What would primary care practitioners do differently after a delayed cancer diagnosis? Learning lessons from their experiences.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read Online Read More Add to Saved list
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: Taylor & Francis Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 8510679 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1502-7724 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 02813432 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Scand J Prim Health Care Subsets: MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Publication: Philadelphia, PA : Taylor & Francis
      Original Publication: Stockholm, Sweden : Almqvist & Wiksell Periodical Co., [1983-
    • Subject Terms:
      Physicians, Primary Care* ; Neoplasms*/diagnosis; Humans ; Communication ; Health Personnel ; Primary Health Care
    • Abstract:
      Objective: Diagnosis of cancer is challenging in primary care due to the low incidence of cancer cases in primary care practice. A prolonged diagnostic interval may be due to doctor, patient or system factors, or may be due to the characteristics of the cancer itself. The objective of this study was to learn from Primary Care Physicians' (PCP) experiences of incidents when they had failed to think of, or act on, a cancer diagnosis.
      Design: A qualitative, online survey eliciting PCP narratives. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.
      Setting and Subjects: A primary care study, with narratives from 159 PCPs in 23 European countries.
      Main Outcome Measures: PCPs' narratives on the question 'If you saw this patient with cancer presenting in the same way today, what would you do differently?
      Results: The main themes identified were: thinking broadly; improvement in communication and clinical management; use of other available resources and 'I wouldn't do anything differently'.
      Conclusion (implications): To achieve more timely cancer diagnosis, PCPs need to provide a long-term, holistic and active approach with effective communication, and to ensure shared decision-making, follow-up and continuing re-assessment of the patients' clinical conditions.
    • References:
      Br J Gen Pract. 2019 Feb;69(679):e80-e87. (PMID: 30642908)
      Lancet Oncol. 2015 Sep;16(12):1231-72. (PMID: 26431866)
      Scand J Prim Health Care. 2015;33(3):170-7. (PMID: 26375323)
      BMJ Open. 2022 Jan 24;12(1):e053732. (PMID: 35074817)
      Br J Gen Pract. 2022 Jan 27;72(715):e84-e90. (PMID: 34607797)
      Scand J Prim Health Care. 2020 Dec;38(4):367-368. (PMID: 33284030)
      Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57. (PMID: 17872937)
      Scand J Prim Health Care. 2012 Sep;30(3):135-40. (PMID: 22747066)
      Br J Cancer. 2015 Mar 31;112 Suppl 1:S50-6. (PMID: 25734395)
      BMJ Open. 2017 Sep 3;7(9):e015682. (PMID: 28871013)
      Int J Nurs Stud. 2017 Nov;76:120-128. (PMID: 28964979)
      Cancer Epidemiol. 2020 Feb;64:101617. (PMID: 31810885)
      NPJ Digit Med. 2020 Feb 6;3:17. (PMID: 32047862)
      BJGP Open. 2023 Dec 19;7(4):. (PMID: 37380218)
      Br J Gen Pract. 2015 Dec;65(641):e838-44. (PMID: 26622037)
      Fam Pract. 2008 Dec;25(6):400-13. (PMID: 18842618)
      Eur J Cancer. 2013 Jul;49(10):2321-30. (PMID: 23571149)
      Br J Cancer. 2015 Mar 31;112 Suppl 1:S92-107. (PMID: 25734382)
      Br J Cancer. 2015 Mar 31;112 Suppl 1:S84-91. (PMID: 25734393)
      BMJ Qual Saf. 2022 Aug;31(8):579-589. (PMID: 34607914)
      J Med Internet Res. 2021 Mar 3;23(3):e23483. (PMID: 33656443)
      BMJ Qual Saf. 2020 Mar;29(3):198-208. (PMID: 31326946)
      Br J Gen Pract. 2011 Jan;61(582):43-6. (PMID: 21401991)
      Arch Fam Med. 1999 Nov-Dec;8(6):510-4. (PMID: 10575390)
      BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Jun;26(6):484-494. (PMID: 27530239)
      Br J Gen Pract. 2010 Sep;60(578):e366-77. (PMID: 20849687)
      Br J Gen Pract. 2019 Apr;69(681):e224-e235. (PMID: 30858332)
      Br J Gen Pract. 2014 Feb;64(619):e92-8. (PMID: 24567622)
      Br J Gen Pract. 2015 May;65(634):e305-11. (PMID: 25918335)
      BMJ Open. 2019 Sep 24;9(9):e030169. (PMID: 31551382)
      J Med Life. 2014;7 Spec No. 4:39-45. (PMID: 27057247)
      BMC Cancer. 2015 May 20;15:421. (PMID: 25990247)
    • Contributed Indexing:
      Keywords: Cancer; Europe; diagnostic errors; primary care physicians; primary health care; qualitative research
      Local Abstract: [plain-language-summary] Diagnosing cancer in primary care is challenging due to the low incidence of cancer in practice and the multiple confounding factors that are involved in the diagnostic process.The need to think broadly, make improvements in communication and clinical management, and use other available resources were the main themes from Primary Care Physicians’ (PCPs’) narratives about their learning experiences from missed or late cancer diagnoses.A long-term, holistic and active approach with effective communication, follow-up and continuing re-assessment of the patients’ clinical conditions was another theme for making improvements.Some PCPs, on reflection, would not have done anything differently.
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20231220 Date Completed: 20240208 Latest Revision: 20240210
    • Publication Date:
      20240210
    • Accession Number:
      PMC10851834
    • Accession Number:
      10.1080/02813432.2023.2296117
    • Accession Number:
      38116949