How do GPs and patients share the responsibility for cancer safety netting follow-up actions? A qualitative interview study of GPs and patients in Oxfordshire, UK

Safety-netting advice documentation in out-of-hours primary care: a retrospective cohort from 2013 to 2020

BACKGROUND

Providing safety-netting advice (SNA) in out-of-hours (OOH) primary care is a recognised standard of safe care, but it is not known how frequently this occurs in practice.

AIM

Assess the frequency and type of SNA documented in OOH primary care and explore factors associated with its presence.

DESIGN AND SETTING

This was a retrospective cohort study using the Birmingham Out-of-hours general practice Research Database.

METHOD

A stratified sample of 30 adult consultation records per month from July 2013 to February 2020 were assessed using a safety-netting coding tool. Associations were tested using linear and logistic regression.

RESULTS

The overall frequency of SNA per consultation was 78.0% (1472/1886), increasing from 75.7% (224/296) in 2014 to 81.5% (220/270) in 2019. The proportion of specific SNA and the average number of symptoms patients were told to look out for increased with time. The most common symptom to look out for was if the patients' condition worsened followed by if their symptoms persisted, but only one in five consultations included a timeframe to reconsult for persistent symptoms. SNA was more frequently documented in face-to-face treatment-centre encounters compared with telephone consultations (odds ratio [OR] 1.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.09 to 2.85, P = 0.02), for possible infections (OR 1.53, 95% CI = 1.13 to 2.07, P = 0.006), and less frequently for mental (versus physical) health consultations (OR 0.33, 95% CI = 0.17 to 0.66, P = 0.002) and where follow-up was planned (OR 0.34, 95% CI = 0.25 to 0.46, P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The frequency of SNA documented in OOH primary care was higher than previously reported during in-hours care. Over time, the frequency of SNA and proportion that contained specific advice increased, however, this study highlights potential consultations where SNA could be improved, such as mental health and telephone consultations.

Role of communicating diagnostic uncertainty in the safety-netting process: insights from a vignette study

BACKGROUND

Safety-netting is intended to protect against harm from uncertainty in diagnosis/disease trajectory. Despite recommendations to communicate diagnostic uncertainty when safety-netting, this is not always done.

AIMS

To explore how and why doctors safety-netted in response to several clinical scenarios, within the broader context of exploring how doctors communicate diagnostic uncertainty.

METHODS

Doctors working in internal medical specialties (n=36) from five hospitals were given vignettes in a randomised order (all depicting different clinical scenarios involving diagnostic uncertainty). After reading each, they told an interviewer what they would tell a 'typical patient' in this situation. A follow-up semistructured interview explored reasons for their communication. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and coded. We examined how participants safety-netted using a content analysis approach, and why they safety-netting with thematic analysis of the semistructured follow-up interviews using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We observed n=78 instances of safety-netting (across 108 vignette encounters). We found significant variation in how participants safety-netted. Safety-netting was common (although not universal), but clinicians differed in the detail provided about symptoms to be alert for, and the action advised. Although many viewed safety-netting as an important tool for managing diagnostic uncertainty, diagnostic uncertainty was infrequently explicitly discussed; most advised patients to return if symptoms worsened or new 'red flag' symptoms developed, but they rarely linked this directly to the possibility of diagnostic error. Some participants expressed concerns that communicating diagnostic uncertainty when safety-netting may cause anxiety for patients or could drive inappropriate reattendance/over-investigation.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants safety-netted variously, even when presented with identical clinical information. Although safety-netting was seen as important in avoiding diagnostic error, concerns about worrying patients may have limited discussion about diagnostic uncertainty. Research is needed to determine whether communicating diagnostic uncertainty makes safety-netting more effective at preventing harm associated with diagnostic error, and whether it causes significant patient anxiety.

Perceived benefits and challenges of using an electronic cancer prediction system for safety netting in primary care: An exploratory study of C the signs

OBJECTIVES

This paper reports on an exploratory study into the perceived benefits and challenges of using an electronic cancer prediction system, C the Signs, for safety netting within a Primary Care Network (PCN) in the East of England.

