Understanding the role of GPs' gut feelings in diagnosing cancer in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing evidence

A UK population-based case-control study of blood tests before cancer diagnosis in patients with non-specific abdominal symptoms

BACKGROUND

Abnormal results in commonly used primary care blood tests could be early markers of cancer in patients presenting with non-specific abdominal symptoms.

METHODS

Using linked data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and national cancer registry we compared blood test use and abnormal results from the 24-months pre-diagnosis in 10,575 cancer patients (any site), and 52,875 matched-controls aged ≥30 presenting, with abdominal pain or bloating to primary care.

RESULTS

Cancer patients had two-fold increased odds of having a blood test (odds ratio(OR):1.51-2.29) and 2-3-fold increased odds of having an abnormal blood test result (OR:2.42-3.30) in the year pre-diagnosis compared to controls. Raised inflammatory markers were the most common abnormality (74-79% of tested cases). Rates of blood test use and abnormal results progressively increased from 7 months pre-diagnosis in cancer patients, with relatively small corresponding increases in symptomatic controls. In cancer patients, the largest increases from baseline were raised platelets in males with abdominal pain (increased 33-fold), raised white blood cell count in males with abdominal bloating (increased 37-fold) and low albumin in females with either symptom (increased 22-41 fold).

CONCLUSIONS

Common blood test abnormalities are early signals of cancer in some individuals with non-specific abdominal symptoms and could support expedited cancer diagnosis.

Prevalence and characteristics of the 'bad feeling' among healthcare professionals in the context of emergency situations: A Bi-Hospital Survey

INTRODUCTION

Clinical decision-making is based on objective and subjective criteria, including healthcare workers impressions and feelings. This research examines the perception and implications of a 'bad feeling' experienced by healthcare professionals, focusing on its prevalence and characteristics.

METHODS

A cross-sectional paper-based survey was conducted from January to July 2023 at the University Medicine Greifswald and the hospital Sömmerda involving physicians, nurses, medical students and trainees from various specialties. With ethics committee approval, participants were recruited and surveyed at regular clinical events. Data analysis was performed using SPSS® Statistics. The manuscript was written using the Strobe checklist.

RESULTS

Out of 250 questionnaires distributed, 217 were valid for analysis after a 94.9% return rate and subsequent exclusions. Sixty-five per cent of respondents experience the 'bad feeling' occasionally to frequently. There was a significant positive correlation between the frequency of 'bad feeling' and work experience. The predominant cause of this feeling was identified as intuition, reported by 79.8% of participants, with 80% finding it often helpful in their clinical judgement. Notably, in 16.1% of cases, the 'bad feeling' escalated in the further clinical course into an actual emergency. Furthermore, 60% of respondents indicated that this feeling occasionally or often serves as an early indicator of a potential, yet unrecognised, emergency in patient care.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the relevance of clinical experience to decision-making. As an expression of this, there is a correlation between the frequency of a 'bad feeling' and the number of years of experience. It is recommended that the 'bad feeling' be deliberately acknowledged and reinforced as an early warning signal for emergency situations, given its significant implications for patient safety. Future initiatives could include advanced training and research, as well as tools such as pocket maps, to better equip healthcare professionals in responding to this intuition.

Digitally transforming community mental healthcare: Real-world lessons from algorithmic workforce integration

Community-based high intensity services for people living with severe and enduring mental illnesses face critical workforce shortages and workflow efficiency challenges. The expectation to monitor complex, dynamic patient data from ever-expanding electronic health records leads to information overload, a significant factor contributing to worker burnout and attrition. An algorithmic workforce, defined as a suite of algorithm-driven processes, can work alongside health professionals assisting with oversight tasks and augmenting human expertise. This selective review summarises lessons learned from our five-year experience (2018-22) of algorithmic workforce implementation research in two community mental health services in Australia covering both rural and urban populations. We retrace our implementation journey to illustrate four foundational processes: (i) algorithm design (ii) proof-of-concept validation (iii) workflow integration and (iv) optimization. By examining our previous studies, we discuss insights gained regarding intended human-centricity of services, potential algorithm-human misalignments, and unintended workload and accountability consequences for clinicians and organizations.

Signs and symptoms of serious illness in adults with acute abdominal pain presenting to ambulatory care: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Acute abdominal pain is a common complaint, caused by a variety of conditions, ranging from acutely life-threatening to benign and self-limiting, with symptom overlap complicating diagnosis. Signs and symptoms may be valuable when assessing a patient to guide clinical work.

AIM

Summarising evidence on the accuracy of signs and symptoms for diagnosing serious illness in adults with acute abdominal pain in an ambulatory care setting.

DESIGN & SETTING

We performed a systematic review, searching for prospective diagnostic accuracy studies that included adults presenting with acute abdominal pain to an ambulatory care setting.

METHOD

Six databases and guideline registers were searched, using a comprehensive search strategy. We assessed the risk of bias, and calculated descriptive statistics and measures of diagnostic accuracy. Results were pooled when at least four studies were available.

RESULTS

Out of 18 923 unique studies, 16 studies with moderate to high-risk bias were included. Fourteen clinical features met our criteria, including systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg (positive likelihood ratio [LR+]7.01), shock index >0.85, uterine cervical motion tenderness (LR+5.62 and negative likelihood ratio [LR-]8.60), and a self-assessment questionnaire score >70 (LR+12.20) or <25 (LR-0.19). Clinical diagnosis made by the clinician had the best rule-in ability (LR+24.6).

CONCLUSIONS

We identified 14 signs and symptoms that can influence the likelihood of a serious illness, including pain characteristics, systemic signs, gynaecological signs, and clinician's overall assessment. The risk of bias was moderate to high, leading to uncertainty and preventing us from making firm conclusions. This highlights the need for better research in this setting.

Hidden systems in primary care cancer detection: an embedded qualitative intervention development study

BACKGROUND

UK cancer mortality is worse than in many other high-income countries, partly because of diagnostic delays in primary care.

AIM

To understand beliefs and behaviours of GPs, and systems of general practice teams, to inform the Think Cancer! intervention development.

DESIGN AND SETTING

An embedded qualitative study guided by behaviour change models (COM-B [Capability, Opportunity, Motivation - Behaviour] and theoretical domains framework [TDF]) in primary care in Wales, UK.

METHOD

Twenty qualitative, semi-structured telephone interviews with GPs were undertaken and four face-to-face focus groups held with practice teams. Framework analysis was used and results were mapped to multiple, overlapping components of COM-B and TDF.

RESULTS

Three themes illustrate complex, multilevel referral considerations facing GPs and practice teams; external influences and constraints; and the role of practice systems and culture. Tensions emerged between individual considerations of GPs (Capability and Motivation) and context-dependent external pressures (Opportunity). Detecting cancer was guided not only by external requirements, but also by motivational factors GPs described as part of their cancer diagnostics process. External influences on the diagnosis process often resulted from the primary-secondary care interface and social pressures. GPs adapted their behaviour to deal with this disconnect. Positive practice culture and supportive practice-based systems ameliorated these tensions and complexity.

CONCLUSION

By exploring individual GP behaviours together with practice systems and culture we contribute new understanding about how cancer diagnosis operates in primary care and how delays can be improved. We highlight commonly overlooked dynamics and tensions that are experienced by GPs as a tension between individual decision making (Capability and Motivation) and external considerations, such as pressures in secondary care (Opportunity).

