Investigating the impact of extraneous distractions on consultations in general practice: lessons learned

Diagnostic Delay and Disease Burden in Primary Aldosteronism: An International Patient Survey

BACKGROUND

Primary aldosteronism (PA) is a common but underdiagnosed cause of hypertension. Many patients experience preventable end-organ injury due to delayed or missed diagnosis but data on the experience of patients are limited.

METHODS

We evaluated the lived experience of PA and determines factors associated with diagnostic delay through an international anonymous online cross-sectional survey, codesigned by researchers and PA consumers. We distributed the survey through academic medical centers, Amazon Mechanical Turk, Twitter, PA patient advocacy groups, and hypertension support groups on Facebook between March 21 and June 5, 2022.

RESULTS

Of 684 eligible respondents, 66.5% were women. Diagnostic delay (defined as ≥5 years between the diagnosis of hypertension and PA) was reported in 35.6%. Delay was more likely in women than in men (odds ratio, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.10-2.20]) and respondents with ≥3 comorbidities versus none (odds ratio, 1.77 [95% CI, 1.05-3.02]), ≥10 symptoms versus none (odds ratio, 2.73 [95% CI, 1.74-4.44]), and on ≥4 antihypertensive medications versus none (odds ratio, 18.23 [95% CI, 6.24-77.72]). Three-quarters of patients (74.4%) experienced reduced symptom burden following targeted PA treatment. Quality of life improved in 62.3% of patients, and greater improvement was associated with being a woman (odds ratio, 1.42, [95% CI, 1.02-1.97]), receiving adrenalectomy (odds ratio, 2.36 [95% CI, 1.67-3.35]), and taking fewer antihypertensive medications following diagnosis (odds ratio, 5.28 [95% CI, 3.55-7.90]).

CONCLUSIONS

One-third of patients with PA experienced prolonged diagnostic delays. Targeted treatment led to reduced symptom burden and improved quality of life. Gender differences in diagnostic delay and symptom burden are prominent. These findings suggest that routine screening for PA at the onset of hypertension may reduce diagnostic delay and facilitate timely diagnosis.

Physician Associate and General Practitioner Consultations: A Comparative Observational Video Study

Background

Physician associates, known internationally as physician assistants, are a mid-level practitioner, well established in the United States of America but new to the United Kingdom. A small number work in primary care under the supervision of general practitioners, where they most commonly see patients requesting same day appointments for new problems. As an adjunct to larger study, we investigated the quality of the patient consultation of physician associates in comparison to that of general practitioners.

Method

We conducted a comparative observational study using video recordings of consultations by volunteer physician associates and general practitioners with consenting patients in single surgery sessions. Recordings were assessed by experienced general practitioners, blinded to the type of the consulting practitioner, using the Leicester Assessment Package. Assessors were asked to comment on the safety of the recorded consultations and to attempt to identify the type of practitioner. Ratings were compared across practitioner type, alongside the number of presenting complaints discussed in each consultation and the number of these which were acute, minor, or regarding a chronic condition.

Results

We assessed 62 consultations (41 general practitioner and 21 physician associates) from five general practitioners and four physician associates. All consultations were assessed as safe; but general practitioners were rated higher than PAs in all elements of consultation. The general practitioners were more likely than physician associates to see people with multiple presenting complaints (p<0.0001) and with chronic disease related complaints (p = 0.008). Assessors correctly identified general practitioner consultations but not physician associates. The Leicester Assessment Package had limited inter-rater and intra-rater reliability.

Conclusions

The physician associate consultations were with a less complex patient group. They were judged as competent and safe, although general practitioner consultations, unsurprisingly, were rated as more competent. Physician associates offer a complementary addition to the medical workforce in general practice.

