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

Safety netting advice for acutely ill children presenting to ambulatory care: exploring parents' opinions, ideas, and expectations through focus group interviews

BACKGROUND

Safety netting advice (SNA) is an essential component of the management of acutely ill children in ambulatory care. However, healthcare professionals use a variety of SNA methods, leading to inconsistencies within and across organisations. Much research has explored the perspective on SNA of parents from the UK, but such research is lacking outside the UK context.

METHODS

We conducted focus groups with Belgian parents of children 6 months to 12 years old, who were recruited through maximum variation sampling. We transcribed the interviews verbatim. Using a combination of inductive and deductive 'in vivo' coding we developed themes from the data. As per the Grounded Theory approach, we reiterated between data collection, coding, and analysis. After participant validation of provisional themes, we constructed the final thematic framework.

RESULTS

Through six focus groups with 30 parents, we identified five themes: (1) Relevant background information; (2) To know what to expect, what to look out for; (3) Instructions on child homecare and when to revisit a physician; (4) Physicians who consider parents' perspectives and contexts; (5) A reliable source that provides SNA only when necessary, possibly in a multimodal way.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified five themes from Belgian parents' views on SNA, aligning with prior UK research. These findings form an evidence base for developing a consensus statement on the content and form of SNA supported by both parents and experts from high-income countries.

To what extent should doctors communicate diagnostic uncertainty with their patients? An empirical ethics vignette study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Although diagnostic uncertainty is common, patient-focused research examining its communication is lacking. We aimed to determine patient preferences for the communication of diagnostic uncertainty, and examine the effects of such communication on patients.

METHODS

We applied an empirical ethics approach, integrating the data collected with ethical analysis to form normative recommendations about diagnostic uncertainty communication. In this randomised crossover study, n=111 members of the public sequentially watched two video vignettes depicting either high or low communicated diagnostic uncertainty, in one of two clinical scenarios. After watching videos, participants completed online questionnaires. Primary outcome was preferred video (high vs low communicated uncertainty); secondary outcomes included satisfaction, trust, worry and understanding. Quantitative data were analysed using logistic regression and a linear mixed effects model; qualitative data were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Quantitative analysis demonstrated that participants preferred greater diagnostic uncertainty communication, even though these vignettes were more worrying. Qualitative data revealed heterogeneous participant views justifying their communication preferences. These data raise issues relating to how doctors might balance harms versus benefits in diagnostic uncertainty communication and how doctors might communicate in the face of heterogeneous patient information preferences.

CONCLUSIONS

We argue that doctors should err on the side of greater diagnostic uncertainty communication: to not do so (eg, based on benign paternalistic ideas about avoiding patient worry) or to do so variably (eg, based on unevidenced assumptions about patient information preferences) risks depriving patients of information they may value and may create or exacerbate inequalities.

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.

Bringing team science to the ambulatory diagnostic process: how do patients and clinicians develop shared mental models?

The ambulatory diagnostic process is potentially complex, resulting in faulty communication, lost information, and a lack of team coordination. Patients and families have a unique position in the ambulatory diagnostic team, holding privileged information about their clinical conditions and serving as the connecting thread across multiple healthcare encounters. While experts advocate for engaging patients as diagnostic team members, operationalizing patient engagement has been challenging. The team science literature links improved team performance with shared mental models, a concept reflecting the team's commonly held knowledge about the tasks to be done and the expertise of each team member. Despite their proven potential to improve team performance and outcomes in other settings, shared mental models remain underexplored in healthcare. In this manuscript, we review the literature on shared mental models, applying that knowledge to the ambulatory diagnostic process. We consider the role of patients in the diagnostic team and adapt the five-factor model of shared mental models to develop a framework for patient-clinician diagnostic shared mental models. We conclude with research priorities. Development, maintenance, and use of shared mental models of the diagnostic process amongst patients, families, and clinicians may increase patient/family engagement, improve diagnostic team performance, and promote diagnostic safety.

