this study was to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the importance of anthropometric indices and body composition analysis in evaluating the cardiometabolic risk among post-myocardial infarction patients. In the pursuit of this objective, this study involved assessing the BMI, WC, WHR, WHtR, VAI, BAI, and body composition in a population of patients. This study enrolled a total of 120 patients hospitalised at the Silesian Centre for Heart Diseases (SCCS) due to MI, and body composition analysis evaluated various parameters including the percentage of adipose tissue (FatP) [%], total adipose tissue (FatM) [kg], fat-free mass (FFM) [kg], muscle mass (PMM) [kg], total body water (TBW) [kg], and visceral adipose tissue (VFAT). The mean BMI for the entire group was 27.76 ± 4.08, with women exhibiting a significantly lower value compared with men (26.66 ± 3.33 vs. 28.16 ± 4.27). The mean values obtained for the WHR, WHtR, BAI, and VAI were 0.97 ± 0.08, 0.59 ± 0.07, 28.37 ± 5.03, and 3.08 ± 3.50, respectively. Based on the visceral adiposity index (VAI), in 47.5% patients, there was no adipose tissue dysfunction, with a higher proportion among women (71.88%) compared with men (38.64%). What raises concern is that 32.50% of patients had acute ATD, with a significantly higher prevalence among men (38.64%) compared with women (15.63%). Conclusion: The study results suggest that the BMI, WC, and WHR have their limitations, whereas the WHtR, VAI, and BAI provide a more comprehensive view of cardiometabolic risk, especially in the context of adipose tissue distribution and its metabolic consequences. Incorporating the WHtR, VAI, and BAI into routine clinical practice may enhance the management of cardiometabolic risk, especially among post-MI patients.

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.

Exploration of reasons for primary care testing (the Why Test study): a UK-wide audit using the Primary care Academic CollaboraTive

BACKGROUND

Rates of blood testing have increased over the past two decades. Reasons for testing cannot easily be extracted from electronic health record databases.

AIM

To explore who requests blood tests and why, and what the outcomes of testing are in UK primary care.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A retrospective audit of electronic health records in general practices in England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland was undertaken.

METHOD

Fifty-seven clinicians from the Primary care Academic CollaboraTive (PACT) each reviewed the electronic health records of 50 patients who had blood tests in April 2021. Anonymised data were extracted including patient characteristics, who requested the tests, reasons for testing, test results, and outcomes of testing.

RESULTS

Data were collected from 2572 patients across 57 GP practices. The commonest reasons for testing in primary care were investigation of symptoms (43.2%), monitoring of existing disease (30.1%), monitoring of existing medications (10.1%), and follow up of previous abnormalities (6.8%); patient requested testing was rare in this study (1.5%). Abnormal and borderline results were common, with 26.6% of patients having completely normal test results. Around one-quarter of tests were thought to be partially or fully unnecessary when reviewed retrospectively by a clinical colleague. Overall, 6.2% of tests in primary care led to a new diagnosis or confirmation of a diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

The utilisation of a national collaborative model (PACT) has enabled a unique exploration of the rationale and outcomes of blood testing in primary care, highlighting areas for future research and optimisation.