The necessary shift from diagnostic to prognostic research

Background: Do doctors really need to establish an etiological diagnosis each time a patient presents? Or might it often be more effective to treat simply on the basis of symptoms and signs alone, relying on research and on our experience of outcomes for patients who presented in similar ways in the past? Discussion: At a time of increase health care costs especially in pharmaceuticals and expensive diagnostic tests, this article uses examples from recent research to address this question. Our examples come from general practice, because that is where doctors frequently see patients presenting with a yet undifferentiated disease which is consequently difficult to diagnose. The examples include respiratory tract infections, low back pain and shoulder pain. Finally we discuss the 'something is wrong' feeling. Summary: We conclude that, in addition to diagnostic research, a renewed focus on prognostic research is needed. </p

The course of newly presented unexplained complaints in general practice patients: a prospective cohort study

Objective. Newly presented unexplained complaints (UCs) are common in general practice. Factors influencing the transition of newly presented into persistent UCs have been scarcely investigated. We studied the number and the nature of diagnoses made over time, as well as factors associated with UCs becoming persistent. Finally, we longitudinally studied factors associated with quality of life (QoL). Methods. Prospective cohort study in general practice of patients presenting with a new UC. Data sources were case record forms, patient questionnaires and electronic medical registries at inclusion, 1, 6 and 12 months. Presence of complaints and diagnoses made over time were documented. Potential risk factors were assessed in mixed-effect logistic and linear regression models. Results. Sixty-three GPs included 444 patients (73% women; median age 42) with unexplained fatigue (70%), abdominal complaints (14%) and musculoskeletal complaints (16%). At 12 months, 43% of the patients suffered from their initial complaints. Fifty-seven percent of the UCs remained unexplained. UCs had (non-life-threatening) somatic origins in 18% of the patients. QoL was often poor at presentation and tended to remain poor. Being a male [odds ratio (OR) 0.6; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4-0.8] and GPs' being more certain about the absence of serious disease (OR 0.9; 95% CI 0.8-0.9) were the strongest predictors of a diminished probability that the complaints would still be present and unexplained after 12 months. The strongest determinants of complaint persistence [regardless of (un)explicability] were duration of complaints >4 weeks before presentation (OR 2.6; 95% CI 1.6-4.3), musculoskeletal complaint at baseline (OR 2.3; 1.2-4.5), while the passage of time acted positively (OR 0.8 per month; 95% CI 0.78-0.84). Musculoskeletal complaints, compared to fatigue, decreased QoL on the physical domain (4.6 points; 2.6-6.7), while presence of psychosocial factors decreased mental QoL (5.0; 3.1-6.9). Conclusion. One year after initial presentation, a large proportion of newly presented UCs remained unexplained and unresolved. We identified determinants that GPs might want to consider in the early detection of patients at risk of UC persistence and/or low Qo

Consensus on gut feelings in general practice

Contains fulltext : 81134.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: General practitioners sometimes base clinical decisions on gut feelings alone, even though there is little evidence of their diagnostic and prognostic value in daily practice. Research to validate the determinants and to assess the test properties of gut feelings requires precise and valid descriptions of gut feelings in general practice which can be used as a reliable measuring instrument. Research question: Can we obtain consensus on descriptions of two types of gut feelings: a sense of alarm and a sense of reassurance? METHODS: Qualitative research including a Delphi consensus procedure with a heterogeneous sample of 27 Dutch and Belgian GPs or ex-GPs involved in academic educational or research programmes. RESULTS: After four rounds, we found 70% or greater agreement on seven of the eleven proposed statements. A "sense of alarm" is defined as an uneasy feeling perceived by a GP as he/she is concerned about a possible adverse outcome, even though specific indications are lacking: There's something wrong here. This activates the diagnostic process by stimulating the GP to formulate and weigh up working hypotheses that might involve a serious outcome. A "sense of alarm" means that, if possible, the GP needs to initiate specific management to prevent serious health problems. A "sense of reassurance" is defined as a secure feeling perceived by a GP about the further management and course of a patient's problem, even though the doctor may not be certain about the diagnosis: Everything fits in. CONCLUSION: The sense of alarm and the sense of reassurance are well-defined concepts. These descriptions enable us to operationalise the concept of gut feelings in further research

Agreement between physical therapists and radiologists of stratifying patients with shoulder pain into new treatment related categories using ultrasound; an exploratory study

© 2019 Elsevier Ltd Study design: A systematic overview of the literature and an agreement study. Objectives: The aim of this study is to explore the inter-professional agreement of diagnostic musculoskeletal ultrasound (DMUS) between physical therapists (PT) and radiologists, using a new classification strategy based upon the therapeutic consequences in patients with shoulder pain. Background: DMUS is frequently used by PTs, although the agreement regarding traditional diagnostic labels between PTs and radiologists is only fair. Nevertheless, DMUS could be useful when used as a stratifying-tool. Methods: First, a systematic overview of current evidence was performed to assess which traditional diagnostic labels could be recoded into new treatment related categories (referral to secondary care, corticosteroid injections, physical therapy, watchful waiting). Next, kappa values were calculated for these categories between PTs and radiologists. Results: Only three categories were extracted, as none of the traditional diagnostic labels were classified into the ‘corticosteroid injection’ category. Overall, we found moderate agreement to stratify patients into treatment related categories and substantial agreement for the category ‘referral to secondary care’. Both categories ‘watchful waiting’ and ‘indication for physical therapy’ showed moderate agreement between the two professions. Conclusion: Our results indicate that the agreement between radiologists and PTs is moderate to substantial when labelling is based on treatment consequences. DMUS might be able to help the PT to guide treatment, especially for the category ‘referral to secondary care’ as this showed the highest agreement. However, as this is just an explorative study, more research is needed, to validate and assess the consequences of this stratification classification for clinical care

Why do patients want to have their blood tested? A qualitative study of patient expectations in general practice

BACKGROUND: General practitioners often take their impression of patients' expectations into account in their decision to have blood tests done. It is commonly recommended to involve patients in decision-making during consultations. The study aimed to obtain detailed information on patients' expectations about blood tests. METHODS: Qualitative study among patients in waiting rooms of general practices. Each patient was presented with a short questionnaire about their preferences in terms of diagnostics. Patients who would like blood tests to be done were interviewed. RESULTS: Fifty-seven (26%) of the 224 respondents wanted blood tests. Twenty-two were interviewed. Patients overestimated the qualities of blood tests. Favourable test results were regarded as proof of good health. Patients regarded blood tests as a useful instrument to screen for serious disorders, and were confirmed in this belief by people in their social environment and by the media. Many patients expected their GP to take an active test ordering approach, though some indicated that they might be convinced if their GP proposed a wait-and-see policy. CONCLUSIONS: GPs' perceptions about patient expectations seem justified: patients appear to have high hopes for testing as a diagnostic tool. They expect diagnostic certainty without mistakes and a proof of good health. The question is whether it would be desirable to remove patients' misconceptions, allowing them to participate in policy decisions on the basis of sound information, or whether it would be better to leave the misconceptions uncontested, in order to retain the 'magic' of additional tests and reassure patients. We expect that clarifying the precise nature of patients' expectations by the GP may be helpful in creating a diagnostic strategy that satisfies both patients and GPs. GPs will have to balance the benefits of reassuring their patients by means of blood tests which may be unnecessary against the benefits of avoiding unnecessary tests. Further research is needed into the effects of different types of patient information and the effects of testing on satisfaction and anxiety

Blood test ordering for unexplained complaints in general practice: the VAMPIRE randomised clinical trial protocol. [ISRCTN55755886]