Perceptions of primary care services among Afro-Peruvians in Lima, Peru

INTRODUCTION

The Peruvian public healthcare system is characterized by various shortcomings that adversely affect healthcare quality as perceived by the general and minority populations, including the Afro-Peruvian community. This population has demonstrated reduced healthcare access due to discrimination and differential treatment, reflecting broader societal inequities.

OBJECTIVE

This study explores the experiences and perceptions of Afro-Peruvian individuals regarding the treatment they receive from public primary healthcare providers in metropolitan Lima.

METHODS

In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with Afro-Peruvian individuals recruited from Lima. They were selected based on their responses to a survey conducted in a previous study, which indicated a high or low perception of intercultural adaptation in healthcare. The interviews explored their experiences with healthcare services and their perceptions about their interactions with health providers. The qualitative analysis involved topic coding to interpret the data.

RESULTS

We interviewed 19 Afro-Peruvians, including 15 women and 4 men, ages 26 to 70. The findings reveal that Afro-Peruvians generally experience mistreatment in the healthcare system. In their opinion, this is associated with systemic issues such as poor infrastructure, low salaries, and insufficient time allocated for patient care. Furthermore, participants perceive receiving poor quality and inefficient service not only from providers but also from the system presents difficulties in other processes, such as getting the appointment.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights significant areas for improvement in the public healthcare system, specifically enhancing the quality of patient care, improving communication, and upgrading healthcare infrastructure to serve the Afro-Peruvian community better. These insights could guide the development of targeted policy recommendations and practical interventions to address healthcare disparities and improve access to quality healthcare services for minority populations.

A realist review of medication optimisation of community dwelling service users with serious mental illness

BACKGROUND

Severe mental illness (SMI) incorporates schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, non-organic psychosis, personality disorder or any other severe and enduring mental health illness. Medication, particularly antipsychotics and mood stabilisers are the main treatment options. Medication optimisation is a hallmark of medication safety, characterised by the use of collaborative, person-centred approaches. There is very little published research describing medication optimisation with people living with SMI.

OBJECTIVE

Published literature and two stakeholder groups were employed to answer: What works for whom and in what circumstances to optimise medication use with people living with SMI in the community?

METHODS

A five-stage realist review was co-conducted with a lived experience group of individuals living with SMI and a practitioner group caring for individuals with SMI. An initial programme theory was developed. A formal literature search was conducted across eight bibliographic databases, and literature were screened for relevance to programme theory refinement. In total 60 papers contributed to the review. 42 papers were from the original database search with 18 papers identified from additional database searches and citation searches conducted based on stakeholder recommendations.

RESULTS

Our programme theory represents a continuum from a service user's initial diagnosis of SMI to therapeutic alliance development with practitioners, followed by mutual exchange of information, shared decision-making and medication optimisation. Accompanying the programme theory are 11 context-mechanism-outcome configurations that propose evidence-informed contextual factors and mechanisms that either facilitate or impede medication optimisation. Two mid-range theories highlighted in this review are supported decision-making and trust formation.

CONCLUSIONS

Supported decision-making and trust are foundational to overcoming stigma and establishing 'safety' and comfort between service users and practitioners. Avenues for future research include the influence of stigma and equity across cultural and ethnic groups with individuals with SMI; and use of trained supports, such as peer support workers.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021280980.

Evaluation of natural history communication and shared decision making for self-limiting conditions: Analysis of UK primary care consultations

OBJECTIVE

To analyse communication about the natural course of self-limiting illnesses, as part of shared decision-making (SDM), in general practice consultations.

METHODS

Natural history communication and SDM (using Observing Patient Involvement in Decision-Making (OPTION-12) and Assessing Communication about Evidence and Patient Preferences (ACEPP) items) were rated by two raters using transcripts from the UK 'One in a Million' database.