Patient- and parent-reported diagnostic delay in children with central nervous system tumors in Denmark

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic delays in childhood tumors of the central nervous system (CNS) pose a significant challenge. The aim of this study was to map diagnostic delay and presenting symptoms in Denmark.

METHODS

The study was a retrospective questionnaire study, mapping delay and symptoms in pediatric patients (0-17 years), diagnosed with a CNS tumor from 2015 to 2019. Descriptive analysis was performed to measure delay in days, reported as total diagnostic interval (TDI), patient interval (PI), and diagnostic interval (DI). Analysis of symptoms, contacts to healthcare professionals, and socioeconomic status was also performed.

RESULTS

We included 89 patients (median age 7.0 years, 54% male). The TDI was median of 106 days (range: 0-2694 days). Low-grade tumors had longer TDI than high-grade tumors (125 vs. 43 days; p ≤ .02). Patients aged 15-17 displayed the longest TDI (median 665 days). Number of symptoms at onset were inversely associated with longer TDI in patients presenting one symptom (247 days) and patients presenting two to three (110 days) or greater than three complaints (66 days). PI was not associated with sex (p = .14), tumor grade (p = .63), location (p = .32), or socioeconomic status (p = .82). Most frequent single complaint at onset was headache (19%), most frequent combination of symptoms was headache and vomiting (60%).

CONCLUSION

We found TDIs longer than reported in contemporary publications. TDI was longer in patients with low-grade tumors and only few symptoms at the time of onset. The findings support the crucial need of awareness and improved diagnostic tools to recognize and interpret symptoms to promote timely diagnosis.

Personal and organisational health literacy in the non-specific symptom pathway for cancer: An ethnographic study

INTRODUCTION

People being investigated for cancer face a wealth of complex information. Non-specific symptom pathways (NSS) were implemented in the United Kingdom in 2017 to address the needs of patients experiencing symptoms such as weight loss, fatigue or general practitioner 'gut feeling', who did not have streamlined pathways for cancer investigation. This study aimed to explore the health literacy skills needed by patients being investigated for cancer in NSS pathways.

METHODS

This study employed ethnographic methods across four hospitals in England, including interviews, patient shadowing and clinical care observations, to examine NSS pathways for cancer diagnosis. We recruited 27 patients who were shadowed and interviewed during their care. We also interviewed 27 professionals. The analysis focused on patient communication and understanding, drawing on the concepts of personal and organisational health literacy.

RESULTS

Our analysis derived six themes highlighting the considerable informational demands of the NSS pathway. Patients were required to understand complex blood tests and investigations in primary care and often did not understand why they were referred. The NSS pathway itself was difficult to understand with only a minority of patients appreciating that multiple organs were being investigated for cancer. The process of progressing through the pathway was also difficult to understand, particularly around who was making decisions and what would happen next. The results of investigations were complex, often including incidental findings. Patients whose persistent symptoms were not explained were often unsure of what to do following discharge.

CONCLUSION

We have identified several potential missed opportunities for organisations to support patient understanding of NSS pathways which could lead to inappropriate help-seeking post-discharge. Patients' difficulties in comprehending previous investigations and findings could result in delays, overtesting or inadequately targeted investigations, hindering the effective use of their medical history. Third, patients' limited understanding of their investigations and results may impede their ability to engage in patient safety by reporting potential care errors.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patient, public, clinical and policy representatives contributed to developing the research objectives through a series of meetings and individual conversations in preparation for the study. We have held several events in which patients and the public have had an opportunity to give feedback about our results, such as local interest groups in North London and academic conferences. A clinical contributor (J.-A. M.) was involved in data analysis and writing the manuscript.

Understanding GPs' referral decisions for younger patients with symptoms of cancer: a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

Cancer incidence increases with age, so some clinical guidelines include patient age as one of the criteria used to decide whether a patient should be referred through the urgent suspected cancer (USC) pathway. Little is known about how strictly GPs adhere to these age criteria and what factors might influence their referral decisions for younger patients.

AIM

To understand GPs' clinical decision making for younger patients with concerning symptoms who do not meet the age criteria for USC referral.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Qualitative study using in-depth, semi-structured interviews with GPs working in surgeries across England.

METHOD

Participants (n = 23) were asked to recall consultations with younger patients with cancer symptoms, describe factors influencing their clinical decisions, and discuss their overall attitude to age thresholds in cancer referral guidelines. A thematic analysis guided by the Framework approach was used to identify recurring themes.

RESULTS

GPs' decision making regarding younger patients was influenced by several factors, including personal experiences, patients' views and behaviour, level of clinical concern, and ability to bypass system constraints. GPs weighted potential benefits and harms of a referral outside guidelines both on the patient and the health system. If clinical concern was high, GPs used their knowledge of local systems to ensure patients were investigated promptly even when not meeting the age criteria.

CONCLUSION

While most GPs interpret age criteria flexibly and follow their own judgement and experience when making clinical decisions regarding younger patients, system constraints may be a barrier to timely investigation.

Turning Towards the Affective: Medical Semiotics of Child Maltreatment in Denmark

Signs of child maltreatment may be physical and detectable by clinical examination but may also arise as a feeling of strangeness that sparks uncertainty. Based on fieldwork in Danish general practice, and thinking along recent discussions around semiotics and affect, the article explores how feelings of "strangeness" arise in child consultations. It focuses on how subjective, embodied, and interpersonal reactions arise, how signs, however tactile and arbitrary, are felt and experienced, and how engaging with affective aspects when doing diagnosis, could expand the medical semiotics of child maltreatment.

The impact of variation in out-of-hours doctors' referral practices: a Norwegian registry-based observational study

BACKGROUND

In a gatekeeping system, the individual doctor's referral practice is an important factor for hospital activity and patient safety.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to investigate the variation in out-of-hours (OOH) doctors' referral practice, and to explore these variations' impact on admissions for selected diagnoses reflecting severity, and 30-day mortality.

METHODS

National data from the doctors' claims database were linked with hospital data in the Norwegian Patient Registry. Based on the doctor's individual referral rate adjusted for local organizational factors, the doctors were sorted into quartiles of low-, medium-low-, medium-high-, and high-referral practice. The relative risk (RR) for all referrals and for selected discharge diagnoses was calculated using generalized linear models.

RESULTS

The OOH doctors' mean referral rate was 110 referrals per 1,000 consultations. Patients seeing a doctor in the highest referring practice quartile had higher likelihood of being referred to hospital and diagnosed with the symptom of pain in throat and chest, abdominal pain, and dizziness compared with the medium-low quartile (RR 1.63, 1.49, and 1.95). For the critical conditions of acute myocardial infarction, acute appendicitis, pulmonary embolism, and stroke, we found a similar, but weaker, association (RR 1.38, 1.32, 1.24, and 1.19). The 30-day mortality among patients not referred did not differ between the quartiles.

CONCLUSIONS

Doctors with high-referral practice referred more patients who were later discharged with all types of diagnoses, including serious and critical conditions. With low-referral practice, severe conditions might have been overlooked, although the 30-day mortality was not affected.

The linguistic validation of the gut feelings questionnaire in Turkish

BACKGROUND

'Gut feelings' are frequently used by general practitioners in the clinical decision-making process, especially in situations of uncertainty. The Gut Feelings Questionnaire (GFQ) has been developed in the Netherlands and is now available in English, French, German, Polish, Spanish, and Catalan, enabling cross-border studies on the subject. However, a Turkish version of the GFQ is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

A Turkish version of the GFQ.

