How GPs value guidelines applied to patients with multimorbidity: A qualitative study

Objectives: To explore and describe the value general practitioner (GPs) attribute to medical guidelines when they are applied to patients with multimorbidity, and to describe which benefits GPs experience from guideline adherence in these patients. Also, we aimed to identify limitations from guideline adherence in patients with multimorbidity, as perceived by GPs, and to describe their empirical solutions to manage these obstacles. Design: Focus group study with purposive sampling of participants. Focus groups were guided by an experienced moderator who used an interview guide. Interviews were transcribed verbatim. Data analysis was performed by two researchers using the constant comparison analysis technique and field notes were used in the analysis. Data collection proceeded until saturation was reached. Setting: Primary care, eastern part of The Netherlands. Participants: Dutch GPs, heterogeneous in age, sex and academic involvement. Results: 25 GPs participated in five focus groups. GPs valued the guidance that guidelines provide, but experienced shortcomings when they were applied to patients with multimorbidity. Taking these patients’ personal circumstances into account was regarded as important, but it was impeded by a consistent focus on guideline adherence. Preventative measures were considered less appropriate in (elderly) patients with multimorbidity. Moreover, the applicability of guidelines in patients with multimorbidity was questioned. GPs’ extensive practical experience with managing multimorbidity resulted in several empirical solutions, for example, using their ‘common sense’ to respond to the perceived shortcomings. Conclusions: GPs applying guidelines for patients with multimorbidity integrate patient-specific factors in their medical decisions, aiming for patient-centred solutions. Such integration of clinical experience and best evidence is required to practise evidence-based medicine. More flexibility in pay-for-performance systems is needed to facilitate this integration. Several improvements in guideline reporting are necessary to enhance the applicability of guidelines in patients with multimorbidity

Pain characteristics of older persons with medically unexplained symptoms, older persons with medically explained symptoms and older persons with depression

Objectives: The main objective of the current study is to compare chronic pain characteristics of older patients with Medically Unexplained Symptoms (MUS), to those of patients with Medically Explained Symptoms (MES), and to those of patients with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). Method: By combining data from the OPUS and NESDO study, we compared pain characteristics of 102 older (&gt;60 years) MUS-patients to 145 older MES-patients and 275 older MDD-patients in a case-control study design. Group differences were analyzed using ANCOVA, adjusted for demographic and physical characteristics. Linear regression was applied to examine the association between pain characteristics and somatization (BSI-53 somatization scale) and health anxiety (Whitely Index). Results: Older MUS-patients have approximately two times more chance of having chronic pain when compared to older MES-patients (OR = 2.01; p = .013) but equal chances as opposed to MDD-patients. After adjustments, MUS-patients report higher pain intensity and disability scores and more pain locations when compared to MES-patients, but equal values as MDD-patients. Health anxiety and somatization levels were positively associated with the number of pain sites in MUS-patients, but not with pain severity or disability. Conclusion: Older MUS-patients did not differ from MDD-patients with respect to any of the chronic pain characteristics, but had more intense and disabling pain, and more pain locations when compared to older MES-patients.</p

Family caregivers’ perspectives on their interaction and relationship with people living with dementia in a nursing home:A qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Social interactions are important for people living with dementia in a nursing home. However, not much is known about interactions and relationships between residents and family caregivers and related experiences of family caregivers. We aim to advance the knowledge on how family caregivers interact with people living with dementia in a nursing home and how they maintain or redesign a meaningful connection. METHODS: Qualitative research using interviews with family caregivers (n = 31) to explore perspectives on their interaction and relationship with the person living with dementia. Interviews were held during the reopening of nursing homes after the first COVID-19 lockdown in the Netherlands. In this situation, family caregivers became more aware of their interaction and relationship with the resident, which provided a unique opportunity to reflect on this. The interviews explored the interaction and relationship in a broad sense, not specifically for the COVID-19 situation. Thematic analysis was performed to analyze the data. RESULTS: We were able to identify three key themes reflecting the experiences of family caregivers: (1) changes in the interaction and relationship, (2) strategies to promote connection, and (3) appreciation of the interaction and relationship. From the viewpoint of family caregivers, the interaction and relationship are important for both the resident living with dementia and for themselves, and family caregivers have different strategies for establishing a meaningful connection. Nevertheless, some appear to experience difficulties with constructing such a connection with the resident. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide a basis for supporting family caregivers in perceiving and establishing mutuality and reciprocity so that they can experience togetherness. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12877-022-02922-x

Explanations for medically unexplained symptoms:a qualitative study on GPs in daily practice consultations

BACKGROUND: General practice is the centre of care for patients with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS). Providing explanations for MUS, i.e. making sense of symptoms, is considered to be an important part of care for MUS patients. However, little is known how general practitioners (GPs) do this in daily practice. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore how GPs explain MUS to their patients during daily general practice consultations. METHODS: A thematic content analysis was performed of how GPs explained MUS to their patients based on 39 general practice consultations involving patients with MUS. RESULTS: GP provided explanations in nearly all consultations with MUS patients. Seven categories of explanation components emerged from the data: defining symptoms, stating causality, mentioning contributing factors, describing mechanisms, excluding explanations, discussing the severity of symptoms and normalizing symptoms. No pattern of how GPs constructed explanations with the various categories was observed. In general, explanations were communicated as a possibility and in a patient-specific way; however, they were not very detailed. CONCLUSION: Although explanations for MUS are provided in most MUS consultations, there seems room for improving the explanations given in these consultations. Further studies on the effectiveness of explanations and on the interaction between patients and GP in constructing these explanations are required in order to make MUS explanations more suitable in daily primary care practice

Potential for diagnosis of infectious disease from the 100,000 Genomes Project Metagenomic Dataset: Recommendations for reporting results

The identification of microbiological infection is usually a diagnostic investigation, a complex process that is firstly initiated by clinical suspicion. With the emergence of high-throughput sequencing (HTS) technologies, metagenomic analysis has unveiled the power to identify microbial DNA/RNA from a diverse range of clinical samples (1). Metagenomic analysis of whole human genomes at the clinical/research interface bypasses the steps of clinical scrutiny and targeted testing and has the potential to generate unexpected findings relating to infectious and sometimes transmissible disease. There is no doubt that microbial findings that may have a significant impact on a patient’s treatment and their close contacts should be reported to those with clinical responsibility for the sample-donating patient. There are no clear recommendations on how such findings that are incidental, or outside the original investigation, should be handled. Here we aim to provide an informed protocol for the management of incidental microbial findings as part of the 100,000 Genomes Projectwhich may have broader application in this emerging field. As with any other clinical information, we aim to prioritise the reporting of data that are most likely to be of benefit to the patient and their close contacts. We also set out to minimize risks, costs and potential anxiety associated with the reporting of results that are unlikely to be of clinical significance. Our recommendations aim to support the practice of microbial metagenomics by providing a simplified pathway that can be applied to reporting the identification of potential pathogens from metagenomic datasets. Given that the ambition for UK sequenced human genomes over the next 5 years has been set to reach 5 million and the field of metagenomics is rapidly evolving, the guidance will be regularly reviewed and will likely adapt over time as experience develops

Impact of a referral management “gateway” on the quality of referral letters; a retrospective time series cross sectional review

Background Referral management centres (RMC) for elective referrals are designed to facilitate the primary to secondary care referral path, by improving quality of referrals and easing pressures on finite secondary care services, without inadvertently compromising patient care. This study aimed to evaluate whether the introduction of a RMC which includes triage and feedback improved the quality of elective outpatient referral letters. Methods Retrospective, time-series, cross-sectional review involving 47 general practices in one primary care trust (PCT) in South-East England. Comparison of a random sample of referral letters at baseline (n = 301) and after seven months of referral management (n = 280). Letters were assessed for inclusion of four core pieces of information which are used locally to monitor referral quality (blood pressure, body mass index, past medical history, medication history) and against research-based quality criteria for referral letters (provision of clinical information and clarity of reason for referral). Results Following introduction of the RMC, the proportion of letters containing each of the core items increased compared to baseline. Statistically significant increases in the recording of ‘past medical history’ (from 71% to 84%, p < 0.001) and ‘medication history’ (78% to 87%, p = 0.006) were observed. Forty four percent of letters met the research-based quality criteria at baseline but there was no significant change in quality of referral letters judged on these criteria across the two time periods. Conclusion Introduction of RMC has improved the inclusion of past medical history and medication history in referral letters, but not other measures of quality. In approximately half of letters there remains room for further improvement

“Medically unexplained” symptoms and symptom disorders in primary care: prognosis-based recognition and classification

Background: Many patients consult their GP because they experience bodily symptoms. In a substantial proportion of cases, the clinical picture does not meet the existing diagnostic criteria for diseases or disorders. This may be because symptoms are recent and evolving or because symptoms are persistent but, either by their character or the negative results of clinical investigation cannot be attributed to disease: so-called “medically unexplained symptoms” (MUS). MUS are inconsistently recognised, diagnosed and managed in primary care. The specialist classification systems for MUS pose several problems in a primary care setting. The systems generally require great certainty about presence or absence of physical disease, they tend to be mind-body dualistic, and they view symptoms from a narrow specialty determined perspective. We need a new classification of MUS in primary care; a classification that better supports clinical decision-making, creates clearer communication and provides scientific underpinning of research to ensure effective interventions. Discussion: We propose a classification of symptoms that places greater emphasis on prognostic factors. Prognosis-based classification aims to categorise the patient’s risk of ongoing symptoms, complications, increased healthcare use or disability because of the symptoms. Current evidence suggests several factors which may be used: symptom characteristics such as: number, multi-system pattern, frequency, severity. Other factors are: concurrent mental disorders, psychological features and demographic data. We discuss how these characteristics may be used to classify symptoms into three groups: self-limiting symptoms, recurrent and persistent symptoms, and symptom disorders. The middle group is especially relevant in primary care; as these patients generally have reduced quality of life but often go unrecognised and are at risk of iatrogenic harm. The presented characteristics do not contain immediately obvious cut-points, and the assessment of prognosis depends on a combination of several factors. Conclusion: Three criteria (multiple symptoms, multiple systems, multiple times) may support the classification into good, intermediate and poor prognosis when dealing with symptoms in primary care. The proposed new classification specifically targets the patient population in primary care and may provide a rational framework for decision-making in clinical practice and for epidemiologic and clinical research of symptoms

Explanation and relations. How do general practitioners deal with patients with persistent medically unexplained symptoms: a focus group study

Contains fulltext : 80758.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Persistent presentation of medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) is troublesome for general practitioners (GPs) and causes pressure on the doctor-patient relationship. As a consequence, GPs face the problem of establishing an ongoing, preferably effective relationship with these patients. This study aims at exploring GPs' perceptions about explaining MUS to patients and about how relationships with these patients evolve over time in daily practice. METHODS: A qualitative approach, interviewing a purposive sample of twenty-two Dutch GPs within five focus groups. Data were analyzed according to the principles of constant comparative analysis. RESULTS: GPs recognise the importance of an adequate explanation of the diagnosis of MUS but often feel incapable of being able to explain it clearly to their patients. GPs therefore indicate that they try to reassure patients in non-specific ways, for example by telling patients that there is no disease, by using metaphors and by normalizing the symptoms. When patients keep returning with MUS, GPs report the importance of maintaining the doctor-patient relationship. GPs describe three different models to do this; mutual alliance characterized by ritual care (e.g. regular physical examination, regular doctor visits) with approval of the patient and the doctor, ambivalent alliance characterized by ritual care without approval of the doctor and non-alliance characterized by cutting off all reasons for encounter in which symptoms are not of somatic origin. CONCLUSION: GPs feel difficulties in explaining the symptoms. GPs report that, when patients keep presenting with MUS, they focus on maintaining the doctor-patient relationship by using ritual care. In this care they meticulously balance between maintaining a good doctor-patient relationship and the prevention of unintended consequences of unnecessary interventions

Recontacting patients in clinical genetics services: recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics

Technological advances have increased the availability of genomic data in research and the clinic. If, over time, interpretation of the significance of the data changes, or new information becomes available, the question arises as to whether recontacting the patient and/or family is indicated. The Public and Professional Policy Committee of the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG), together with research groups from the UK and the Netherlands, developed recommendations on recontacting which, after public consultation, have been endorsed by ESHG Board. In clinical genetics, recontacting for updating patients with new, clinically significant information related to their diagnosis or previous genetic testing may be justifiable and, where possible, desirable. Consensus about the type of information that should trigger recontacting converges around its clinical and personal utility. The organization of recontacting procedures and policies in current health care systems is challenging. It should be sustainable, commensurate with previously obtained consent, and a shared responsibility between healthcare providers, laboratories, patients, and other stakeholders. Optimal use of the limited clinical resources currently available is needed. Allocation of dedicated resources for recontacting should be considered. Finally, there is a need for more evidence, including economic and utility of information for people, to inform which strategies provide the most cost-effective use of healthcare resources for recontacting