RESULTS

Of 55 eligible consultations, a 'wait and see' option was mentioned in 27 consultations (49 %), using varying terminology, with a general recovery timeframe provided in 21. Mean OPTION-12 score (of 100) was 25.2 (SD=7.4), indicating a low level of SDM. Mean ACEPP score (out of 5) was 1.2 (SD=0.5), indicating minimal communication about the options' benefits and harms. Recovery likelihood was quantified in only two consultations, while harms were quantified in none.

CONCLUSION

Communication about the natural history of self-limiting illnesses was generally limited. The 'wait and see' approach, along with its benefits and harms, was typically not explicitly presented as an option for patients to consider.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Improving clinicians' awareness of the importance of and skills for communicating the natural history of self-limiting illnesses, as part of SDM, may facilitate informed decision-making in managing these conditions.

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.

Communicating safety-netting information in primary care physiotherapy consultations for people with low back pain

BACKGROUND

Safety-netting involves communicating information to patients about diagnostic uncertainty, the likely time-course of their condition and how to appropriately seek help from a healthcare professional if their condition persists or worsens. Little is known about how physiotherapists communicate safety-netting information to people with low back pain (LBP).

OBJECTIVES

This research aimed to use a Safety-Netting Coding Tool (SaNCoT) to explore how physiotherapists communicate safety-netting information to people with LBP.

METHODS

The SaNCoT was used to conduct a secondary analysis of audio-recordings and transcripts from 79 primary care physiotherapy consultations (41 initial and 38 follow-up) involving 12 physiotherapists and 41 patients with LBP in Southern England. Quantitative data from the SaNCoT were analysed descriptively.

FINDINGS

The study found evidence of diagnostic uncertainty in 53 (67%) appointments and no examples of physiotherapists providing patients with specific information about their condition time-course. Eight patients were given safety-netting advice, but most (57.9%, n = 11) episodes of safety-netting advice did not include specific signs and symptoms for patients to monitor. Potential missed opportunities for safety-netting advice were identified in 19 appointments (24.1%) which tended to relate to the patient's associated leg symptoms but also included possible serious pathology.

CONCLUSION

The SaNCoT was successfully used to measure safety-netting communication within physiotherapy consultations and found missed opportunities for providing clear safety-netting advice. Physiotherapists can use the findings to reflect on how they can provide clear safety-netting information to patients with LBP to effectively support patients to self-manage and help them seek appropriate care if their condition deteriorates.

Optimising digital clinical consultations in maternity care: a realist review and implementation principles

OBJECTIVES

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to increased use of digital clinical consultations (phone or video calls) within UK maternity services. This project aimed to review the evidence on digital clinical consultations in maternity systems to illuminate how, for whom and in what contexts, they can be used to support safe, personalised and equitable care.

DESIGN

A realist synthesis, drawing on diverse sources of evidence (2010-present) from OECD countries, alongside insights from knowledge user groups (representing healthcare providers and service users).

METHODS

The review used three analytical processes (induction, abduction and retroduction) within three iterative stages (development of initial programme theories; evidence retrieval and synthesis; validation and refinement of the programme theories).

RESULTS

Ninety-three evidence sources were included in the final synthesis. Fifteen programme theories were developed showing that digital clinical consultations involve different mechanisms operating across five key contexts: the organisation, healthcare providers, the clinical relationship, the reason for consultation and women. The review suggests that digital clinical consultations can be effective and acceptable to stakeholders if there is access to appropriate infrastructure/digital resources and if implementation is able to ensure personalisation, informed choice, professional autonomy and relationship-focused connections. The review found relatively less evidence in relation to safety and equity.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to the complexity of maternity systems, there can be 'no one-size fits all' approach to digital clinical consultations. Nonetheless, the review distills four 'CORE' implementation principles: C-creating the right environment, infrastructure and support for staff; O-optimising consultations to be responsive, flexible and personalised to different needs and preferences; R-recognising the importance of access and inclusion; and E-enabling quality and safety through relationship-focused connections. Service innovation and research are needed to operationalise, explore and evaluate these principles, particularly in relation to safety and equity.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021288702.