METHODS

A linguistic validation procedure was conducted, which took place in six phases: forward translation (step 1), backward translation (step 2), first consensus (step 3), cultural validation (step 4), second consensus (step 5), and final version (step 6).

RESULTS

The absence of literal equivalent of the term 'gut feelings' in Turkish was determined. The word 'intuition' was chosen as the Turkish literal equivalent of 'gut feelings'. There were also some challenges in finding the exact meanings of words and expressions in Turkish literature. However, we succeeded in finding adequate and responsible solutions. A Turkish version of the GFQ is available now.

CONCLUSION

With these validated GFQs, Turkish GPs can facilitate studies of the role of 'gut feelings' in clinical reasoning.

Ethical and legal implications of implementing risk algorithms for early detection and screening for oesophageal cancer, now and in the future

BACKGROUND

Oesophageal cancer has significant morbidity and mortality but late diagnosis is common since early signs of disease are frequently misinterpreted. Project DELTA aims to enable earlier detection and treatment through targeted screening using a novel risk prediction algorithm for oesophageal cancer (incorporating risk factors of Barrett's oesophagus including prescriptions for acid-reducing medications (CanPredict)), together with a non-invasive, low-cost sampling device (CytospongeTM). However, there are many barriers to implementation, and this paper identifies key ethical and legal challenges to implementing these personalised prevention strategies for Barrett's oesophagus/oesophageal cancer.

METHODS

To identify ethical and legal issues relevant to the deployment of a risk prediction tool for oesophageal cancer into primary care, we adopted an interdisciplinary approach, incorporating targeted informal literature reviews, interviews with expert collaborators, a multidisciplinary workshop and ethical and legal analysis.

RESULTS

Successful implementation raises many issues including ensuring transparency and effective risk communication; addressing bias and inequity; managing resources appropriately and avoiding exceptionalism. Clinicians will need support and training to use cancer risk prediction algorithms, ensuring that they understand how risk algorithms supplement rather than replace medical decision-making. Workshop participants had concerns about liability for harms arising from risk algorithms, including from potential bias and inequitable implementation. Determining strategies for risk communication enabling transparency but avoiding exceptionalist approaches are a significant challenge. Future challenges include using artificial intelligence to bolster risk assessment, incorporating genomics into risk tools, and deployment by non-health professional users. However, these strategies could improve detection and outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Novel pathways incorporating risk prediction algorithms hold considerable promise, especially when combined with low-cost sampling. However immediate priorities should be to develop risk communication strategies that take account of using validated risk algorithms, and to ensure equitable implementation. Resolving questions about liability for harms arising should be a longer-term objective.

Gut feeling for the diagnosis of cancer in general practice: a diagnostic accuracy review

OBJECTIVES

Diagnostic delay in cancer is a challenge in primary care. Although screening tests are effective in diagnosing some cancers such as breast, colorectal and cervical cancers, symptom-based cancer diagnosis is often difficult due to its low incidence in primary care and the influence of patient anxiety, doctor-patient relationship and psychosocial context. A general practitioner's gut feeling for cancer may play a role in the early diagnosis of cancer in primary care where diagnostic resources are limited. The aim of this study is to summarise existing evidence about the test accuracy of gut feeling (index test) in symptomatic adult patients presenting to general practice, compared with multidisciplinary team-confirmed diagnosis of cancer (reference standard).

DESIGN

Diagnostic accuracy review following Cochrane methods was performed.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Medion databases.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Cross-sectional, cohort and randomised studies of test accuracy that compared gut feeling (index test) with an appropriate cancer diagnosis (reference standard). No language or publication status restrictions were applied. We included all studies published before 25 March 2022.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Methodological quality was appraised, using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) criteria. Meta-analysis with hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) models was used.

RESULTS

Of 1286 potentially relevant studies identified, six met the inclusion criteria. For two of the six studies, data could not be extracted despite contacting authors. No studies satisfied all QUADAS-2 criteria. After meta-analysis of data from the remaining studies, the summary point of HSROC had a sensitivity of 0.40 (95% CI: 0.28, 0.53) and a specificity of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.75, 0.92).

CONCLUSIONS

Gut feeling for cancer when used in symptomatic adult patients in general practice has a relatively low sensitivity and high specificity. When the prevalence of cancer in the symptomatic population presenting in general practice exceeds 1.15%, the performance of gut feeling reaches the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 3% positive predictive value threshold for action, which recommends urgent access to specialist care and further investigations. The findings support the continued and expanded use of gut feeling items in referral pathways.

Multi-cancer early detection test in symptomatic patients referred for cancer investigation in England and Wales (SYMPLIFY): a large-scale, observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Analysis of circulating tumour DNA could stratify cancer risk in symptomatic patients. We aimed to evaluate the performance of a methylation-based multicancer early detection (MCED) diagnostic test in symptomatic patients referred from primary care.

METHODS

We did a multicentre, prospective, observational study at National Health Service (NHS) hospital sites in England and Wales. Participants aged 18 or older referred with non-specific symptoms or symptoms potentially due to gynaecological, lung, or upper or lower gastrointestinal cancers were included and gave a blood sample when they attended for urgent investigation. Participants were excluded if they had a history of or had received treatment for an invasive or haematological malignancy diagnosed within the preceding 3 years, were taking cytotoxic or demethylating agents that might interfere with the test, or had participated in another study of a GRAIL MCED test. Patients were followed until diagnostic resolution or up to 9 months. Cell-free DNA was isolated and the MCED test performed blinded to the clinical outcome. MCED predictions were compared with the diagnosis obtained by standard care to establish the primary outcomes of overall positive and negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity. Outcomes were assessed in participants with a valid MCED test result and diagnostic resolution. SYMPLIFY is registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN10226380) and has completed follow-up at all sites.

FINDINGS

6238 participants were recruited between July 7 and Nov 30, 2021, across 44 hospital sites. 387 were excluded due to staff being unable to draw blood, sample errors, participant withdrawal, or identification of ineligibility after enrolment. Of 5851 clinically evaluable participants, 376 had no MCED test result and 14 had no information as to final diagnosis, resulting in 5461 included in the final cohort for analysis with an evaluable MCED test result and diagnostic outcome (368 [6·7%] with a cancer diagnosis and 5093 [93·3%] without a cancer diagnosis). The median age of participants was 61·9 years (IQR 53·4-73·0), 3609 (66·1%) were female and 1852 (33·9%) were male. The MCED test detected a cancer signal in 323 cases, in whom 244 cancer was diagnosed, yielding a positive predictive value of 75·5% (95% CI 70·5-80·1), negative predictive value of 97·6% (97·1-98·0), sensitivity of 66·3% (61·2-71·1), and specificity of 98·4% (98·1-98·8). Sensitivity increased with increasing age and cancer stage, from 24·2% (95% CI 16·0-34·1) in stage I to 95·3% (88·5-98·7) in stage IV. For cases in which a cancer signal was detected among patients with cancer, the MCED test's prediction of the site of origin was accurate in 85·2% (95% CI 79·8-89·3) of cases. Sensitivity 80·4% (95% CI 66·1-90·6) and negative predictive value 99·1% (98·2-99·6) were highest for patients with symptoms mandating investigation for upper gastrointestinal cancer.

INTERPRETATION

This first large-scale prospective evaluation of an MCED diagnostic test in a symptomatic population demonstrates the feasibility of using an MCED test to assist clinicians with decisions regarding urgency and route of referral from primary care. Our data provide the basis for a prospective, interventional study in patients presenting to primary care with non-specific signs and symptoms.

