Lægens usikkerhed i relation til behandling af Medicinsk Uforklarede Symptomer

Artiklen bygger på en gennemgang af litteratur om lægers usikkerhed i kliniske situationer i relation til aktuel viden om Medicinsk Uforklarede Symptomer. Kliniske vurderinger og beslutningsprocesser er uløseligt forbundet med usikkerhed, som kan opstå med baggrund i såvel begrænset viden som relationelle og konceptuelle forhold. Nogle læger håndterer deres usikkerhed ved at undertrykke den og de negative følelser, den udløser og ved at øge fokus på de sikre forhold, hvilket i praksis betyder de biome dicinske sygdomsaspekter. I relation til patienter med legemlige symptomer uden organisk grundlag fører denne tilgang til unødige udredninger og behandlingstiltag, af og til med iatrogene skader og sygeliggørelse til følge. Kvalitative undersøgelser peger på, at årsagerne til det overdrevne biomedicinske fokus kan søges i lægens problemtilgang og håndtering af usikkerheder. Vores viden om Medicinsk Uforklarede Symptomer er stigende, og der findes i dag relevante behandlingsmuligheder, som kort gennemgås i artiklen. Patienter med Medicinsk Uforklarede Symptomer bør tilbydes den samme professionelle udredning og behandling som andre patienter i sundhedsvæsenet, hvilket ikke sker i dag, og der er et stort behov for at forbedre sundhedsvæsenets tilgang til patientgruppen

Tæt på døden

I den vestlige verden har der i mange år været en higen efter »det evige liv« og en stræben efter at forlænge livet så meget som muligt. En af konsekvenserne heraf er at en stillingtagen til dødens komme - også hos de uhelbredeligt syge mennesker selv - til tider udskydes uhensigtsmæssigt længe, og at aktiv biomedicinsk behandling fortsættes helt frem til dødstidspunktet. Det er svært at acceptere både for de professionelle behandlere, for patienter og for deres pårørende, når der ikke er flere muligheder for helbredelse for en given sygdom. Dette til trods for, at der f.eks. er næsten 16.000 danskere, der dør af kræft hvert år. I mange menneskers liv bliver det på et tidspunkt nødvendigt at dreje tankegangen væk fra at kæmpe forat undgå sygdom og død, til at se døden i øjnene. Døden i den vestlige verden er i høj grad blevet et professionelt anliggende hvor fokus på udbygningen af en specialiseret tværfaglig indsats har været dominerende, og der er et stigende behov for at fokusere på denne professionelle indsats. Når man i den sundhedsfaglige verden bevæger sig væk fra helbredelse og i stedet fokuserer på at lindre og trøste, anvendes betegnelsen palliation (fra latin: Palliatus: dækket med kappe/tilsløret). WHO har defineret den palliativeindsats som det at fremme livskvaliteten hos patienter og familier, som står over for de problemer der er forbundet med livstruende sygdom, ved at forebygge og lindre lidelse gennem tidlig diagnosticering og umiddelbar vurdering og behandling af smerter og andre problemer af både fysisk, psykisk, psykosocial og åndelig art i perioden op til døden og i efterforløbet hos de efterladte (WHO, 1990). Der er således udover fysiske symptomer også et vigtigt fokus på fx angst, depression, eksistentielle og sociale problemstillinger, samt åndelige og religiøse aspekter af livet før døden og hos de efterladte pårørende. Palliation tager udgangspunkt i et holistisk livssyn hvor det enkelte individ, og den kontekst individet er i, er unik.&nbsp

Multiple perspectives on symptom interpretation in primary care research

BACKGROUND: Assessment and management of symptoms is a main task in primary care. Symptoms may be defined as 'any subjective evidence of a health problem as perceived by the patient’. In other words, symptoms do not appear as such; symptoms are rather the result of an interpretation process. We aim to discuss different perspectives on symptom interpretation as presented in the disciplines of biomedicine, psychology and anthropology and the possible implications for our understanding of research on symptoms in relation to prevalence and diagnosis in the general population and in primary care. DISCUSSION: Symptom experiences are embedded in a complex interplay between biological, psychological and cultural factors. From a biomedical perspective, symptoms are seen as possible indicators of disease and are characterized by parameters related to seriousness (e.g. appearance, severity, impact and temporal aspects). However, such symptom characteristics are rarely unambiguous, but merely indicate disease probability. In addition, the GP’s interpretation of presenting symptoms will also be influenced by other factors. From a psychological perspective, factors affecting interpretation are in focus (e.g. internal frame of reference, attention to sensations, illness perception and susceptibility to suggestion). These individual factors cannot stand alone either, but are influenced by the surroundings. Anthropological research suggests that personal experiences and culture form a continuous feedback relationship which influence when and how sensations are understood as symptoms of disease and acted upon. SUMMARY: The different approaches to symptom interpretation imply that we need to be cautious and conscious when interpreting survey findings that are based on symptom prevalence in the general population or in primary care. These findings will reflect a variety of interpretations of sensations, which are not equivalent to expressions of underlying disease. Furthermore, if diagnosis of disease is based exclusively on the presence of specific symptom characteristics, we may risk reinforcing a dualistic approach, including medicalisation of normal phenomena and devaluation of medically unexplained symptoms. Future research in primary care could gain from exploring symptoms as a generic phenomenon and raised awareness of symptom complexity