Interventions to improve timely cancer diagnosis: an integrative review

Cancer will affect more than one in three U.S. residents in their lifetime, and although the diagnosis will be made efficiently in most of these cases, roughly one in five patients will experience a delayed or missed diagnosis. In this integrative review, we focus on missed opportunities in the diagnosis of breast, lung, and colorectal cancer in the ambulatory care environment. From a review of 493 publications, we summarize the current evidence regarding the contributing factors to missed or delayed cancer diagnosis in ambulatory care, as well as evidence to support possible strategies for intervention. Cancer diagnoses are made after follow-up of a positive screening test or an incidental finding, or most commonly, by following up and clarifying non-specific initial presentations to primary care. Breakdowns and delays are unacceptably common in each of these pathways, representing failures to follow-up on abnormal test results, incidental findings, non-specific symptoms, or consults. Interventions aimed at 'closing the loop' represent an opportunity to improve the timeliness of cancer diagnosis and reduce the harm from diagnostic errors. Improving patient engagement, using 'safety netting,' and taking advantage of the functionality offered through health information technology are all viable options to address these problems.

Patient and family contributions to improve the diagnostic process through the OurDX electronic health record tool: a mixed method analysis

BACKGROUND

Accurate and timely diagnosis relies on sharing perspectives among team members and avoiding information asymmetries. Patients/Families hold unique diagnostic process (DxP) information, including knowledge of diagnostic safety blindspots-information that patients/families know, but may be invisible to clinicians. To improve information sharing, we co-developed with patients/families an online tool called 'Our Diagnosis (OurDX)'. We aimed to characterise patient/family contributions in OurDX and how they differed between individuals with and without diagnostic concerns.

METHOD

We implemented OurDX in two academic organisations serving patients/families living with chronic conditions in three subspecialty clinics and one primary care clinic. Prior to each visit, patients/families were invited to contribute visit priorities, recent histories and potential diagnostic concerns. Responses were available in the electronic health record and could be incorporated by clinicians into visit notes. We randomly sampled OurDX reports with and without diagnostic concerns for chart review and used inductive and deductive qualitative analysis to assess patient/family contributions.

RESULTS

7075 (39%) OurDX reports were submitted at 18 129 paediatric subspecialty clinic visits and 460 (65%) reports were submitted among 706 eligible adult primary care visits. Qualitative analysis of OurDX reports in the chart review sample (n=450) revealed that participants contributed DxP information across 10 categories, most commonly: clinical symptoms/medical history (82%), tests/referrals (54%) and diagnosis/next steps (51%). Participants with diagnostic concerns were more likely to contribute information on DxP risks including access barriers, recent visits for the same problem, problems with tests/referrals or care coordination and communication breakdowns, some of which may represent diagnostic blindspots.

CONCLUSION

Partnering with patients and families living with chronic conditions through OurDX may help clinicians gain a broader perspective of the DxP, including unique information to coproduce diagnostic safety.

How is diagnostic uncertainty communicated and managed in real world primary care settings?

BACKGROUND

Managing diagnostic uncertainty is a major challenge in primary care due to factors such as the absence of definitive tests, variable symptom presentations and disease evolution. Maintaining patient trust during a period of investigative uncertainty, whilst minimising scope for diagnostic error is a challenge. Mismanagement can lead to diagnostic errors, treatment delays, and suboptimal patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to explore how UK primary care physicians (GPs) address and communicate diagnostic uncertainty in practice.

DESIGN

This qualitative study used video and audio-recordings. Verbatim transcripts were coded with a modified, validated tool to capture GPs' actions and communication in primary care consultations that included diagnostic uncertainty. The tool includes items relating to advice regarding new symptoms or symptom deterioration (sometimes called 'safety netting'). Video data was analysed to identify GP and patient body postures during and after the delivery of the management plan.