Rating general practitioner consultation performance in cancer care: does the specialty of assessors matter? A simulated patient study

Background

Patients treated for prostate cancer may present to general practitioners (GPs) for treatment follow up, but may be reticent to have their consultations recorded. Therefore the use of simulated patients allows practitioner consultations to be rated. The aim of this study was to determine whether the speciality of the assessor has an impact on how GP consultation performance is rated.

Methods

Six pairs of scenarios were developed for professional actors in two series of consultations by GPs. The scenarios included: chronic radiation proctitis, Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) ‘bounce’, recurrence of cancer, urethral stricture, erectile dysfunction and depression or anxiety. Participating GPs were furnished with the patient’s past medical history, current medication, prostate cancer details and treatment, details of physical examinations. Consultations were video recorded and assessed for quality by two sets of assessors- a team of two GPs and two Radiation Oncologists deploying the Leicester Assessment Package (LAP). LAP scores by the GPs and Radiation Oncologists were compared.

Results

Eight GPs participated. In Series 1 the range of LAP scores by GP assessors was 61%-80%, and 67%-86% for Radiation Oncologist assessors. The range for GP LAP scores in Series 2 was 51%- 82%, and 56%-89% for Radiation Oncologist assessors. Within GP assessor correlations for LAP scores were 0.31 and 0.87 in Series 1 and 2 respectively. Within Radiation Oncologist assessor correlations were 0.50 and 0.72 in Series 1 and 2 respectively. Radiation Oncologist and GP assessor scores were significantly different for 4 doctors and for some scenarios. Anticipatory care was the only domain where GPs scored participants higher than Radiation Oncologist assessors.

Conclusion

The assessment of GP consultation performance is not consistent across assessors from different disciplines even when they deploy the same assessment tool.

Medical errors and uncertainty in primary healthcare: a comparative study of coping strategies among young and experienced GPs

OBJECTIVE

To study coping differences between young and experienced GPs in primary care who experience medical errors and uncertainty.

DESIGN

Questionnaire-based survey (self-assessment) conducted in 2011.

SETTING

Finnish primary practice offices in Southern Finland.

SUBJECTS

Finnish GPs engaged in primary health care from two different respondent groups: young (working experience ≤ 5 years, n = 85) and experienced (working experience > 5 years, n = 80).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcome measures included experiences and attitudes expressed by the included participants towards medical errors and tolerance of uncertainty, their coping strategies, and factors that may influence (positively or negatively) sources of errors.

RESULTS

In total, 165/244 GPs responded (response rate: 68%). Young GPs expressed significantly more often fear of committing a medical error (70.2% vs. 48.1%, p = 0.004) and admitted more often than experienced GPs that they had committed a medical error during the past year (83.5% vs. 68.8%, p = 0.026). Young GPs were less prone to apologize to a patient for an error (44.7% vs. 65.0%, p = 0.009) and found, more often than their more experienced colleagues, on-site consultations and electronic databases useful for avoiding mistakes.

CONCLUSION

Experienced GPs seem to better tolerate uncertainty and also seem to fear medical errors less than their young colleagues. Young and more experienced GPs use different coping strategies for dealing with medical errors.

IMPLICATIONS

When GPs become more experienced, they seem to get better at coping with medical errors. Means to support these skills should be studied in future research.

Investigating the contribution of physician assistants to primary care in England: a mixed-methods study

Background

Primary health care is changing as it responds to demographic shifts, technological changes and fiscal constraints. This, and predicted pressures on medical and nursing workforces, raises questions about staffing configurations. Physician assistants (PAs) are mid-level practitioners, trained in a medical model over 2 years at postgraduate level to work under a supervising doctor. A small number of general practices in England have employed PAs.

Objective

To investigate the contribution of PAs to the delivery of patient care in primary care services in England.

Design

A mixed-methods study conducted at macro, meso and micro organisational levels in two phases: (1) a rapid review, a scoping survey of key national and regional informants, a policy review, and a survey of PAs and (2) comparative case studies in 12 general practices (six employing PAs). The latter incorporated clinical record reviews, a patient satisfaction survey, video observations of consultations and interviews with patients and professionals.