METHODS

The study involved semi-structured interviews and a qualitative questionnaire with a sample of 15 clinicians and practice administrators within four GP practices in the PCN.

RESULTS

Participants generally perceived benefits of C the Signs for managing and monitoring referrals as part of post-consultation safety netting. Clinicians made little use of the decision support function though, as part of safety netting during the consultation, and referrals were still sent by administrators, rather than directly by clinicians through C the Signs.

CONCLUSION

Emphasising the benefits of C the Signs for post-consultation safety netting is most likely to gain buy-in to the system from clinicians, and can also be used by administrators for shared visibility of referrals. More evidence is needed on the value of C the Signs for safety netting during the consultation, through better diagnosis of cancer, before this is seen as a valued benefit by clinicians and provides motivation to use the system.

Safety-netting strategies for primary and emergency care: a codesign study with patients, carers and clinicians in Sweden

OBJECTIVES

To codesign safety-netting strategies for primary and emergency care settings by integrating the experiences and ideas of patients, carers and clinicians.

DESIGN

A codesign process involving two focus group discussions, eight individual interviews and five workshops. All sessions were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis and reported using the Consolidated criteria for Reporting Qualitative research guidelines.

SETTING

Primary and emergency care in Sweden, focusing on the Stockholm region.

PARTICIPANTS

7 (5 women) individuals with patient expertise, 1 (man) individual with carer expertise, 18 (12 women) individuals with clinical expertise.

RESULTS

Three main categories reflecting strategies for applying safety-netting were developed: first, conveying safety-netting advice, which involves understanding patient concerns, tailoring communication and using appropriate modalities for communicating; second, ensuring common understanding, which involves summarising information, asking a teach-back question and anticipating questions post consultation; and third, supporting safety-netting behaviour, which involves facilitating reconsultation, helping patients and carers to navigate the health system and explaining the care context and its purpose.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlights the collaborative nature of safety-netting, engaging both the clinician and patient, sometimes supported by carers, in an iterative process. Adding to previous research, our study also emphasises the importance of anticipating postconsultation inquiries and facilitating reconsultation.

Patients' and clinicians' views on the appropriate use of safety-netting advice in consultations-an interview study from Sweden

BACKGROUND

A promising approach to manage clinical uncertainty and thereby reduce the risk of preventable diagnostic harm is to use safety-netting advice (ie, communicating structured information to patients about when and where to reconsult healthcare).

AIM

To explore clinicians' and patients' views on when and how safety-netting can be successfully applied in primary-care and emergency-care settings.

DESIGN AND SETTING

An exploratory qualitative research design; we performed focus groups and interviews in a Swedish setting.

PARTICIPANTS

Nine physicians working in primary or emergency care and eight patients or caregivers participated. The participants were an ethnically homogeneous group, originating from Western European or Australian backgrounds.

METHOD

Data were analysed inductively, using the framework method. The results are reported according to the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research guidelines for reporting qualitative research.

RESULTS

In order to manage diagnostic uncertainty using safety-netting, clinicians and patients emphasised the need to understand the preconditions for the consultation (ie, the healthcare setting, the patient's capacity and existing power imbalance). Furthermore, participants raised the importance of establishing a mutual understanding regarding the patient's perspective and the severity of the situation before engaging in safety-netting advice.

CONCLUSION

The establishment of a shared mental model between clinician and patient of the preconditions for the clinical encounter is a vital factor affecting how safety-netting advice is communicated and received and its ability to support patients in problem detection and planning after the visit. We suggest that successful safety-netting can be viewed as a team activity, where the clinician and patient collaborate in monitoring how the patient's condition progresses after the care visit. Furthermore, our findings suggest that to be successfully implemented, safety-netting advice needs to be tailored to the clinical context in general and to the patient-clinician encounter in particular.

Electronic safety-netting tool features considered important by UK general practice staff: an interview and Delphi consensus study

BACKGROUND

The potential of the electronic health record to support safety netting has been recognised and a number of electronic safety-netting (E-SN) tools developed.