PARTICIPANTS

All patient participants had a consultation with a GP, were over the age of 50 and had (1) at least one new presenting problem or (2) one persistent problem that was undiagnosed.

APPROACH

Data collection occurred in GP-patient consultations during 2017-2018 across 7 practices in UK during 2017-2018.

KEY RESULTS

GPs used various management strategies to address diagnostic uncertainty, including (1) symptom monitoring without treatment, (2) prescribed treatment with symptom monitoring, and (3) addressing risks that could arise from administrative tasks. GPs did not make management plans for potential treatment side effects. Specificity of uncertainty management plans varied among GPs, with only some offering detailed actions and timescales. The transfer of responsibility for the management plan to patients was usually delivered rather than negotiated, with most patients confirming acceptance before concluding the discussion.

CONCLUSIONS

We offer guidance to healthcare professionals, improving awareness of using and communicating management plans for diagnostic uncertainty.

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.

A manifesto for improving cancer detection: four key considerations when implementing innovations across the interface of primary and secondary care

Improving cancer outcomes through innovative cancer detection initiatives in primary care is an international policy priority. There are unique implementation challenges to the roll-out and scale-up of different innovations, requiring synchronisation between national policy levers and local implementation strategies. We draw on implementation science to highlight key considerations when seeking to sustainably embed cancer detection initiatives within health systems and clinical practice. Points of action include considering the implications of change on the current configuration of responsibility for detecting cancer; investing in understanding how to adapt systems to support innovations; developing strategies to address inequity when planning innovation implementation; and anticipating and making efforts to mitigate the unintended consequences of innovation. We draw on examples of contemporary cancer detection issues to illustrate how to apply these recommendations to practice.

Comparing healthcare systems between the Netherlands and Australia in management for children with acute gastroenteritis

BACKGROUND

Acute gastroenteritis is a highly contagious disease demanding effective public health and clinical care systems for prevention and early intervention to avoid outbreaks and symptom deterioration. The Netherlands and Australia are both top-performing, high-income countries where general practitioners (GPs) act as healthcare gatekeepers. However, there is a lower annual incidence and per-case costs for childhood gastroenteritis in Australia. Understanding the systems and policies in different countries can lead to improvements in processes and care. Therefore, we aimed to compare public health systems and clinical care for children with acute gastroenteritis in both countries.

METHODS

A cross-country expert study was conducted for the Netherlands and Australia. Using the Health System Performance Assessment framework and discussions within the research group, two questionnaires (public health and clinical care) were developed. Questionnaires were delivered to local experts in the Netherlands and the state of Victoria, Australia. Data synthesis employed a narrative approach with constant comparison.

RESULTS

In Australia, rotavirus vaccination is implemented in a national program with immunisation requirements and legislation for prevention, which is not the case in the Netherlands. Access to care differs, as Dutch children must visit their regular GP before the hospital, while in Australia, children have multiple options and can go directly to hospital. Funding varies, with the Netherlands providing fully funded healthcare for children, whilst in Australia it depends on which GP (co-payment required or not) and hospital (public or private) they visit. Additionally, the guideline-recommended dosage of the antiemetic ondansetron is lower in the Netherlands.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare approaches for managing childhood gastroenteritis differ between the Netherlands and Australia. The lower annual incidence and per-case costs for childhood gastroenteritis in Australia cannot solely be explained by the differences in healthcare system functions. Nevertheless, Australia's robust public health system, characterized by legislation for vaccinations and quarantine, and the Netherland's well-established clinical care system, featuring fully funded continuity of care and lower ondansetron dosages, offer opportunities for enhancing healthcare in both countries.

Sources of diagnostic delay for people with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis: Qualitative research study

OBJECTIVE

An improved understanding of the causes and experience of diagnostic delay in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD).

METHODS

Framework analysis of semi-structured interviews with 20 adults with IBD.