The BDS checklist as measure of illness severity:A cross-sectional cohort study in the Danish general population, primary care and specialised setting

Objective The bodily distress syndrome (BDS) checklist has proven to be useful in the diagnostic categorisation and as screening tool for functional somatic disorders (FSD). This study aims to investigate whether the BDS checklist total sum score (0–100) can be used as a measure of physical symptom burden and FSD illness severity.Design Cross-sectional.Setting Danish general population, primary care and specialised clinical setting.Participants A general population cohort (n=9656), a primary care cohort (n=2480) and a cohort of patients with multiorgan BDS from specialised clinical setting (n=492).Outcome measures All data were self-reported. Physical symptoms were measured with the 25-item BDS checklist. Overall self-perceived health was measured with one item from the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). Physical functioning was measured with an aggregate score of four items from the SF-36/SF-12 scales ‘physical functioning’, ‘bodily pain’ and ‘vitality’. Emotional distress was measured with the mental distress subscale (SCL-8) from the Danish version of the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-90. Illness worry was measured with the six-item Whiteley Index.Results For all cohorts, bifactor models established that despite some multidimensionality the total sum score of the BDS checklist adequately reflected physical symptom burden and illness severity. The BDS checklist had acceptable convergent validity with measures of overall health (r=0.25–0.58), physical functioning (r=0.22–0.58), emotional distress (r=0.47–0.62) and illness worry (r=0.36–0.55). Acceptability was good with a low number of missing responses to items (<3%). Internal consistency was high (α ≥0.879). BDS score means varied and reflected symptom burden across cohorts (13.03–46.15). We provide normative data for the Danish general population.Conclusions The BDS checklist total sum score can be used as a measure of symptom burden and FSD illness severity across settings. These findings establish the usefulness of the BDS checklist in clinics and in research, both as a diagnostic screening tool and as an instrument to assess illness severity

“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

A European research agenda for somatic symptom disorders, bodily distress disorders, and functional disorders: Results of an estimate-talk-estimate delphi expert study

Background: Somatic Symptom Disorders (SSD), Bodily Distress Disorders (BDD) and functional disorders (FD) are associated with high medical and societal costs and pose a substantial challenge to the population and health policy of Europe. To meet this challenge, a specific research agenda is needed as one of the cornerstones of sustainable mental health research and health policy for SSD, BDD, and FD in Europe. Aim: To identify the main challenges and research priorities concerning SSD, BDD, and FD from a European perspective. Methods: Delphi study conducted from July 2016 until October 2017 in 3 rounds with 3 workshop meetings and 3 online surveys, involving 75 experts and 21 European countries. EURONET-SOMA and the European Association of Psychosomatic Medicine (EAPM) hosted the meetings. Results: Eight research priorities were identified: (1) Assessment of diagnostic profiles relevant to course and treatment outcome. (2) Development and evaluation of new, effective interventions. (3) Validation studies on questionnaires or semi-structured interviews that assess chronic medical conditions in this context. (4) Research into patients preferences for diagnosis and treatment. (5) Development of new methodologic designs to identify and explore mediators and moderators of clinical course and treatment outcomes (6). Translational research exploring how psychological and somatic symptoms develop from somatic conditions and biological and behavioral pathogenic factors. (7) Development of new, effective interventions to personalize treatment. (8) Implementation studies of treatment interventions in different settings, such as primary care, occupational care, general hospital and specialty mental health settings. The general public and policymakers will benefit from the development of new, effective, personalized interventions for SSD, BDD, and FD, that will be enhanced by translational research, as well as from the outcomes of research into patient involvement, GP-patient communication, consultation-liaison models and implementation. Conclusion: Funding for this research agenda, targeting these challenges in coordinated research networks such as EURONET-SOMA and EAPM, and systematically allocating resources by policymakers to this critical area in mental and physical well-being is urgently needed to improve efficacy and impact for diagnosis and treatment of SSD, BDD, and FD across Europe

The General Practitioner’s Consultation Approaches to Medically Unexplained Symptoms : a Qualitative Study

The prevalence of medically unexplained symptoms (MUSs) in primary care is about 10–15%. The definition of MUS is descriptive and there are no specific diagnostic criteria for MUS in primary care. Furthermore, a general practitioner’s (GP’s) categorisation of patients with MUS shows large variation. The aim of the present study is to investigate how GPs employ the definition of MUS and how they manage patients with MUS in daily practice. Methods. With a grounded theory approach five focus group interviews with GPs were performed. The interviews addressed how GPs managed MUS and their reflections on the course and prognosis for MUS patients. Results. Consultations about MUS develop around the individual patient and usually include several appointments. We identified three different types of consultations: (1) “searching for a disease,” (2) “going by the routine,” and (3) “following various paths.” These types of consultations spanned from a biomedical approach to an approach where multiple explanations were offered to explain the patient’s problem. The choice of consultation types was influenced by the GP, the patient and contextual factors which, in turn, affected the diagnostic process. Conclusions. A diagnosis of MUS is contextually embedded and the diagnostic process is shaped by the consultation