AIM

To establish the most important features of E-SN tools.

DESIGN & SETTING

User-experience interviews followed by a Delphi study in a primary care setting in the UK.

METHOD

The user-experience interviews were carried out remotely with primary care staff who had trialled the EMIS E-SN toolkit for suspected cancer. An electronic modified Delphi approach was used, with primary care staff involved in safety netting in any capacity, to measure consensus on tool features.

RESULTS

Thirteen user-experience interviews were carried out and features of E-SN tools seen as important formed the majority of the features included in the Delphi study. Three rounds of Delphi survey were administered. Sixteen responders (64%) completed all three rounds, and 28 out of 44 (64%) features reached consensus. Primary care staff preferred tools that were general in scope.

CONCLUSION

Primary care staff indicated that tools that were not specific to cancer or any other disease, and had features that promoted their flexible, efficient, and integrated use, were important. However, when the important features were discussed with the patient and public involvement (PPI) group, they expressed disappointment that features they believed would make E-SN tools robust and provide a safety net that is difficult to fall through did not reach consensus. The successful adoption of E-SN tools will rely on an evidence base of their effectiveness. Efforts should be made to assess the impact of these tools on patient outcomes.

Shared Decision Making in Psychiatry: Dissolving the Responsibility Problem

Person centered care (PCC) invites ideas of shared responsibility as a direct result of its shared decision making (SDM) process. The intersection of PCC and psychiatric contexts brings about what I refer to as the responsibility problem, which seemingly arises when SDM is applied in psychiatric settings due to (1) patients’ potentially diminished capacities for responsibility, (2) tension prompted by professional reasons for and against sharing responsibility with patients, as well as (3) the responsibility/blame dilemma. This paper aims to do away with the responsibility problem through arguing for a functional approach to mental illness, a blameless responsibility ascription to the person with mental illness, as well as a nuanced understanding of SDM as part of an emancipation-oriented PCC model.

How does safety netting for lung cancer symptoms help patients to reconsult appropriately? A qualitative study

Background

Safety netting in primary care is considered an important intervention for managing diagnostic uncertainty. This is the first study to examine how patients understand and interpret safety netting advice around low-risk potential lung cancer symptoms, and how this affects reconsultation behaviours.

Methods

Qualitative interview study in UK primary care. Pre-covid-19, five patients were interviewed in person within 2–3 weeks of a primary care consultation for potential lung cancer symptom(s), and again 2–5 months later. The general practitioner (GP) they last saw was interviewed face-to-face once. During the covid-19 pandemic, an additional 15 patients were interviewed only once via telephone, and their GPs were not interviewed or contacted in any way. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive thematic analysis.

Results

The findings from our thematic analysis suggest that patients prefer active safety netting, as part of thorough and logical diagnostic uncertainty management. Passive or ambiguous safety netting may be perceived as dismissive and cause delayed reconsultation. GP safety netting strategies are not always understood, potentially causing patient worry and dissatisfaction. Telephone consultations and the diagnostic overshadowing of COVID-19 on respiratory symptoms impacted GPs’ safety netting strategies and patients’ appetite for active follow up measures.

Conclusions

Safety netting guidelines do not yet offer solutions that have been proven to promote symptom vigilance and timely reconsultation for low-risk lung cancer symptoms. This may have been affected by primary care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients prefer active or pre-planned safety netting coupled with thorough consultation techniques and a comprehensible diagnostic strategy, and may respond adversely to passive safety netting advice.

Optimising GPs' communication of advice to facilitate patients' self-care and prompt follow-up when the diagnosis is uncertain: a realist review of 'safety-netting' in primary care

BACKGROUND

Safety-netting has become best practice when dealing with diagnostic uncertainty in primary care. Its use, however, is highly varied and a lack of evidence-based guidance on its communication could be harming its effectiveness and putting patient safety at risk.

OBJECTIVE

To use a realist review method to produce a programme theory of safety-netting, that is, advice and support provided to patients when diagnosis or prognosis is uncertain, in primary care.