RESULTS

Participants' prior knowledge of normal bowel function/IBD was limited. Symptoms were sometimes misattributed to mild/transient conditions or normalised until intolerable. Family pressures, work, education, mistrust of doctors, fear and embarrassment could exacerbate delays. Poor availability of face-to-face appointments deterred people from seeing a GP. Patients feared that by the time they got to see their GP, their symptoms would have resolved. Patients instead self-managed symptoms, but often regretted not seeking help earlier. Limited time in consultations, language barriers, embarrassment, and delays in test results subsequently delayed specialist referrals. GPs misattributed symptoms to other conditions due to atypical or non-specific presentations, leading to reduced trust in health systems. Patients complained of poor communication, delays in accessing test results, appointments, and onward referrals-all associated with clinical deterioration. GPs were sometimes unable to 'fast-track' patients into specialist care. Consultations and endoscopies were often difficult experiences for patients, especially for non-English speakers who are also less likely to receive information on mental health support and the practicalities of living with IBD.

CONCLUSIONS

The framework analysis demonstrates delay in the diagnosis of IBD at each stage of the patient journey.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Greater awareness of IBD amongst the general population would facilitate presentation to healthcare services through symptom recognition by individuals and community advice. Greater awareness in primary care would help ensure IBD is included in differential diagnosis. In secondary care, greater attention to the wider needs of patients is needed-beyond diagnosis and treatment. All clinicians should consider atypical presentations and the fluctuating nature of IBD. Diagnostic overshadowing is a significant risk-where other diagnoses are already in play the risk of delay is considerable.

Quality improvement exercises in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) services: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Quality Improvement initiatives aim to improve care in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD). These address a range of aspects of care including adherence to published guidelines. The objectives of this review were to document the scope and quality of published quality improvement initiatives in IBD, highlight successful interventions and the outcomes achieved.

DESIGN/METHOD

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data. We included peer reviewed articles or conference proceedings reporting initiatives intended to improve the quality of IBD care, with both baseline and prospectively collected follow-up data. Initiatives were categorised based on problems, interventions and outcomes. We used the Quality Improvement Minimum Quality Criteria Set instrument to appraise articles. We mapped the focus of the articles to the six domains of the IBD standards.

RESULTS

100 studies were identified (35 full text; 65 conference abstracts). Many focused on vaccination, medication, screening, or meeting multiple quality measures. Common interventions included provider education, the development of new service protocols, or enhancements to the electronic medical records. Studies principally focused on areas covered by the IBD standards 'ongoing care' and 'the IBD service', with less focus on standards 'pre-diagnosis', 'newly diagnosed', 'flare management', 'surgery' or 'inpatient care'.

CONCLUSION

Good quality evidence exists on approaches to improve the quality of a narrow range of IBD service functions, but there are many topic areas with little or no published quality improvement initiatives. We highlight successful quality improvement interventions and offer recommendations to improve reporting of future studies.

How and why do doctors communicate diagnostic uncertainty: An experimental vignette study

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic uncertainty is common, but its communication to patients is under-explored. This study aimed to (1) characterise variation in doctors' communication of diagnostic uncertainty and (2) explore why variation occurred.

METHODS

Four written vignettes of clinical scenarios involving diagnostic uncertainty were developed. Doctors were recruited from five hospitals until theoretical saturation was reached (n = 36). Participants read vignettes in a randomised order, and were asked to discuss the diagnosis/plan with an online interviewer, as they would with a 'typical patient'. Semi-structured interviews explored reasons for communication choices. Interview transcripts were coded; quantitative and qualitative (thematic) analyses were undertaken.

