Dataset Information

Diagnostic strategies in general practice and the emergency department: a comparative qualitative analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

We sought to explore differences and commonalities between diagnostic strategies used by clinicians in general practice and the emergency department.

Design

Qualitative study.

Settings

We videotaped 282 consultations of 12 general practitioners (GPs) in Germany, irrespective of presenting complaint or final diagnosis. Reflective interviews were performed after each consultation. In addition, 171 consultations of 16 emergency physicians (EPs) based at two tertiary care hospitals in the Midwest of the USA were observed, and their conversations recorded. Recordings of consultations and GP interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a coding system that was based on published literature and systematically checked for reliability.

Results

EPs more often considered acute and severe conditions, even if pretest probabilities were low. In contrast, GPs more often involved their patients in the decision-making process and provided assurance concerning their complaints. To focus their workup, EPs used a more directive style of interviewing including a high proportion of routine questions and rarely used open questions or active listening.

Conclusions

Strategies used by physicians in both settings seem to be well adapted to their respective environments. Whereas the physician-led diagnostic process in the emergency department is well suited to rule out life-threating disease, diagnosis and appropriate treatment of everyday problems may require a more patient-centred style.

SUBMITTER: Bosner S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6549708 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Diagnostic strategies in general practice and the emergency department: a comparative qualitative analysis.

Bösner Stefan S Abushi Jamal J Feufel Markus M Donner-Banzhoff Norbert N

BMJ open 20190601 5

<h4>Objective</h4>We sought to explore differences and commonalities between diagnostic strategies used by clinicians in general practice and the emergency department.<h4>Design</h4>Qualitative study.<h4>Settings</h4>We videotaped 282 consultations of 12 general practitioners (GPs) in Germany, irrespective of presenting complaint or final diagnosis. Reflective interviews were performed after each consultation. In addition, 171 consultations of 16 emergency physicians (EPs) based at two tertiary ...[more]

PMID: 31154305

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Coronary risk stratification is recommended for emergency department patients with chest pain. Many protocols are designed as "rule-out" binary classification strategies, while others use graded-risk stratification. The comparative performance of competing approaches at varying levels of risk tolerance has not been widely reported. Methods and Results This is a prospective cohort study of adult patients with chest pain presenting between January 2018 and December 2019 to 13 medical center emergency departments within an integrated healthcare delivery system. Using an electronic clinical decision support interface, we externally validated and assessed the net benefit (at varying risk thresholds) of several coronary risk scores (History, ECG, Age, Risk Factors, and Troponin [HEART] score, HEART pathway, Emergency Department Assessment of Chest Pain Score Accelerated Diagnostic Protocol), troponin-only strategies (fourth-generation assay), unstructured physician gestalt, and a novel risk algorithm (RISTRA-ACS). The primary outcome was 60-day major adverse cardiac event defined as myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock, coronary revascularization, or all-cause mortality. There were 13 192 patient encounters included with a 60-day major adverse cardiac event incidence of 3.7%. RISTRA-ACS and HEART pathway had the lowest negative likelihood ratios (0.06, 95% CI, 0.03-0.10 and 0.07, 95% CI, 0.04-0.11, respectively) and the greatest net benefit across a range of low-risk thresholds. RISTRA-ACS demonstrated the highest discrimination for 60-day major adverse cardiac event (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.92, 95% CI, 0.91-0.94, P<0.0001). Conclusions RISTRA-ACS and HEART pathway were the optimal rule-out approaches, while RISTRA-ACS was the best-performing graded-risk approach. RISTRA-ACS offers promise as a versatile single approach to emergency department coronary risk stratification. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03286179.

Dataset Information

Diagnostic strategies in general practice and the emergency department: a comparative qualitative analysis.

Objective

Design

Settings

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Diagnostic strategies in general practice and the emergency department: a comparative qualitative analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets