Heart failure diagnosis in primary health care: clinical characteristics of problematic patients. A clinical judgement analysis study

BACKGROUND: Early detection of chronic heart failure has become increasingly important since the introduction of effective treatment. However, clinical diagnosis of heart failure is known to be difficult, especially in mild cases or early in the course of the disease. The purpose of this study is to analyse how patient characteristics contribute to difficulties in diagnosing systolic heart failure. METHODS: Design: A Clinical Judgement Analysis study of 40 case vignettes based on authentic patients, including relevant clinical data except echocardiography. Setting: Primary health care and two cardiology outpatient clinics in Stockholm. Subjects: 70 participants with different types of clinical experience; 27 specialists in general practice, 22 cardiologists, and 21 medical students. Main outcome measures: The assessed probability of heart failure for each case vignette, and the disagreement between the participants. The number of clinical variables (cues) indicative of heart failure in the case vignettes. RESULTS: The ten case vignettes with the least diverging assessments more often had increased relative cardiac volume and atrial fibrillation. No further specific clinical patterns could be found in subgroups of the case vignettes. The ten case vignettes with the most diverging assessments were those with an intermediate number of clinical variables. The case vignettes with the least diverging assessments more often represented patients with cardiac enlargement and atrial fibrillation. CONCLUSION: Diagnosing mild heart failure is difficult, as these patients are not easy to characterise. In our study, a larger number of positive cues resulted in more diagnostic conformity among the participants, and the most important information was cardiac enlargement. The importance of more objective diagnostic methods in diagnosing suspected cases of heart failure should be emphasised

Judgement analysis of case severity and future risk of disability regarding chronic low back pain by general practitioners in Ireland

<div><p>Chronic low back pain is a major healthcare burden that has wide ranging effects on the individual, their family, society and the workplace. However, appropriate management and treatment is often difficult, as a majority of cases are non-specific in terms of underlying pathology. As a result, there are extensive differences in both individual patient preferences for treatment and treatment decisions amongst general practitioners. The current study examined the clinical judgements of GPs in Ireland, regarding fictional patients’ case severity and future risk of disability, through judgement analysis. Judgement analysis (JA) is an idiographic regression modelling technique that has been utilised in extant healthcare research for the purpose of allocating weighting to judgement criteria, or cues, observed by professionals in their clinical decision-making. The primary aim of the study was to model two critical information utilisation tasks performed by GPs with regard to CLBP–in combining information cues to form a judgement about current case severity and a judgement about the same patient’s risk of future disability. It was hypothesised that the judgement weighting would differ across the two judgements and that judgements regarding future risk of disability would be less consistent among GPs than judgements about case severity. Results from the regression-based judgement analysis and subsequent follow-up statistical analysis provided support for both study hypotheses. Study findings are discussed in light of theory and research on judgement, clinical decision-making and chronic low back pain.</p></div