Results

The rapid review found 49 published studies, mainly from the USA, which showed increased numbers of PAs in general practice settings but weak evidence for impact on processes and patient outcomes. The scoping survey found mainly positive or neutral views about PAs, but there was no mention of their role in workforce policy and planning documents. The survey of PAs in primary care (n = 16) found that they were mainly deployed to provide same-day appointments. The comparative case studies found that physician assistants were consulted by a wide range of patients, but these patients tended to be younger, with less medically acute or complex problems than those consulting general practitioners (GPs). Patients reported high levels of satisfaction with both PAs and GPs. The majority were willing or very willing to consult a PA again but wanted choice in which type of professional they consulted. There was no significant difference between PAs and GPs in the primary outcome of patient reconsultation for the same problem within 2 weeks, investigations/tests ordered, referrals to secondary care or prescriptions issued. GPs, blinded to the type of clinician, judged the documented activities in the initial consultation of patients who reconsulted for the same problem to be appropriate in 80% (n = 223) PA and 50% (n = 252) GP records. PAs were judged to be competent and safe from observed consultations. The average consultation with a physician assistant is significantly longer than that with a GP: 5.8 minutes for patients of average age for this sample (38 years). Costs per consultation were £34.36 for GPs and £28.14 for PAs. Costs could not be apportioned to GPs for interruptions, supervision or training of PAs.

Conclusions

PAs were found to be acceptable, effective and efficient in complementing the work of GPs. PAs can provide a flexible addition to the primary care workforce. They offer another labour pool to consider in health professional workforce and education planning at local, regional and national levels. However, in order to maximise the contribution of PAs in primary care settings, consideration needs to be given to the appropriate level of regulation and the potential for authority to prescribe medicines. Future research is required to investigate the contribution of PAs to other first contact services as well as secondary services; the contribution and impact of all types of mid-level practitioners (including nurse practitioners) in first contact services; the factors and influences on general practitioner and practice manager decision-making as to staffing and skill mix; and the reliability and validity of classification systems for both primary care patients and their presenting condition and their consequences for health resource utilisation.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Not All Interruptions are Created Equal: Positive Interruptions in Healthcare

Interruptions were studied extensively in the past but with a focus on their negative effects. Although many types of interruptions result in a break-in-task, in some cases interruptions communicate important information associated with patient’s safety. The majority of previous interruption research use a reductionist approach to minimize or prevent interruptions, and minimal attention has been given to the differentiation between positive and negative interruptions. Through the analysis of relevant healthcare literature, this paper first identifies the inconsistencies in the way interruptions are defined, and then categorizes potential sources of negative and positive interruptions.

Effective communication and information provision in radiotherapy—the role of radiation therapists

Introduction: Health professionals have a duty of care to radiotherapy patients in providing them with adequate information before treatment. There is a lack of research that describes the roles of radiation therapists and radiation oncology nurses in providing information to patients. This study aimed to: (1) explore how radiation therapists communicate with breast cancer patients during a radiotherapy planning appointment; (2) determine what information is provided during this appointment and (3) explore radiation therapists’ perspectives on their role in providing patient information and support.

Methods: The following methodologies were used: self-report questionnaires; simulated radiotherapy planning sessions and joint interpretive forums. Statistical analysis was used to analyse the questionnaires and the simulated planning sessions and forums were analysed qualitatively.

Results: A total of 110 radiation therapists participated in the survey. We simulated two radiotherapy planning appointments and held two forums. Four themes emerged: role definitions, reducing patient anxiety and distress, barriers and strategies for effective communication and confidence in patient communication.

Conclusion: Radiation therapists play an important role in communicating with patients and providing information, particularly if patients exhibit anxiety and distress. Further research is required to determine whether patients’ information needs can be met with additional information provided by radiation therapists.