FUNDING

GRAIL Bio UK.

Progress and priorities in reducing the time to cancer diagnosis

Key developments in early diagnosis research and policy since the publication of the highly cited BJC review "Is increased time to diagnosis and treatment associated with poorer outcomes?" by Neal et al. in 2015 are summarised. Progress achieved since 2015 is described and priorities for further research identified.

An unexpected transition to virtual care: family medicine residents’ experience during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

The global COVID-19 pandemic led to rapid changes in both medical care and medical education, particularly involving the rapid substitution of virtual solutions for traditional face-to-face appointments. There is a need for research into the effects and impacts of such changes. The objective of this article investigates the perspectives of Family Medicine Residents in one university program in order to understand the impact of this transition to virtual care and learning.

Methods

This is a qualitative focus group study. Four focus groups, stratified by site type (Rural = 1; Semi-Urban = 1; Urban = 2) were conducted, with a total of 25 participants. Participants were either first or second-year Residents in Family Medicine. Focus group recordings were analyzed thematically, based upon a five-level socio-ecological model (individual, family, organization, community, environment and policy context).

Results

Two main themes were identified: (1) Residents’ experiences of Virtual Learning and Virtual Care, and (2) Living and Learning in Pandemic Times. In the first theme, Residents reported challenges both individually, in their family context, and in their training organizations. Of particular concern was the loss of hands-on experience with clinical skills such as conducting physical examinations. In the second theme, Residents reported disruption of self-care routines and family life. These Residents were unable to engage in the relationships outside of the workplace with their preceptors and peers which they had expected, and which play key roles in social support as well as in future decisions about practice location.

Conclusions

While many patients appreciated virtual care, in the eyes of these Residents it is not the ideal modality for learning the practice of Family Medicine, and they awaited a return to normal times. Despite this, the pandemic has pointed out important ways in which residency training needs to adapt to an evolving world.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-022-01728-5.

Prospective Observational Study on the Prevalence and Diagnostic Value of General Practitioners' Gut Feelings for Cancer and Serious Diseases

BACKGROUND

General practitioners (GPs) have recognized the presence of gut feelings in their diagnostic process. However, little is known about the frequency or determinants of gut feelings or the diagnostic value of gut feelings for cancer and other serious diseases.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the prevalence of gut feelings in general practice, examine their determinants and impact on patient management, and measure their diagnostic value for cancer and other serious diseases.

DESIGN

This prospective observational study was performed using the Gut Feelings Questionnaire (GFQ).

PARTICIPANTS

Participants included 155 GPs and 1487 of their patients, from four Spanish provinces.

MAIN MEASURES

Sociodemographic data from patients and GPs; the reasoning style of GPs; the characteristics of the consultation; the presence and kind of gut feeling; the patient's subsequent contacts with the health system; and new cancer and serious disease diagnoses reported at 2 and 6 months post-consultation.

KEY RESULTS

GPs experienced a gut feeling during 97% of the consultations: a sense of reassurance in 75% of consultations and a sense of alarm in 22% of consultations. A sense of alarm was felt at higher frequency given an older patient, the presence of at least one cancer-associated symptom, or a non-urban setting. GPs took diagnostic action more frequently after a sense of alarm. After 2 months, the sense of alarm had a sensitivity of 59% for cancer and other serious diseases (95% CI 47-71), a specificity of 79% (95% CI 77-82), a positive predictive value of 12% (95% CI 9-16), and a negative predictive value of 98% (95% CI 86-98).

CONCLUSIONS

Gut feelings are consistently present in primary care medicine, and they play a substantial role in a GP's clinical reasoning and timely diagnosis of serious disease. The sense of alarm must be taken seriously and used to support diagnostic evaluation in patients with a new reason for encounter.

A qualitative exploration of the facilitators and barriers to early diagnosis and treatment of head and neck cancer: Perceptions of patients and carers

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study to explore experiences of patients and carers of the pathway to diagnosis and treatment of head and neck cancer (HNC), focusing on differences based on remoteness of residence.

METHODS

Patients ≥6 months post-treatment completion, and their carers, were recruited. Semi-structured interviews, guided by the Model of Pathways to Treatment as the theoretical framework, were conducted to examine pathways to treatment of HNC and facilitators and barriers to early diagnosis and treatment. Thematic analysis with an iterative and data-driven approach was used to identify themes.

RESULTS

A total of 39 patients and 17 carers participated in the interviews. Facilitators of timely diagnosis and treatment included a sense of urgency from health care professionals (HCPs), advocacy by the HCP or carers, and leveraging social capital. Distance to services, financial costs, and a perceived lack of emotional investment by HCPs arose as barriers to timely diagnosis and treatment. Participants were often able to rationalise that not all delays were negative, depending causes and expected impact on cancer management.

CONCLUSION

The findings highlight the complex nature of factors facilitating and impeding early HNC diagnosis and treatment that may be targeted in interventions to support patients and meet important benchmarks for high-quality cancer care.

Primary care practice and cancer suspicion during the first three COVID-19 lockdowns in the UK: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly affected UK primary care, and as a result the route to cancer diagnosis for many patients.

AIM

To explore how the pandemic affected primary care practice, in particular cancer suspicion, referral, and diagnosis, and how this experience evolved as the pandemic progressed.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Seventeen qualitative interviews were carried out remotely with primary care staff.

METHOD

Staff from practices in England that expressed an interest in trialling an electronic safety-netting tool were invited to participate. Remote, semi-structured interviews were conducted from September 2020 to March 2021. Data analysis followed a thematic analysis and mind-mapping approach.

RESULTS

The first lockdown was described as providing time to make adjustments to allow remote and minimal-contact consultations but caused concerns over undetected cancers. These concerns were realised in summer and autumn 2020 as the participants began to see higher rates of late-stage cancer presentation. During the second and third lockdowns patients seemed more willing to consult. This combined with usual winter pressures, demands of the vaccine programme, and surging levels of COVID-19 meant that the third lockdown was the most difficult. New ways of working were seen as positive when they streamlined services but also unsafe if they prevented GPs from accessing all relevant information and resulted in delayed cancer diagnoses.

CONCLUSION

The post-pandemic recovery of cancer care is dependent on the recovery of primary care. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted and exacerbated vulnerabilities in primary care but has also provided new ways of working that may help the recovery.

Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) in patients with signs or symptoms of suspected colorectal cancer (CRC): a joint guideline from the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) and the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG)

Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) has a high sensitivity for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC). In a symptomatic population FIT may identify those patients who require colorectal investigation with the highest priority. FIT offers considerable advantages over the use of symptoms alone, as an objective measure of risk with a vastly superior positive predictive value for CRC, while conversely identifying a truly low risk cohort of patients. The aim of this guideline was to provide a clear strategy for the use of FIT in the diagnostic pathway of people with signs or symptoms of a suspected diagnosis of CRC. The guideline was jointly developed by the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland/British Society of Gastroenterology, specifically by a 21-member multidisciplinary guideline development group (GDG). A systematic review of 13 535 publications was undertaken to develop 23 evidence and expert opinion-based recommendations for the triage of people with symptoms of a suspected CRC diagnosis in primary care. In order to achieve consensus among a broad group of key stakeholders, we completed an extended Delphi of the GDG, and also 61 other individuals across the UK and Ireland, including by members of the public, charities and primary and secondary care. Seventeen research recommendations were also prioritised to inform clinical management.

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.

