GPs’ understanding and practice of safety netting for potential cancer presentations : a qualitative study in primary care

Background Safety netting is a diagnostic strategy used in UK primary care to ensure patients are monitored until their symptoms or signs are explained. Despite being recommended in cancer diagnosis guidelines, little evidence exists about which components are effective and feasible in modern-day primary care. Aim To understand the reality of safety netting for cancer in contemporary primary care. Design and setting A qualitative study of GPs in Oxfordshire primary care. Method In-depth interviews with a purposive sample of 25 qualified GPs were undertaken. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically using constant comparison. Results GPs revealed uncertainty about which aspects of clinical practice are considered safety netting. They use bespoke personal strategies, often developed from past mistakes, without knowledge of their colleagues’ practice. Safety netting varied according to the perceived risk of cancer, the perceived reliability of each patient to follow advice, GP working patterns, and time pressures. Increasing workload, short appointments, and a reluctance to overburden hospital systems or create unnecessary patient anxiety have together led to a strategy of selective active follow-up of patients perceived to be at higher risk of cancer or less able to act autonomously. This left patients with low-risk-but-not-no-risk symptoms of cancer with less robust or absent safety netting. Conclusion GPs would benefit from clearer guidance on which aspects of clinical practice contribute to effective safety netting for cancer. Practice systems that enable active follow-up of patients with low-risk-but-not-no-risk symptoms, which could represent malignancy, could reduce delays in cancer diagnosis without increasing GP workload

Measuring the complexity of general practice consultations:development and validation of a complexity measure

Background: The complexity of general practice consultations may be increasing and varies in different settings. A measure of complexity is required to test these hypotheses. Aim: To develop a valid measure of general practice consultation complexity applicable to routine medical records. Design and setting: Delphi study to select potential indicators of complexity followed by a cross-sectional study in English general practices to develop and validate a complexity measure. Method: The online Delphi study over two rounds identified potential indicators of consultation complexity. The cross-sectional study used an age–sex stratified random sample of patients and general practice face-to-face consultations from 2013/2014 in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. The authors explored independent relationships between each indicator and consultation duration using mixed-effects regression models, and revalidated findings using data from 2017/2018. The proportion of complex consultations in different age–sex groups was assessed. Results: A total of 32 GPs participated in the Delphi study. The Delphi panel endorsed 34 of 45 possible complexity indicators after two rounds. After excluding factors because of low prevalence or confounding, 17 indicators were retained in the cross-sectional study. The study used data from 173 130 patients and 725 616 face-to-face GP consultations. On defining complexity as the presence of any of these 17 factors, 308 370 consultations (42.5%) were found to be complex. Mean duration of complex consultations was 10.49 minutes, compared to 9.64 minutes for non-complex consultations. The proportion of complex consultations was similar in males and females but increased with age. Conclusion: The present consultation complexity measure has face and construct validity. It may be useful for research, management and policy, and for informing decisions about the range of resources needed in different practices

Blood pressure self-monitoring in pregnancy: examining feasibility in a prospective cohort study

Background: Raised blood pressure (BP) affects approximately 10% of pregnancies worldwide, and a high proportion of affected women develop pre-eclampsia. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of self-monitoring of BP in pregnancy in women at higher risk of pre-eclampsia. Methods: This prospective cohort study of self-monitoring BP in pregnancy was carried out in two hospital trusts in Birmingham and Oxford and thirteen primary care practices in Oxfordshire. Eligible women were those defined by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines as at higher risk of pre-eclampsia. A total of 201 participants were recruited between 12 and 16 weeks of pregnancy and were asked to take two BP readings twice daily three times a week through their pregnancy. Primary outcomes were recruitment, retention and persistence of self-monitoring. Study recruitment and retention were analysed with descriptive statistics. Survival analysis was used to evaluate the persistence of self-monitoring and the performance of self-monitoring in the early detection of gestational hypertension, compared to clinic BP monitoring. Secondary outcomes were the mean clinic and self-monitored BP readings and the performance of self-monitoring in the detection of gestational hypertension and pre-eclampsia compared to clinic BP. Results: Of 201 women recruited, 161 (80%) remained in the study at 36 weeks or to the end of their pregnancy, 162 (81%) provided any home readings suitable for analysis, 148 (74%) continued to self-monitor at 20 weeks and 107 (66%) at 36 weeks. Self-monitored readings were similar in value to contemporaneous matched clinic readings for both systolic and diastolic BP. Of the 23 who developed gestational hypertension or pre-eclampsia and self-monitored, 9(39%) had a raised home BP prior to a raised clinic BP. Conclusions: Self-monitoring of BP in pregnancy is feasible and has potential to be useful in the early detection of gestational hypertensive disorders but maintaining self-monitoring throughout pregnancy requires support and probably enhanced training

Direct access cancer testing in primary care: a systematic review of use and clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Direct access (DA) testing allows GPs to refer patients for investigation without consulting a specialist. The aim is to reduce waiting time for investigations and unnecessary appointments, enabling treatment to begin without delay. AIM: To establish the proportion of patients diagnosed with cancer and other diseases through DA testing, time to diagnosis, and suitability of DA investigations. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review assessing the effectiveness of GP DA testing in adults. METHOD: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched. Where possible, study data were pooled and analysed quantitatively. Where this was not possible, the data are presented narratively. RESULTS: The authors identified 60 papers that met pre-specified inclusion criteria. Most studies were carried out in the UK and were judged to be of poor quality. The authors found no significant difference in the pooled cancer conversion rate between GP DA referrals and patients who first consulted a specialist for any test, except gastroscopy. There were also no significant differences in the proportions of patients receiving any non-cancer diagnosis. Referrals for testing were deemed appropriate in 66.4% of those coming from GPs, and in 80.9% of those from consultants; this difference was not significant. The time from referral to testing was significantly shorter for patients referred for DA tests. Patient and GP satisfaction with DA testing was consistently high. CONCLUSION: GP DA testing performs as well as, and on some measures better than, consultant triaged testing on measures of disease detection, appropriateness of referrals, interval from referral to testing, and patient and GP satisfaction

