Exploring why European primary care physicians sometimes do not think of, or act on, a possible cancer diagnosis. A qualitative study

Human Healthcare and Its Pharmacy Component from a Safety Point of View

Healthcare plays a crucial role in public and national safety as a significant part of state activity and a component of national safety, whose mission is to organize and ensure affordable medical care for the population. The four stages of the genesis of healthcare safety development with the corresponding safety models of formation were defined: technical, human factor or security management, systemic security management, and cognitive complexity. It was established that at all stages, little attention is paid to the issues of the formation of the pharmaceutical sector's safety. Taking into account the development of safety models that arise during the four stages of the genesis of safety science, we have proposed a model of the evolution of pharmaceutical safety formation. At the same time, future research is proposed to focus on new holistic concepts of safety, such as "Safety II", evaluation and validation methods, especially in the pharmaceutical sector, where the development of this topic remained in the second stage of the evolution of science, the search for pharmaceutical errors related to drugs.

What would primary care practitioners do differently after a delayed cancer diagnosis? Learning lessons from their experiences

OBJECTIVE

Diagnosis of cancer is challenging in primary care due to the low incidence of cancer cases in primary care practice. A prolonged diagnostic interval may be due to doctor, patient or system factors, or may be due to the characteristics of the cancer itself. The objective of this study was to learn from Primary Care Physicians' (PCP) experiences of incidents when they had failed to think of, or act on, a cancer diagnosis.

DESIGN

A qualitative, online survey eliciting PCP narratives. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.

SETTING AND SUBJECTS

A primary care study, with narratives from 159 PCPs in 23 European countries.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

PCPs' narratives on the question 'If you saw this patient with cancer presenting in the same way today, what would you do differently?

RESULTS

The main themes identified were: thinking broadly; improvement in communication and clinical management; use of other available resources and 'I wouldn't do anything differently'.

CONCLUSION (IMPLICATIONS)

To achieve more timely cancer diagnosis, PCPs need to provide a long-term, holistic and active approach with effective communication, and to ensure shared decision-making, follow-up and continuing re-assessment of the patients' clinical conditions.