Cultivating Doctors' Gut Feeling: Experience, Temporality and Politics of Gut Feelings in Family Medicine

For the past decade, within family medicine there has been a focus on cultivating doctors gut feelings as 'a way of knowing' in cancer diagnostics. In this paper, building on interviews with family doctors in Oxford shire, UK we explore the embodied and temporal dimensions of clinical reasoning and how the cultivation of doctors' gut feelings is related to hierarchies of medical knowledge, professional training, and doctors' fears of litigation. Also, we suggest that the introduction of gut feeling in clinical practice is an attempt to develop a theory of clinical reasoning that fits the biopolitics of our contemporary. The turn towards predictive medicine and the values introduced by accelerated diagnostic regimes, we conclude, introduce a need for situated and embodied modes of reading bodies. We contribute theoretically by framing our analysis within a sensorial anthropology approach.

'This trainee makes me feel angry': It's time to validate the reality and role of trainer emotions

Discussing the 'failiure to fail' phenomenon, the authors call for a system‐wide culture shift to better articulate failures as learning opportunities in healthcare.

Primary Care Physical Therapists' Experiences When Screening for Serious Pathologies Among Their Patients: A Qualitative Study

OBJECTIVE

A vital part of the initial examination performed by a physical therapist is to establish whether the patient would benefit from physical therapist intervention. This process includes knowledge about contraindications for treatment and screening for serious pathologies. However, little is known about the physical therapists' views and thoughts about their own practice when screening for serious pathologies. The purpose of this study was to explore the experience gained by physical therapists when screening for serious pathologies among their patients.

METHODS

This was a qualitative study based on individual semi-structured interviews with 9 primary care physical therapists. The interviews were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis, and generated themes were explained and reported with relevant quotes.

RESULTS

Three overall themes were generated: (1) the role of physical therapists in the diagnostic process; (2) responsibility from the individual to the group; and (3) the difficult task of cooperation. The physical therapists described how they relied more on their clinical suspicion than on asking red-flag questions when screening for serious pathologies. They also questioned their differential diagnostic abilities. Finally, they saw a potential to further enhance their confidence in the area by reflecting on the matter with colleagues and by receiving more feedback about their clinical reasoning regarding serious pathologies from general practitioners.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that physical therapists primarily rely on their clinical suspicion when screening for serious pathologies but at the same time are uncertain about their differential diagnostic abilities.

IMPACT

These findings can inform future interventions targeting the physical therapists' abilities to detect serious pathology.

Healthcare practices that increase the quality of care in cancer trajectories from a general practice perspective: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

General practice plays an important role in cancer trajectories, and cancer patients request the continuous involvement of general practice. The objective of this scoping review was to identify healthcare practices that increase the quality of care in cancer trajectories from a general practice perspective.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND SUBJECTS

A scoping review of the literature published in Danish or English from 2010 to 2020 was conducted. Data was collected using identified keywords and indexed terms in several databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, EBSCO CINAHL, Scopus, and ProQuest), contacting key experts, searching through reference lists, and reports from selected health political, research- and interest organizations' websites.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We identified healthcare practices in cancer trajectories that increase quality care. Identified healthcare practices were grouped into four contextual domains and allocated to defined phases in the cancer trajectory. The results are presented according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR).

RESULTS

A total of 45 peer-reviewed and six non-peer-reviewed articles and reports were included. Quality of care increases in all phases of the cancer trajectory when GPs listen carefully to the full story and use action plans. After diagnosis, quality of care increases when GPs and practice staff have a proactive care approach, act as interpreters of diagnosis, treatment options, and its consequences, and engage in care coordination with specialists in secondary care involving the patient.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review identified healthcare practices that increase the quality of care in cancer trajectories from a general practice perspective. The results support general practice in investigating own healthcare practices and identifying possibilities for quality improvement.KEY POINTSIdentified healthcare practices in general practice that increase the quality of care in cancer trajectories:Listen carefully to the full storyUse action plans and time-out-consultationsPlan and provide proactive careAct as an interpreter of diagnosis, treatment options, and its consequences for the patientCoordinate care with specialists, patients, and caregivers with mutual respectIdentified barriers for quality of care in cancer trajectories are:Time constraints in consultationsLimited accessibility for patients and caregiversHealth practices to increase the quality of care should be effective, safe, people-centered, timely, equitable, integrated, and efficient. These distinctions of quality of care, support general practice in investigating and improving quality of care in cancer trajectories.

Intra-abdominal cancer risk with abdominal pain: a prospective cohort primary-care study

Background: Quantifying cancer risk in primary-care patients reporting abdominal pain would inform diagnostic strategies. Aim: To quantify oesophagogastric, colorectal, liver, pancreatic, ovarian, uterine, kidney and bladder cancer risks associated with newly reported abdominal pain with or without other symptoms, signs or abnormal blood tests (i.e. features) indicative of possible cancer. Design and setting: Observational prospective cohort study using Clinical Practice Research Datalink records with English cancer registry linkage. Methods: Participants (N=125,793) aged ≥40 years had newly reported abdominal pain in primary care during 01/01/2009-31/12/2013. The outcomes were 1-year cumulative incidence of cancer, and the composite 1-year cumulative incidence of cancers with shared additional features, stratified by age and sex. Results: With abdominal pain, overall risk was greater in men and increased with age, reaching 3.4% (95%CI 3.0–3.7%; predominantly colorectal cancer 1.9%, 1.6–2.1%) in men ≥70 years, compared with their expected incidence of 0.88% (0.87%–0.89%). Additional features increased cancer risk; for example, colorectal or pancreatic cancer risk with abdominal pain plus diarrhoea at 60–69 and ≥70, respectively, was 3.1% (1.9–4.9%) and 4.9% (3.7–6.4%), predominantly colorectal cancer (2.2%, 2–3.8% and 3.3%, 2.0–4.9%). Conclusions: Abdominal pain increases intra-abdominal cancer risk nearly fourfold in men aged ≥70, exceeding the 3% threshold warranting investigation. This threshold is surpassed for the over-60s only with additional features. These results help direct appropriate referral and testing strategies for patients based on their demographic profile and reporting features. We suggest non-invasive strategies first, such as faecal immunochemical testing, with safety-netting in a shared decision-making framework.

Role of primary care physician factors on diagnostic testing and referral decisions for symptoms of possible cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Missed opportunities for diagnosing cancer cause patients harm and have been attributed to suboptimal use of tests and referral pathways in primary care. Primary care physician (PCP) factors have been suggested to affect decisions to investigate cancer, but their influence is poorly understood.

OBJECTIVE

To synthesise evidence evaluating the influence of PCP factors on decisions to investigate symptoms of possible cancer.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL and PsycINFO between January 1990 and March 2021 for relevant citations. Studies examining the effect or perceptions and experiences of PCP factors on use of tests and referrals for symptomatic patients with any cancer were included. PCP factors comprised personal characteristics and attributes of physicians in clinical practice.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Critical appraisal and data extraction were undertaken independently by two authors. Due to study heterogeneity, data could not be statistically pooled. We, therefore, performed a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

29 studies were included. Most studies were conducted in European countries. A total of 11 PCP factors were identified comprising modifiable and non-modifiable factors. Clinical judgement of symptoms as suspicious or 'alarm' prompted more investigations than non-alarm symptoms. 'Gut feeling' predicted a subsequent cancer diagnosis and was perceived to facilitate decisions to investigate non-specific symptoms as PCP experience increased. Female PCPs investigated cancer more than male PCPs. The effect of PCP age and years of experience on testing and referral decisions was inconclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

PCP interpretation of symptoms as higher risk facilitated testing and referral decisions for possible cancer. However, in the absence of 'alarm' symptoms or 'gut feeling', PCPs may not investigate cancer. PCPs require strategies for identifying patients with non-alarm and non-specific symptoms who need testing or referral.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD420191560515.