RESULTS

There was marked variation in doctors' communication: in their discussion about differential diagnoses, their reference to the level of uncertainty in diagnoses/investigations and their acknowledgement of diagnostic uncertainty when safety-netting. Implicit expressions of uncertainty were more common than explicit. Participants expressed both different communication goals (including reducing patient anxiety, building trust, empowering patients and protecting against diagnostic errors) and different perspectives on how to achieve these goals. Training in diagnostic uncertainty communication is rare, but many felt it would be useful.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant variation in diagnostic uncertainty communication exists, even in a controlled setting. Differing communication goals-often grounded in conflicting ethical principles, for example, respect for autonomy versus nonmaleficence-and differing ideas on how to prioritise and achieve them may underlie this. The variation in communication behaviours observed has important implications for patient safety and health inequalities. Patient-focused research is required to guide practice.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

In the design stage of the study, two patient and public involvement groups (consisting of members of the public of a range of ages and backgrounds) were consulted to gain an understanding of patient perspectives on the concept of communicating diagnostic uncertainty. Their feedback informed the formulations of the research questions and the choice of vignettes used.

Sociodemographic variations in the uptake of faecal immunochemical tests in primary care: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Faecal immunochemical test (FIT) usage for symptomatic patients is increasing, but variations in use caused by sociodemographic factors are unknown. A clinical pathway for colorectal cancer (CRC) was introduced in primary care for symptomatic patients in November 2017. The pathway was commissioned to provide GPs with direct access to FITs.

AIM

To identify whether sociodemographic factors affect FIT return in symptomatic patients.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A retrospective study was undertaken in Nottingham, UK, following the introduction of FIT as triage tool in primary care. It was mandated for all colorectal referrals (except rectal bleeding or mass) to secondary care. FIT was used, alongside full blood count and ferritin, to stratify CRC risk.

METHOD

All referrals from November 2017 to December 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Sociodemographic factors affecting FIT return were analysed by multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 35 289 (90.7%) patients returned their index FIT, while 3631 (9.3%) did not. On multivariate analysis, males were less likely to return an FIT (odds ratio [OR] 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.03 to 1.19). Patients aged ≥65 years were more likely to return an FIT (OR 0.78 for non-return, 95% CI = 0.72 to 0.83). Unreturned FIT more than doubled in the most compared with the least deprived quintile (OR 2.20, 95% CI = 1.99 to 2.43). Patients from Asian (OR 1.82, 95% CI = 1.58 to 2.10), Black (OR 1.21, 95% CI = 0.98 to 1.49), and mixed or other ethnic groups (OR 1.29, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.59) were more likely to not return an FIT compared with patients from a White ethnic group. A total of 599 (1.5%) CRCs were detected; 561 in those who returned a first FIT request.

CONCLUSION

FIT return in those suspected of having CRC varied by sex, age, ethnic group, and socioeconomic deprivation. Strategies to mitigate effects on FIT return and CRC detection should be considered as FIT usage expands.

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.

Using an electronic safety netting tool designed to improve safety with respect to cancer referral in primary care: a qualitative service evaluation using rapid appraisal methods

BACKGROUND

This evaluation assesses the impact of an electronic safety netting software (E-SN) package, C the Signs, in primary care services across five boroughs in North East London (NEL).

AIM

This study evaluates the use of E-SN software in primary care, examining its benefits and barriers, safety implications, and overall impact on individual and practice usage.

DESIGN AND SETTING

The study is based on semi-structured interviews with 21 clinical and non-clinical members of staff from all primary care services using the software in NEL.

METHOD

Semi-structured interviews were conducted to gather data on individual use of the software, safety implications and practice use of features such as the monitoring dashboard. Data were analysed using a rapid qualitative methodology.

RESULTS

Two approaches to E-SN software adoption were reported: whole practice adoption and self-directed use. Practices benefitted from shared responsibility for safety netting and using software to track patients' progress in secondary care. Adoption was affected by information technology and administrative resources. Decision-support tools were used infrequently due to a lack of appreciation for their benefits. Selective adoption of different E-SN functions restricted its potential impact on early diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

The use of E-SN software in primary care services in NEL varied among participants. While some found it to be beneficial, others were sceptical of its impact on clinical decision-making. Nonetheless, the software was found to be effective in managing referral processes and tracking patients' progress in other points of care.