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) frequently order blood tests when they see patients presenting with unexplained complaints. Due to the low prevalence of serious pathology in general practice, the risk of false-positive test results is relatively high. This may result in unnecessary further testing, leading to unfavourable effects such as patient anxiety, high costs, somatisation and morbidity. A policy of watchful waiting is expected to lower both the number of patients to be tested and the risk of false-positive test results, without missing serious pathology. However, many general practitioners experience barriers when trying to postpone blood testing by watchful waiting. The objectives of this study are (1) to determine the accuracy of blood tests in patients presenting with unexplained complaints in terms of detecting pathology, (2) to determine the accuracy of a watchful waiting strategy and (3) to determine the effects of a quality improvement strategy to promote the postponement of blood test ordering by GPs for patients with unexplained complaints. DESIGN: General practices are randomised over three groups. Group 1 is instructed to order blood tests immediately, group 2 to apply a watchful waiting policy and group 3 also to postpone testing, but supported by our quality improvement strategy. The trial consists of two sub-studies: a diagnostic study at patient level (group 1 versus groups 2 and 3) and a quality improvement study at GP level (group 2 versus group 3). The diagnostic strategy to be used involves of both customary and innovative tests. The quality improvement strategy consists of two small-group meetings and a practice outreach visit. Patient follow-up ends at 12 months after the initial consultation. Primary outcome measures are the accuracy and added value of blood tests for detecting pathology, the effect of a 4-week postponement of test ordering on the blood test characteristics and the quantity of tests ordered. Secondary outcome measures are the course of complaints, quality of life, satisfaction with care, anxiety of patients and practitioners, determinants of physicians' behaviour, health care utilisation and costs. DISCUSSION: The innovative aspect of this trial is that it combines a clinical-epidemiological study and a quality of care study

The effect of watchful waiting compared to immediate test ordering instructions on general practitioners' blood test ordering behaviour for patients with unexplained complaints; a randomized clinical trial (ISRCTN55755886)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Immediate blood testing for patients presenting with unexplained complaints in family practice is superfluous from a diagnostic point of view. However, many general pracitioners (GPs) order tests immediately. Watchful waiting reduces the number of patients to be tested and the number of false-positive results. The objectives of this study are: to determine the feasibility of watchful waiting compared to immediate test ordering; to determine if a special quality improvement strategy can improve this feasibility; and to determine if watchful waiting leads to testing at a later time.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study is a cluster-randomized clinical trial with three groups, on blood test ordering strategies in patients with unexplained complaints. GPs in group one were instructed to order tests immediately and GPs in group two to apply a watchful waiting approach. GPs in group three received the same instruction as group two, but they were supported by a systematically designed quality improvement strategy. A total of 498 patients with unexplained complaints from 63 practices of Dutch GPs participated. We measured: the percentage of patients for whom tests were ordered and number of tests ordered at the first consultation; performance on the strategy's performance objectives (i.e., ordering fewer tests and specific communication skills); the number of tests ordered after four weeks; and GP and patient characteristics.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Immediate test ordering proved feasible in 92% of the patients; watchful waiting in 86% and 84%, respectively, for groups two and three. The two watchful waiting groups did not differ significantly in the achievement of any of the performance objectives. Of the patients who returned after four weeks, none from group one and six from the two watchful waiting groups had tests ordered for them.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Watchful waiting is a feasible approach. It does not lead to testing immediately afterwards. Furthermore, watchful waiting was not improved by the quality improvement strategy.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Clinical trial registration: <a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN55755886">ISRCTN55755886</a></p

Validation and cultural adaptation of a German version of the Physicians' Reactions to Uncertainty scales

Contains fulltext : 51656.pdf ( ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to examine the validity of a translated and culturally adapted version of the Physicians' Reaction to Uncertainty scales (PRU) in primary care physicians. METHODS: In a structured process, the original questionnaire was translated, culturally adapted and assessed after administering it to 93 GPs. Test-retest reliability was tested by sending the questionnaire to the GPs again after two weeks. RESULTS: The principal factor analysis confirmed the postulated four-factor structure underlying the 15 items. In contrast to the original version, item 5 achieved a higher loading on the 'concern about bad outcomes' scale. Consequently, we rearranged the scales. Good item-scale correlations were obtained, with Pearson's correlation coefficient ranging from 0.56-0.84. As regards the item-discriminant validity between the scales 'anxiety due to uncertainty' and 'concern about bad outcomes', partially high correlations (Pearson's correlation coefficient 0.02-0.69; p < 0.001) were found, indicating an overlap between both constructs. The assessment of internal consistency revealed satisfactory values; Cronbach's alpha of the rearranged version was 0.86 or higher for all scales. Test-retest-reliability, assessed by means of the intraclass-correlation-coefficient (ICC), exceeded 0.84, except for the 'reluctance to disclose mistakes to physicians' scale (ICC = 0.66). In this scale, some substantial floor effects occurred, with 29.3% of answers showing the lowest possible value. CONCLUSION: Dealing with uncertainty is an important issue in daily practice. The psychometric properties of the rearranged German version of the PRU are satisfying. The revealed floor effects do not limit the significance of the questionnaire. Thus, the German version of the PRU could contribute to the further evaluation of the impact of uncertainty in primary care physicians