Building the case for the use of gut feelings in cancer referrals: perspectives of patients referred to a non-specific symptoms pathway

BACKGROUND

Gut feelings may be useful when dealing with uncertainty, which is ubiquitous in primary care. Both patients and GPs experience this uncertainty but patients' views on gut feelings in the consultation have not been explored.

AIM

To explore patients' perceptions of gut feelings in decision making, and to compare these perceptions with those of GPs.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Qualitative interviews with 21 patients in Oxfordshire, UK.

METHOD

Patients whose referral to a cancer pathway was based on their GP's gut feeling were invited to participate. Semi-structured interviews were conducted from November 2019 to January 2020, face to face or over the telephone. Data were analysed with a thematic analysis and mind-mapping approach.

RESULTS

Some patients described experiencing gut feelings about their own health but often their willingness to share this with their GP was dependent on an established doctor-patient relationship. Patients expressed similar perspectives on the use of gut feelings in consultations to those reported by GPs. Patients saw GPs' gut feelings as grounded in their experience and generalist expertise, and part of a process of evidence gathering. Patients suggested that GPs were justified in using gut feelings because of their role in arranging access to investigations, the difficult 'grey area' of presentations, and the time- and resource-limited nature of primary care. When GPs communicated that they had a gut feeling, some saw this as an indication that they were being taken seriously.

CONCLUSION

Patients accepted that GPs use gut feelings to guide decision making. Future research on this topic should include more diverse samples and address the areas of concern shared by patients and GPs.

Integrating Clinical Signs at Presentation and Clinician's Non-analytical Reasoning in Prediction Models for Serious Bacterial Infection in Febrile Children Presenting to Emergency Department

OBJECTIVE

Development and validation of clinical prediction model (CPM) for serious bacterial infections (SBIs) in children presenting to the emergency department (ED) with febrile illness, based on clinical variables, clinician's "gut feeling," and "sense of reassurance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Febrile children presenting to the ED of Children's Clinical University Hospital (CCUH) between April 1, 2017 and December 31, 2018 were enrolled in a prospective observational study. Data on clinical signs and symptoms at presentation, together with clinician's "gut feeling" of something wrong and "sense of reassurance" were collected as candidate variables for CPM. Variable selection for the CPM was performed using stepwise logistic regression (forward, backward, and bidirectional); Akaike information criterion was used to limit the number of parameters and simplify the model. Bootstrapping was applied for internal validation. For external validation, the model was tested in a separate dataset of patients presenting to six regional hospitals between January 1 and March 31, 2019.

RESULTS

The derivation cohort consisted of 517; 54% (n = 279) were boys, and the median age was 58 months. SBI was diagnosed in 26.7% (n = 138). Validation cohort included 188 patients; the median age was 28 months, and 26.6% (n = 50) developed SBI. Two CPMs were created, namely, CPM1 consisting of six clinical variables and CPM2 with four clinical variables plus "gut feeling" and "sense of reassurance." The area under the curve (AUC) for receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve of CPM1 was 0.744 (95% CI, 0.683-0.805) in the derivation cohort and 0.692 (95% CI, 0.604-0.780) in the validation cohort. AUC for CPM2 was 0.783 (0.727-0.839) and 0.752 (0.674-0.830) in derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. AUC of CPM2 in validation population was significantly higher than that of CPM1 [p = 0.037, 95% CI (-0.129; -0.004)]. A clinical evaluation score was derived from CPM2 to stratify patients in "low risk," "gray area," and "high risk" for SBI.

CONCLUSION

Both CPMs had moderate ability to predict SBI and acceptable performance in the validation cohort. Adding variables "gut feeling" and "sense of reassurance" in CPM2 improved its ability to predict SBI. More validation studies are needed for the assessment of applicability to all febrile patients presenting to ED.

Consultations for clinical features of possible cancer and associated urgent referrals before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: an observational cohort study from English primary care

Background

It remains unclear to what extent reductions in urgent referrals for suspected cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic were the result of fewer patients attending primary care compared to GPs referring fewer patients.

Methods

Cohort study including electronic health records data from 8,192,069 patients from 663 English practices. Weekly consultation rates, cumulative consultations and referrals were calculated for 28 clinical features from the NICE suspected cancer guidelines. Clinical feature consultation rate ratios (CRR) and urgent referral rate ratios (RRR) compared time periods in 2020 with 2019.

Findings

Consultations for cancer clinical features decreased by 24.19% (95% CI: 24.04–24.34%) between 2019 and 2020, particularly in the 6–12 weeks following the first national lockdown. Urgent referrals for clinical features decreased by 10.47% (95% CI: 9.82–11.12%) between 2019 and 2020. Overall, once patients consulted with primary care, GPs urgently referred a similar or greater proportion of patients compared to previous years.

Conclusion

Due to the significant fall in patients consulting with clinical features of cancer there was a lower than expected number of urgent referrals in 2020. Sustained efforts should be made throughout the pandemic to encourage the public to consult their GP with cancer clinical features.

Patients' health literacy is associated with timely diagnosis of cancer-A cross-sectional study in Denmark

OBJECTIVE

Timely diagnosis of cancer is important for prognosis. Patients' health literacy (HL) may impact differences of diagnostic delays. Thus, we aim to explore the association between HL and diagnostic intervals in cancer.

METHODS

Questionnaire data were obtained from patients with cancer diagnosed in 2016 and their general practitioner (n = 3890). The primary care interval (PCI) and the diagnostic interval (DI) were calculated using dates from national registries and questionnaires. A long PCI and DI were defined as ≥75th percentile. HL was assessed using scales from the Health Literacy Questionnaire: engaging with healthcare providers (scale 6:Engagement, n = 3008), navigating in healthcare (scale 7:Navigation, n = 2827) and understanding health information (scale 9:Knowledge, n = 3002). Low HL was defined as a score ≤3.

RESULTS

Low HL was reported by 12.2% (Engagement), 27.0% (Navigation) and 9.3% (Knowledge) of the patients and associated with a long PCI after adjustment of socio-economic factors: Engagement (prevalence rate ratio [PRR] 1.27 [95% CI 1.01-1.60]), Navigation (PRR 1.41 [95% CI 1.10-1.80]) and Knowledge (PRR 1.32 [95% CI 1.03-1.68]). No association was found between HL and DI.

CONCLUSION

HL may interfere with the diagnostic processes in general practice. Efforts to manage low HL include GPs' awareness of patients' ability to explain and respond to bodily changes and use of corresponding safety-netting strategies.

Use of sepsis-related diagnostic criteria in primary care: a survey among general practitioners

BACKGROUND

Use of sepsis-criteria in hospital settings is effective in realizing early recognition, adequate treatment and reduction of sepsis-associated morbidity and mortality. Whether general practitioners (GPs) use these diagnostic criteria is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To gauge the knowledge and use of various diagnostic criteria. To determine which parameters GPs associate with an increased likelihood of sepsis.