How does work environment relate to diagnostic quality? A prospective, mixed methods study in primary care

OBJECTIVES

The quest to measure and improve diagnosis has proven challenging; new approaches are needed to better understand and measure key elements of the diagnostic process in clinical encounters. The aim of this study was to develop a tool assessing key elements of the diagnostic assessment process and apply it to a series of diagnostic encounters examining clinical notes and encounters' recorded transcripts. Additionally, we aimed to correlate and contextualise these findings with measures of encounter time and physician burnout.

DESIGN

We audio-recorded encounters, reviewed their transcripts and associated them with their clinical notes and findings were correlated with concurrent Mini Z Worklife measures and physician burnout.

SETTING

Three primary urgent-care settings.

PARTICIPANTS

We conducted in-depth evaluations of 28 clinical encounters delivered by seven physicians.

RESULTS

Comparing encounter transcripts with clinical notes, in 24 of 28 (86%) there was high note/transcript concordance for the diagnostic elements on our tool. Reliably included elements were red flags (92% of notes/encounters), aetiologies (88%), likelihood/uncertainties (71%) and follow-up contingencies (71%), whereas psychosocial/contextual information (35%) and mentioning common pitfalls (7%) were often missing. In 22% of encounters, follow-up contingencies were in the note, but absent from the recorded encounter. There was a trend for higher burnout scores being associated with physicians less likely to address key diagnosis items, such as psychosocial history/context.

CONCLUSIONS

A new tool shows promise as a means of assessing key elements of diagnostic quality in clinical encounters. Work conditions and physician reactions appear to correlate with diagnostic behaviours. Future research should continue to assess relationships between time pressure and diagnostic quality.

Grand rounds in methodology: when are realist reviews useful, and what does a 'good' realist review look like?

Research in the quality and safety field often necessitates an approach that supports the development of an in-depth understanding of how a complex phenomenon occurs, or how an intervention works. Realist review is an increasingly popular form of evidence synthesis that provides a theory-driven, interpretive approach to secondary research. Realist reviews offer quality and safety researchers the opportunity to draw on diverse types of evidence to develop explanatory theory about how, when and for whom interventions 'work' or outcomes occur. The approach is flexible, iterative and practical, typically drawing on the experience of policymakers, practitioners and patients throughout the review. With the increasing use of realist reviews, some common misconceptions about the approach have become evident in the literature. This paper introduces what is involved when planning and conducting a realist review, and where the approach can offer most value, as well as outlining common challenges that researchers may face when adopting the approach, and recommended solutions. Our aim is to support researchers who are considering conducting a realist review to understand the key principles and concepts involved, and how they can go about producing high-quality work.

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.

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.

Harnessing the electronic health care record to optimise patient safety in primary care: a framework for evaluating “electronic safety netting” tools (Preprint)

The management of diagnostic uncertainty is part of every primary care physician’s role. e–Safety-netting tools help health care professionals to manage diagnostic uncertainty. Using software in addition to verbal or paper based safety-netting methods could make diagnostic delays and errors less likely. There are an increasing number of software products that have been identified as e–safety-netting tools, particularly since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. e–Safety-netting tools can have a variety of functions, such as sending clinician alerts, facilitating administrative tasking, providing decision support, and sending reminder text messages to patients. However, these tools have not been evaluated by using robust research designs for patient safety interventions. We present an emergent framework of criteria for effective e–safety-netting tools that can be used to support the development of software. The framework is based on validated frameworks for electronic health record development and patient safety. There are currently no tools available that meet all of the criteria in the framework. We hope that the framework will stimulate clinical and public conversations about e–safety-netting tools. In the future, a validated framework would drive audits and improvements. We outline key areas for future research both in primary care and within integrated care systems.