| 1. |
- Ball, J, et al.
(författare)
-
Practice nursing: what do we know?
- 2015
-
Ingår i: The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners. - 1478-5242. ; 65:630, s. 10-11
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 2. |
- Ewing, Marcela, 1960, et al.
(författare)
-
Identification of patients with non-metastatic colorectal cancer in primary care: a case-control study.
- 2016
-
Ingår i: The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners. - 1478-5242. ; 66:653
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide and second most common in Europe. Despite screening, it is often diagnosed at an unfavourable stage.To identify and quantify features of non-metastatic colorectal cancer in primary care to enable earlier diagnosis by GPs.A case-control study was conducted using diagnostic codes from national and regional healthcare databases in Sweden.A total of 542 patients diagnosed with non-metastatic colorectal cancer in 2011 and 2139 matched controls were selected from the Swedish Cancer Register (SCR) and a regional healthcare database respectively. All diagnostic codes (according to ICD-10) from primary care consultations registered the year before the date of cancer diagnosis (according to the SCR) were collected from the regional database. Odds ratios were calculated for variables independently associated with non-metastatic colorectal cancer using multivariable conditional logistic regressions. Positive predictive values (PPVs) of these variables were calculated, both individually and in combination with each other.Five features were associated with colorectal cancer before diagnosis: bleeding, including rectal bleeding, melaena, and gastrointestinal bleeding (PPV 3.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.3 to 6.3); anaemia (PPV 1.4%, 95% CI = 1.1 to 1.8); change in bowel habit (PPV 1.1%, 95% CI = 0.9 to 1.5; abdominal pain (PPV 0.9%, 95% CI = 0.7 to 1.1); and weight loss (PPV 1.0%, 95% CI = 0.3 to 3.0); all P-value <0.05. The combination of bleeding and change in bowel habit had a PPV of 13.7% (95% CI = 2.1 to 54.4); for bleeding combined with abdominal pain this was 12.2% (95% CI = 1.8 to 51.2). A risk assessment tool for non-metastatic colorectal cancer was designed.Bleeding combined with either diarrhoea, constipation, change in bowel habit, or abdominal pain are the most powerful predictors of non-metastatic colorectal cancer and should result in prompt referral for colorectal investigation.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Holtedahl, Knut, et al.
(författare)
-
Abdominal symptoms and cancer in the Abdomen : Prospective cohort study in European primary care
- 2018
-
Ingår i: British Journal of General Practice. - : ROYAL COLL GENERAL PRACTITIONERS. - 0960-1643 .- 1478-5242. ; 68:670, s. 301-310
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Different abdominal symptoms may signal cancer, but their role is unclear. Aim: To examine associations between abdominal symptoms and subsequent cancer diagnosed in the abdominal region. Design and setting: Prospective cohort study comprising 493 GPs from surgeries in Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Scotland, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Method: Over a 10-day period, the GPs recorded consecutive consultations and noted: patients who presented with abdominal symptoms pre-specified on the registration form; additional data on non-specific symptoms; and features of the consultation. Eight months later, data on all cancer diagnoses among all study patients in the participating general practices were requested from the GPs. Results: Consultations with 61 802 patients were recorded and abdominal symptoms were documented in 6264 (10.1%) patients. Malignancy, both abdominal and non-abdominal, was subsequently diagnosed in 511 patients (0.8%). Among patients with a new cancer in the abdomen (n = 251), 175 (69.7%) were diagnosed within 180 days after consultation. In a multivariate model, the highest sex- and age-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) was for the single symptom of rectal bleeding (HR 19.1, 95% confidence interval = 8.7 to 41.7). Positive predictive values of >3% were found for macroscopic haematuria, rectal bleeding, and involuntary weight loss, with variations according to age and sex. The three symptoms relating to irregular bleeding had particularly high specificity in terms of colorectal, uterine, and bladder cancer. Conclusions: A patient with undiagnosed cancer may present with symptoms or no symptoms. Irregular bleeding must always be explained. Abdominal pain occurs with all types of abdominal cancer and several symptoms may signal colorectal cancer. The findings are important as they influence how GPs think and act, and how they can contribute to an earlier diagnosis of cancer.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Nicholson, Brian D, et al.
(författare)
-
Responsibility for follow-up during the diagnostic process in primary care : a secondary analysis of International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership data.
- 2018
-
Ingår i: British Journal of General Practice. - : Royal College of General Practitioners. - 0960-1643 .- 1478-5242. ; 68:670, s. e323-e332
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: It is unclear to what extent primary care practitioners (PCPs) should retain responsibility for follow-up to ensure that patients are monitored until their symptoms or signs are explained.AIM: To explore the extent to which PCPs retain responsibility for diagnostic follow-up actions across 11 international jurisdictions.DESIGN AND SETTING: A secondary analysis of survey data from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership.METHOD: The authors counted the proportion of 2879 PCPs who retained responsibility for each area of follow-up (appointments, test results, and non-attenders). Proportions were weighted by the sample size of each jurisdiction. Pooled estimates were obtained using a random-effects model, and UK estimates were compared with non-UK ones. Free-text responses were analysed to contextualise quantitative findings using a modified grounded theory approach.RESULTS: PCPs varied in their retention of responsibility for follow-up from 19% to 97% across jurisdictions and area of follow-up. Test reconciliation was inadequate in most jurisdictions. Significantly fewer UK PCPs retained responsibility for test result communication (73% versus 85%, P = 0.04) and non-attender follow-up (78% versus 93%, P<0.01) compared with non-UK PCPs. PCPs have developed bespoke, inconsistent solutions to follow-up. In cases of greatest concern, 'double safety netting' is described, where both patient and PCP retain responsibility.CONCLUSION: The degree to which PCPs retain responsibility for follow-up is dependent on their level of concern about the patient and their primary care system's properties. Integrated systems to support follow-up are at present underutilised, and research into their development, uptake, and effectiveness seems warranted.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Waller, Göran, et al.
(författare)
-
GPs asking patients to self-rate their health : a qualitative study
- 2015
-
Ingår i: British Journal of General Practice. - : British Journal of General Practice. - 0960-1643 .- 1478-5242. ; 65:638, s. e624-e629
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: In epidemiological research, self-rated health is an independent predictor of mortality, cardiovascular diseases, and other critical outcomes. It is recommended for clinical use, but research is lacking.AIM: To investigate what happens in consultations when the question 'How would you assess your general health compared with others your own age?' is posed.DESIGN AND SETTING: Authentic consultations with GPs at health centres in Sweden.METHOD: Thirty-three planned visits concerning diabetes, pain, or undiagnosed symptoms were voice-recorded. Dialogue regarding self-rated health was transcribed verbatim and analysed using a systematic text condensation method. Speaking time of patients and doctors was measured and the doctors' assessment of the value of the question was documented in a short questionnaire.RESULTS: Two overarching themes are used to describe patients' responses to the question. First, there was an immediate reaction, often expressing strong emotions, setting the tone of the dialogue and influencing the continued conversation. This was followed by reflection regarding their functional ability, management of illnesses and risks, and/or situation in life. The GPs maintained an attitude of active listening. They sometimes reported a slight increase in consultation time or feeling disturbed by the question, but mostly judged it as valuable, shedding additional light on the patients' situation and making it easier to discuss difficulties and resources. The patients' speaking time increased noticeably during this part of the consultation.CONCLUSION: Asking patients to comparatively self-rate their health is an effective tool in general practice.
|
|
| 11. |
|
|