METHODS

Two thousand five hundred and sixty GPs were invited and 229 agreed to participate in a survey, reached out to through e-mail and WhatsApp groups. The survey consisted of two parts: the first part aimed to obtain information about the GP, training and knowledge about sepsis recognition, and the second part tested specific knowledge using six realistic cases.

RESULTS

Two hundred and six questionnaires, representing a response rate of 8.1%, were eligible for analysis. Gut feeling (98.1%) was the most used diagnostic method, while systemic inflammatory response syndrome (37.9%), quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) (7.8%) and UK Sepsis Trust criteria (UKSTc) (1.5%) were used by the minority of the GPs. Few of the responding GPs had heard of either the qSOFA (27.7%) or the UKSTc (11.7%). Recognition of sepsis varied greatly between GPs. GPs most strongly associated the individual signs of the qSOFA (mental status, systolic blood pressure, capillary refill time and respiratory rate) with diagnosing sepsis in the test cases.

CONCLUSIONS

GPs mostly use gut feeling to diagnose sepsis and are frequently not familiar with the 'sepsis-criteria' used in hospital settings, although clinical reasoning was mostly in line with the qSOFA score. In order to improve sepsis recognition in primary care, GPs should be educated in the use of available screening tools.

Cancer suspicion, referral to cancer patient pathway and primary care interval: a survey and register study exploring 10 different types of abdominal cancer

BACKGROUND

Abdominal cancers represent 30% of all diagnosed cancers. Nevertheless, it is unknown if the general practitioner's (GP's) initial cancer suspicion varies for different abdominal cancer types and how this is associated with referrals to standardized cancer patient pathways (CPPs).

OBJECTIVES

To explore initial cancer suspicion in GPs and to investigate how this was associated with GP referrals to CPPs and the duration of the primary care interval (PCI) in 10 different abdominal cancer types.

METHODS

We conducted a cohort study on 1104 incident abdominal cancer patients diagnosed in Denmark in 2016 using a combination of survey and register-based data. Poisson regression was used to estimate associations between GP cancer suspicion, CPP referral and PCI duration.

RESULTS

The GPs initially suspected cancer or other serious disease in 46-78% of cases, lowest in kidney cancer, and referred 35-65% to a CPP, lowest in oesophageal cancer. The GP's suspicion at the first presentation was strongly associated with referral to a CPP. The median (0-11 days) and 75th percentile (3-32 days) PCIs varied between the abdominal cancer types. The likelihood of a long PCI was more than 3-fold higher when the GP did not initially suspect cancer.

CONCLUSION

In up to half of abdominal cancer patients, there is no initial suspicion of cancer or serious disease. CPPs were used in only one-third to two-thirds of patients, depending on cancer type. For kidney cancer, as well as several abdominal cancers, we need better diagnostic strategies to support GPs to enable effective and efficient referral.

Planning and Evaluating Remote Consultation Services: A New Conceptual Framework Incorporating Complexity and Practical Ethics

Establishing and running remote consultation services is challenging politically (interest groups may gain or lose), organizationally (remote consulting requires implementation work and new roles and workflows), economically (costs and benefits are unevenly distributed across the system), technically (excellent care needs dependable links and high-quality audio and images), relationally (interpersonal interactions are altered), and clinically (patients are unique, some examinations require contact, and clinicians have deeply-held habits, dispositions and norms). Many of these challenges have an under-examined ethical dimension. In this paper, we present a novel framework, Planning and Evaluating Remote Consultation Services (PERCS), built from a literature review and ongoing research. PERCS has 7 domains-the reason for consulting, the patient, the clinical relationship, the home and family, technologies, staff, the healthcare organization, and the wider system-and considers how these domains interact and evolve over time as a complex system. It focuses attention on the organization's digital maturity and digital inclusion efforts. We have found that both during and beyond the pandemic, policymakers envisaged an efficient, safe and accessible remote consultation service delivered through state-of-the art digital technologies and implemented via rational allocation criteria and quality standards. In contrast, our empirical data reveal that strategic decisions about establishing remote consultation services, allocation decisions for appointment type (phone, video, e-, face-to-face), and clinical decisions when consulting remotely are fraught with contradictions and tensions-for example, between demand management and patient choice-leading to both large- and small-scale ethical dilemmas for managers, support staff, and clinicians. These dilemmas cannot be resolved by standard operating procedures or algorithms. Rather, they must be managed by attending to here-and-now practicalities and emergent narratives, drawing on guiding principles applied with contextual judgement. We complement the PERCS framework with a set of principles for informing its application in practice, including education of professionals and patients.

Symptoms and signs of colorectal cancer, with differences between proximal and distal colon cancer: a prospective cohort study of diagnostic accuracy in primary care

BACKGROUND

In an abdominal symptom study in primary care in six European countries, 511 cases of cancer were recorded prospectively among 61,802 patients 16 years and older in Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium and Scotland. Colorectal cancer is one of the main types of cancer associated with abdominal symptoms; hence, an in-depth subgroup analysis of the 94 colorectal cancers was carried out in order to study variation in symptom presentation among cancers in different anatomical locations.

METHOD

Initial data capture was by completion of standardised forms containing closed questions about symptoms recorded during the consultation. Follow-up data were provided by the GP after diagnosis, based on medical record data made after the consultation. GPs also provided free text comments about the diagnostic procedure for individual patients. Fisher's exact test was used to analyse differences between groups.

RESULTS

Almost all symptoms recorded could indicate colorectal cancer. 'Rectal bleeding' had a specificity of 99.4% and a PPV of 4.0%. Faecal occult blood in stool (FOBT) or anaemia may indicate gastrointestinal bleeding: when these symptoms and signs were combined, sensitivity reached 57.5%, with 69.2% for cancer in the distal colon. For proximal colon cancers, none of 18 patients had 'Rectal bleeding' at the initial consultation, but three of the 18 did so at a later consultation. 'Abdominal pain, lower part', 'Constipation' and 'Distended abdomen, bloating' were less specific and also less sensitive than 'Rectal bleeding', and with PPV between 0.7% and 1.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

Apart from rectal bleeding, single symptoms did not reach the PPV 3% NICE threshold. However, supplementary information such as a positive FOBT or persistent symptoms may revise the PPV upwards. If a colorectal cancer is suspected by the GP despite few symptoms, the total clinical picture may still reach the NICE PPV threshold of 3% and justify a specific referral.

Alignment between the patient's cancer worry and the GP's cancer suspicion and the association with the interval between first symptom presentation and referral: a cross-sectional study in Denmark

BACKGROUND

General practitioners (GPs) have a key role in the diagnosis of cancer. It is crucial to identify factors influencing the decision to refer for suspected cancer. The aim of this study was to investigate the alignment between the patient's cancer worry and the GP's suspicion of cancer in the first clinical encounter and the association with the time interval from the first symptom presentation until the first referral to specialist care, i.e. the primary care interval (PCI).

METHOD

The study was performed as a cross-sectional study using survey data on patients diagnosed with incident cancer in 2010 or 2016 and their GPs in Denmark. We defined four alignment groups: 1) patient worry and GP suspicion, 2)  GP suspicion only, 3) patient worry only, and 4) none of the two. A long PCI was defined as an interval longer than the 75th percentile.

RESULTS

Among the 3333 included patients, both patient worry and GP suspicion was seen in 39.5%, only GP suspicion was seen in 28.2%, only patient worry was seen in 13.6%, and neither patient worry nor GP suspicion was seen in 18.2%. The highest likelihood of long PCI was observed in group 4 (group 4 vs. group 1: PPR 3.99 (95% CI 3.34-4.75)), mostly pronounced for easy-to-diagnose cancer types.