METHODS

Five electronic databases, web searches, and grey literature were searched for studies assessing outcomes related to understanding and communicating safety-netting advice or risk communication, or the ability of patients to self-care and re-consult when appropriate. Characteristics of included documents were extracted into an Excel spreadsheet, and full texts uploaded into NVivo and coded. A random 10% sample was independently double -extracted and coded. Coded data wasere synthesised and itstheir ability to contribute an explanation for the contexts, mechanisms, or outcomes of effective safety-netting communication considered. Draft context, mechanism and outcome configurations (CMOCs) were written by the authors and reviewed by an expert panel of primary care professionals and patient representatives.

RESULTS

95 documents contributed to our CMOCs and programme theory. Effective safety-netting advice should be tailored to the patient and provide practical information for self-care and reconsultation. The importance of ensuring understanding and agreement with advice was highlighted, as was consideration of factors such as previous experiences with healthcare, the patient's personal circumstances and the consultation setting. Safety-netting advice should be documented in sufficient detail to facilitate continuity of care.

CONCLUSIONS

We present 15 recommendations to enhance communication of safety-netting advice and map these onto established consultation models. Effective safety-netting communication relies on understanding the information needs of the patient, barriers to acceptance and explanation of the reasons why the advice is being given. Reduced continuity of care, increasing multimorbidity and remote consultations represent threats to safety-netting communication.

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.

The Shared Safety Net Action Plan (SSNAP): a co-designed intervention to promote greater involvement of patients to support the timely diagnosis of cancer in primary care

Background

Safety netting in primary care may help diagnose cancer earlier, but it is unclear what the format and content of an acceptable safety-netting intervention would be. This project aimed to co-design a safety-netting intervention with and for primary care patients and staff.

Aim

This work sought to address how a safety-netting intervention would be implemented in practice; and, if and how a safety-netting intervention would be acceptable to all stakeholders.

Design and setting

Patient representatives, GPs, and nurse practitioners were invited to a series of co-design workshops. Patients who had and had not received a diagnosis of cancer and primary care practices took part in separate focus groups.

Method

Three workshops using creative co-design processes developed the format and content of the intervention prototype. The COM-B Framework underpinned five focus groups to establish views on capability, opportunity, and motivation to use the intervention to assist with prototype refinement.

Results

Workshops and focus groups suggested the intervention format and content should incorporate visual and written communication specifying clear timelines for monitoring symptoms and when to present back; be available in paper and electronic forms linked to existing computer systems; and be able to be delivered within a 10-minute consultation. Intervention use themes included ‘building confidence through partnership’, ‘using familiar and current procedures and systems’, and ‘seeing value’.

Conclusion

The Shared Safety Net Action Plan (SSNAP) — a safety-netting intervention to assist the timely diagnosis of cancer in primary care, was successfully co-designed with and for patients and primary care staff.

Exploring the experiences of patients, general practitioners and oncologists of prostate cancer follow-up: A qualitative interview study

Purpose

To examine the experiences of patients and healthcare professionals of prostate cancer follow-up in primary care and to identify areas where current policy and practice could be improved.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews with patients, GPs and oncologists explored experiences of prostate cancer follow-up. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. The three participant groups were analysed as individual datasets but the same key themes were evident across the groups.

Results

14 patients, 6 GPs and 5 oncologists were interviewed. Four main themes were identified: Experience of current practice; Knowledge and understanding of prostate cancer follow up; Disparity of processes and pathways; Unclear roles and responsibilities.

Conclusions

Findings from this study highlight the variation in the approach to prostate specific antigen monitoring and emphasise the lack of clear policies and practices. The lack of clarity around existing follow up and monitoring processes could cause delays in the diagnosis of recurrence. There is a need for a new and improved pathway for prostate cancer follow up. The pathway should include clear and concise guidance for patients, primary care and secondary care and all relevant parties need to understand what their role is within the pathway.

•

There is huge variation in PSA monitoring processes and after care.

•

Patients and professionals are unsure of their role.

•

Lack of clarity means there is a risk that patients may not be monitored routinely.

•

There is a need for a new and improved pathway for prostate cancer follow up.