SBI is uncommon in the absence of paediatricians' gut feeling and abnormal respiratory pattern

AIM

According to the Italian national statistical institute, severe bacterial infections (SBI) in Italy are responsible for 1.7% of mortality under 5 years of age and their recognition is often challenging, especially in the first stages of the disease. We tried to estimate the prevalence of SBI in our target population and to identify signs and symptoms that could guide in the initial evaluation of a child with a possible SBI.

METHODS

We designed a prospective, multicentre study and enrolled patients aged 0-14 years at the first evaluation to the emergency department with an acute illness lasting a maximum of 5 days. The presence of variables suggestive of SBI was collected for every enrolled patient. One week after the enrolment, every patient was followed up by telephone.

RESULTS

SBI is more likely to be detected with the 'gut feeling' in both univariate and multivariate models (univariate OR: 7.16, 95% CI: 4.08-12.56; multivariate OR: 5.34, 95% CI: 2.78-10.25), while abnormal breathing pattern resulted significative only in univariate model (OR 3.83, 95% CI: 1.98-7.40). Nevertheless, their associated sensitivity is low.

CONCLUSION

SBI is uncommon in the absence of paediatricians' gut feeling and abnormal respiratory pattern.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Growing evidence for the role of GPs' gut feelings in cancer diagnosis raises questions about their origin and role in clinical practice.

AIM

To explore the origins of GPs' gut feelings for cancer, their use, and their diagnostic utility.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review and meta-analysis of international research on GPs' gut feelings in primary care.

METHOD

Six databases were searched from inception to July 2019, and internet searches were conducted. A segregated method was used to analyse, then combine, quantitative and qualitative findings.

RESULTS

Twelve articles and four online resources were included that described varied conceptualisations of gut feelings. Gut feelings were often initially associated with patients being unwell, rather than with a suspicion of cancer, and were commonly experienced in response to symptoms and non-verbal cues. The pooled odds of a cancer diagnosis were four times higher when gut feelings were recorded (OR 4.24, 95% confidence interval = 2.26 to 7.94); they became more predictive of cancer as clinical experience and familiarity with the patient increased. Despite being included in some clinical guidelines, GPs had varying experiences of acting on gut feelings as some specialists questioned their diagnostic value. Consequently, some GPs ignored or omitted gut feelings from referral letters, or chose investigations that did not require specialist approval.

CONCLUSION

GPs' gut feelings for cancer were conceptualised as a rapid summing up of multiple verbal and non-verbal patient cues in the context of the GPs' clinical knowledge and experience. Triggers of gut feelings not included in referral guidance deserve further investigation as predictors of cancer. Non-verbal cues that trigger gut feelings appear to be reliant on continuity of care and clinical experience; they tend to remain poorly recorded and are, therefore, inaccessible to researchers.

'So why didn't you think this baby was ill?' Decision-making in acute paediatrics

Determining severity of illness and undertaking an adequate risk assessment is a fundamental part of acute paediatric practice. This review highlights physiology, communication, heuristics and external elements as factors which influence decision-making and discusses how incidence of disease and seniority of clinician impact might influence outcomes.

Determinants of general practitioner's cancer-related gut feelings-a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

General practitioners (GPs) use gut feelings to diagnose cancer in an early stage, but little is known about its impact.

METHOD

Prospective cohort study of patients in 44 general practices throughout the Netherlands, from January 2010 until December 2013. GPs completed a questionnaire regarding gut feelings, patient and GP characteristics, if they noticed a cancer-related gut feeling during patient consultation. Follow-up questionnaires were sent 3 months later requesting information about the patient's diagnosis. χ(2), univariate and multivariate logistic regression and multilevel analyses were performed.

RESULTS

A gut feeling (N=366) is most often triggered by weight loss (24%, N=85) and rare GP visits (22%, N=76), but all triggers were not predictive of cancer in a multivariate analysis. Most GPs (95%) acted immediately on the gut feeling, either referring to a specialist or by performing additional medical tests. The average positive predictive value of cancer-related gut feeling was 35%, and it increased with 2% for every year a patient becomes older, and with 3% for every year a GP becomes older.

CONCLUSIONS

GP's gut feeling for cancer proves to be a useful tool in diagnosing cancer and its relative high predicting value increases if the GP is older or more experienced and when the patient is older. How can younger GPs be trained to increase the predictive value of their gut feeling?