Gut Feelings as a Third Track in General Practitioners’ Diagnostic Reasoning

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) are often faced with complicated, vague problems in situations of uncertainty that they have to solve at short notice. In such situations, gut feelings seem to play a substantial role in their diagnostic process. Qualitative research distinguished a sense of alarm and a sense of reassurance. However, not every GP trusted their gut feelings, since a scientific explanation is lacking. OBJECTIVE: This paper explains how gut feelings arise and function in GPs' diagnostic reasoning. APPROACH: The paper reviews literature from medical, psychological and neuroscientific perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: Gut feelings in general practice are based on the interaction between patient information and a GP's knowledge and experience. This is visualized in a knowledge-based model of GPs' diagnostic reasoning emphasizing that this complex task combines analytical and non-analytical cognitive processes. The model integrates the two well-known diagnostic reasoning tracks of medical decision-making and medical problem-solving, and adds gut feelings as a third track. Analytical and non-analytical diagnostic reasoning interacts continuously, and GPs use elements of all three tracks, depending on the task and the situation. In this dual process theory, gut feelings emerge as a consequence of non-analytical processing of the available information and knowledge, either reassuring GPs or alerting them that something is wrong and action is required. The role of affect as a heuristic within the physician's knowledge network explains how gut feelings may help GPs to navigate in a mostly efficient way in the often complex and uncertain diagnostic situations of general practice. Emotion research and neuroscientific data support the unmistakable role of affect in the process of making decisions and explain the bodily sensation of gut feelings.The implications for health care practice and medical education are discussed

The Maastricht Ultrasound Shoulder pain trial (MUST): Ultrasound imaging as a diagnostic triage tool to improve management of patients with non-chronic shoulder pain in primary care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Subacromial disorders are considered to be one of the most common pathologies affecting the shoulder. Optimal therapy for shoulder pain (SP) in primary care is yet unknown, since clinical history and physical examination do not provide decisive evidence as to the patho-anatomical origin of the symptoms. Optimal decision strategies can be furthered by applying ultrasound imaging (US), an accurate method in diagnosing SP, demonstrating a clear relationship between diagnosis and available therapies. Yet, the clinical cost-effectiveness of applying US in the management of SP in primary care has not been studied. The aim of this paper is to describe the design and methods of a trial assessing the cost-effectiveness of ultrasound imaging as a diagnostic triage tool to improve management of primary care patients with non-chronic shoulder pain.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>This randomised controlled trial (RCT) will involve 226 adult patients with suspected subacromial disorders recruited by general practitioners. During a Qualification period of two weeks, patients receive care as usual as advised by the Dutch College of General Practitioners, and patients are referred for US. Patients with insufficient improvement qualify for the RCT. These patients are then randomly assigned to the intervention or the control group. The therapies used in both groups are the same (corticosteroid injections, referral to a physiotherapist or orthopedic surgeon) except that therapies used in the intervention group will be tailored based on the US results. Ultrasound diagnosed disorders include tendinopathy, calcific tendinitis, partial and full thickness tears, and subacromial bursitis. The primary outcome is patient-perceived recovery at 52 weeks, using the Global Perceived Effect questionnaire. Secondary outcomes are disease specific and generic quality of life, cost-effectiveness, and the adherence to the initial applied treatment. Outcome measures will be assessed at baseline, 13, 26, 39 and 52 weeks after inclusion. An economic evaluation will be performed from both a health care and societal perspective with a time horizon of 52 weeks.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The results of this trial will give unique evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of US as a diagnostic triage tool in the management of SP in primary care.</p