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

Background: The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings: This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p\textless0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p\textless0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p\textless0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047). Interpretation: Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

Synthesising quantitative and qualitative research in evidence‐based patient information

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews have, in the past, focused on quantitative studies and clinical effectiveness, while excluding qualitative evidence. Qualitative research can inform evidence-based practice independently of other research methodologies but methods for the synthesis of such data are currently evolving. Synthesising quantitative and qualitative research in a single review is an important methodological challenge. AIMS: This paper describes the review methods developed and the difficulties encountered during the process of updating a systematic review of evidence to inform guidelines for the content of patient information related to cervical screening. METHODS: Systematic searches of 12 electronic databases (January 1996 to July 2004) were conducted. Studies that evaluated the content of information provided to women about cervical screening or that addressed women's information needs were assessed for inclusion. A data extraction form and quality assessment criteria were developed from published resources. A non-quantitative synthesis was conducted and a tabular evidence profile for each important outcome (eg "explain what the test involves") was prepared. The overall quality of evidence for each outcome was then assessed using an approach published by the GRADE working group, which was adapted to suit the review questions and modified to include qualitative research evidence. Quantitative and qualitative studies were considered separately for every outcome. RESULTS: 32 papers were included in the systematic review following data extraction and assessment of methodological quality. The review questions were best answered by evidence from a range of data sources. The inclusion of qualitative research, which was often highly relevant and specific to many components of the screening information materials, enabled the production of a set of recommendations that will directly affect policy within the NHS Cervical Screening Programme. CONCLUSIONS: A practical example is provided of how quantitative and qualitative data sources might successfully be brought together and considered in one review

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

Responsibility for follow-up during the diagnostic process in primary care : A secondary analysis of International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership data

Background: It is unclear to what extent primary care practitioners (PCPs) should retain responsibility for follow-up to ensure that patients are monitored until their symptoms or signs are explained. Aim: To explore the extent to which PCPs retain responsibility for diagnostic follow-up actions across 11 international jurisdictions. Design and setting: A secondary analysis of survey data from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership. Method: The authors counted the proportion of 2879 PCPs who retained responsibility for each area of follow-up (appointments, test results, and non-attenders). Proportions were weighted by the sample size of each jurisdiction. Pooled estimates were obtained using a random-effects model, and UK estimates were compared with non-UK ones. Free-text responses were analysed to contextualise quantitative findings using a modified grounded theory approach. Results: PCPs varied in their retention of responsibility for follow-up from 19% to 97% across jurisdictions and area of follow-up. Test reconciliation was inadequate in most jurisdictions. Significantly fewer UK PCPs retained responsibility for test result communication (73% versus 85%, P = 0.04) and non-attender follow-up (78% versus 93%, P<0.01) compared with non-UK PCPs. PCPs have developed bespoke, inconsistent solutions to follow-up. In cases of greatest concern, 'double safety netting' is described, where both patient and PCP retain responsibility. Conclusion: The degree to which PCPs retain responsibility for follow-up is dependent on their level of concern about the patient and their primary care system's properties. Integrated systems to support follow-up are at present underutilised, and research into their development, uptake, and effectiveness seems warranted

The internal validation of weight and weight change coding using weight measurement data within the UK primary care Electronic Health Record

Purpose To use recorded weight values to internally validate weight status and weight change coding in the primary care Electronic Health Record (EHR). Patients and methods We included adult patients with weight-related Read codes recorded in the UK’s Clinical Practice Research Datalink EHR between 2000 and 2017. Weight status codes were compared to weight values recorded on the same day and positive predictive values (PPVs) were calculated for commonly used codes. Weight change codes were validated using three methods: the percentage (%) difference in kilograms at the time of the code and 1) the previous weight measurement, 2) the weight predicted using linear regression, and 3) the historic mean weight. Weight change codes were validated if estimates were consistent across two out of three methods. Results A total of 8,108,481 weight codes were recorded in 1,000,002 patients’ EHR. Twice as many were recorded in females (n=5,208,593, 64%). The mean body mass index for “overweight” codes ranged from 31.9 kg/m2 to 46.9 kg/m2 and from 17.4 kg/m2 to 19.2 kg/m2 for “underweight” codes. PPVs for the most commonly used weight status codes ranged from 81.3% (80%–82.5%) to 99.3% (99.2%–99.4%). Across the estimation methods, and using only validated weight change codes, mean weight loss ranged from – 5.2% (SD 5.8%) to –7.9% (SD 7.3%) and mean weight gain from 4.2 % (SD 5.5%) to 7.9 % (SD 8.2%). The previous and predicted weight methods were most consistent. Conclusion We have developed an internationally applicable methodology to internally validate weight-related EHR coding by using available weight measurement data. We demonstrate the UK Read codes that can be confidently used to classify weight status and weight change in the absence of weight values. We provide the first evidence from primary care that a Read code for unexpected weight loss represents a mean loss of ≥ 5 % in a 6-month period, which was broadly consistent across age groups and gender