CONCLUSION

Misalignment between the patient's worry and the GP's suspicion was common at the first cancer-related encounter. Importance should be given to the patient interview, due to a potential delayed GP referral among patients diagnosed with "easy-to-diagnose" cancer types presenting with unspecific symptoms.

How child health care physicians struggle from gut feelings to managing suspicions of child abuse

Aim

We examined how gut feelings of child health care physicians’ (CHCPs) contribute to the development of a suspicion of child abuse, how they act upon this suspicion and what barriers they experience in their management. To gain insight into the youth health care chain, we compared the diagnostic reasoning and management regarding this issue by CHCPs and family physicians (FPs).

Methods

Three focus groups, 20 CHCPs, thematic content analysis.

Results

A gut feeling acted as an early alert to look for the triggering cue(s), by observing more closely and asking relevant questions. CHCPs struggled to distinguish whether the situation involved child abuse or a lack of parenting skills, and how to communicate their concerns with parents. They tried to motivate parents to improve the situation, avoiding the term child abuse and considered involving the Child Abuse Counselling and Reporting Centre (CACRC) a measure of last resort only.

Conclusion

As with FPs, gut feelings support CHCPs in becoming attentive to child abuse and to situations which can lead to child abuse. The next step, discussing their suspicion with the parents, is a difficult one, and the CACRC might actually help to make this step easier.

GPs' use of gut feelings when assessing cancer risk: a qualitative study in UK primary care

BACKGROUND

The use of gut feelings to guide clinical decision making in primary care has been frequently described but is not considered a legitimate reason for cancer referral.

AIM

To explore the role that gut feeling plays in clinical decision making in primary care.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Qualitative interview study with 19 GPs in Oxfordshire, UK.

METHOD

GPs who had referred patients to a cancer pathway based on a gut feeling as a referral criterion were invited to participate. Interviews were conducted between November 2019 and January 2020, and transcripts were analysed using the one sheet of paper method.

RESULTS

Gut feeling was seen as an essential part of decision making that facilitated appropriate and timely care. GPs distanced their gut feelings from descriptions that could be seen as unscientific, describing successful use as reliant on experience and clinical knowledge. This was especially true for patients who fell within a 'grey area' where clinical guidelines did not match the GP's assessment of cancer risk, either because the guidance inadequately represented or did not include the patient's presentation. GPs sought to legitimise their gut feelings by gathering objective clinical evidence, careful examination of referral procedures, and consultation with colleagues.

CONCLUSION

GPs described their gut feelings as important to decision making in primary care and a necessary addition to clinical guidance. The steps taken to legitimise their gut feelings matched that expected in good clinical practice.

Protocol for a feasibility study incorporating a randomised pilot trial with an embedded process evaluation and feasibility economic analysis of ThinkCancer!: a primary care intervention to expedite cancer diagnosis in Wales

BACKGROUND

Compared to the rest of Europe, the UK has relatively poor cancer outcomes, with late diagnosis and a slow referral process being major contributors. General practitioners (GPs) are often faced with patients presenting with a multitude of non-specific symptoms that could be cancer. Safety netting can be used to manage diagnostic uncertainty by ensuring patients with vague symptoms are appropriately monitored, which is now even more crucial due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and its major impact on cancer referrals. The ThinkCancer! workshop is an educational behaviour change intervention aimed at the whole general practice team, designed to improve primary care approaches to ensure timely diagnosis of cancer. The workshop will consist of teaching and awareness sessions, the appointment of a Safety Netting Champion and the development of a bespoke Safety Netting Plan and has been adapted so it can be delivered remotely. This study aims to assess the feasibility of the ThinkCancer! intervention for a future definitive randomised controlled trial.

METHODS

The ThinkCancer! study is a randomised, multisite feasibility trial, with an embedded process evaluation and feasibility economic analysis. Twenty-three to 30 general practices will be recruited across Wales, randomised in a ratio of 2:1 of intervention versus control who will follow usual care. The workshop will be delivered by a GP educator and will be adapted iteratively throughout the trial period. Baseline practice characteristics will be collected via questionnaire. We will also collect primary care intervals (PCI), 2-week wait (2WW) referral rates, conversion rates and detection rates at baseline and 6 months post-randomisation. Participant feedback, researcher reflections and economic costings will be collected following each workshop. A process evaluation will assess implementation using an adapted Normalisation Measure Development (NoMAD) questionnaire and qualitative interviews. An economic feasibility analysis will inform a future economic evaluation.

DISCUSSION

This study will allow us to test and further develop a novel evidenced-based complex intervention aimed at general practice teams to expedite the diagnosis of cancer in primary care. The results from this study will inform the future design of a full-scale definitive phase III trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04823559 .

Dentistry - art or science? Has the clinical freedom of the dental professional been undermined by guidelines, authoritative guidance and expert opinion?

The General Dental Council (GDC) requires dental practitioners to provide good-quality care based on current evidence and authoritative guidance. However, this leaves the dental practitioner in a sort of limbo as good quality is an ill-defined term allowing its precise meaning to be open to interpretation. This article sets out to demonstrate that the practice of dentistry is very much more of an art than a science and, as such, relies on individual skill and judgement. It will also show that the 'value' of current evidence as determined by published papers and authoritative guidance is questionable and should not be regarded by dental practitioners as the 'rule'. The interaction between a dentist and a patient essentially consists of clinical decision-making and the implementation of that decision and, therefore, it is essential to understand the nature of decision-making and the context in which implementation takes place. Practitioners should exercise their clinical judgement, putting the interests of the patient first and not feel constrained by the threat of sanctions from the GDC or other regulatory bodies.

Factors shaping the implementation and use of Clinical Cancer Decision Tools by GPs in primary care: a qualitative framework synthesis

OBJECTIVE

Clinical Cancer Decision Tools (CCDTs) aim to alert general practitioners (GPs) to signs and symptoms of cancer, supporting prompt investigation and onward referral. CCDTs are available in primary care in the UK but are not widely utilised. Qualitative research has highlighted the complexities and mechanisms surrounding their implementation and use; this has focused on specific cancer types, formats, systems or settings. This study aims to synthesise qualitative data of GPs' attitudes to and experience with a range of CCDTs to gain better understanding of the factors shaping their implementation and use.

DESIGN

A systematic search of the published (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science and EMBASE) and grey literature (July 2020). Following screening, selection and assessment of suitability, the data were analysed and synthesised using normalisation process theory.

RESULTS

Six studies (2011 to 2019), exploring the views of GPs were included for analysis. Studies focused on the use of several different types of CCDTs (Risk Assessment Tools (RAT) or electronic version of RAT (eRAT), QCancer and the 7-point checklist). GPs agreed CCDTs were useful to increase awareness of signs and symptoms of undiagnosed cancer. They had concerns about the impact on trust in their own clinical acumen, whether secondary care clinicians would consider referrals generated by CCDT as valid and whether integration of the CCDTs within existing systems was achievable.

CONCLUSIONS

CCDTs might be a helpful adjunct to clinical work in primary care, but without careful development to legitimise their use GPs are likely to give precedence to clinical acumen and gut instinct. Stakeholder consultation with secondary care clinicians and consideration of how the CCDTs fit into a GP consultation are crucial to successful uptake. The role and responsibilities of a GP as a clinician, gatekeeper, health promoter and resource manager affect the interaction with and implementation of innovations such as CCDTs.