The general practitioners perspective regarding registration of persistent somatic symptoms in primary care: a survey.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Persistent somatic symptoms (PSS) are common in primary care and often accompanied by an increasing disease burden for both the patient and healthcare. In medical practice, PSS is historically considered a diagnosis by exclusion or primarily seen as psychological. Besides, registration of PSS in electronic health records (EHR) is unambiguous and possibly does not reflect classification adequately. The present study explores how general practitioners (GPs) currently register PSS, and their view regarding the need for improvements in classification, registration, and consultations.Method
Dutch GPs were invited by email to participate in a national cross-sectional online survey. The survey addressed ICPC-codes used by GPs to register PSS, PSS-related terminology added to free text areas, usage of PSS-related syndrome codes, and GPs' need for improvement of PSS classification, registration and care.Results
GPs (n = 259) were most likely to use codes specific to the symptom presented (89.3%). PSS-related terminology in free-text areas was used sparsely. PSS-related syndrome codes were reportedly used by 91.5% of GPs, but this was primarily the case for the code for irritable bowel syndrome. The ambiguous registration of PSS is reported as problematic by 47.9% of GPs. Over 56.7% of GPs reported needing additional training, tools or other support for PSS classification and consultation. GPs also reported needing other referral options and better guidelines.Conclusions
Registration of PSS in primary care is currently ambiguous. Approximately half of GPs felt a need for more options for registration of PSS and reported a need for further support. In order to improve classification, registration and care for patients with PSS, there is a need for a more appropriate coding scheme and additional training.
SUBMITTER: Kitselaar WM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8436507 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundMany patients consult their primary care physician with persistent somatic symptoms such as pain or sickness. Quite often these consultations and further diagnostic measures yield no medical explanation for the symptoms - patients and physicians are left in uncertainty. In fact, diagnostic and treatment barriers in primary care hinder timely health-care provision for patients suffering from persistent somatic symptoms (PSS). The significance of individual barriers is still unknown. We compare and quantify these barriers from the perspective of primary care physicians and identify subpopulations of primary care physicians who experience particular barriers as most severe.MethodsWe mailed a questionnaire to primary care physicians (PCP) in Germany and asked them which barriers they consider most important. We invited a random sample of 12,004 primary care physicians in eight federal states in Germany. Physicians provided anonymous mailed or online responses. We also mailed a postcard to announce the survey and a mail reminder. Main measures were Likert rating scales of items relating to barriers in the diagnosis and treatment of PSS in primary care. Information on demography and medical practice were also collected.ResultsWe analyzed 1719 data sets from 1829 respondents. PCPs showed strongest agreement with statements regarding (1.) their lack of knowledge about treatment guidelines, (2.) their perceptions that patients with PSS would expect symptom relief, (3.) their concern to overlook physical disease in these patients, and (4.) their usage of psychotropic drugs with these patients. More experienced PCPs were better able to cope with the possibility of overlooking physical disease than those less experienced.ConclusionsThe PCPs in our survey answered that the obligation to rule out severe physical disease and the demand to relieve patients from symptoms belong to the most severe barriers for adequate treatment and diagnosis. Moreover, many physicians admitted to not knowing the appropriate treatment guidelines for these patients. Based on our results, raising awareness of guidelines and improving knowledge about the management of persistent somatic symptoms appear to be promising approaches for overcoming the barriers to diagnosis and treatment of persistent somatic symptoms in primary care.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register (Deutschen Register Klinischer Studien, DRKS) https://www.drks.de/drks_web/setLocale_EN.do The date the study was registered: October 2nd 2017 The date the first participant was enrolled: February 9th 2018 DRKS-ID: DRKS00012942.
| S-EPMC8017612 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The rapid, ongoing and worldwide coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic represents a global public health emergency. Our objective was to explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on somatic symptoms among Chinese college and primary school students, to provide reference data pertaining to the mental health of this population in the context of a public health emergency. In February and March 2020, we explored the somatic symptoms and concerns regarding COVID-19 of 399 college and primary school students in Sichuan Province using the Somatic Self-rating Scale (SSS) and a novel questionnaire, respectively. Logistic regression analysis and non-parametric tests were used to analyze the data. The incidence of somatic symptoms among college students was 34.85 (mild, 26.26%; moderate, 8.59%). The incidence of somatic symptoms in primary school students was 2.39% (all mild). Among the entire cohort, concern regarding COVID-19 was positively correlated with the occurrence of somatic symptoms. Somatic symptoms were more likely among college students expressing greater concern regarding the threat to life and health posed by COVID-19, and the efficacy of prevention and control measures. Among primary school students, only the concern for life and health was associated with a higher likelihood of somatic symptoms. Our data indicate that governments and other relevant agencies should implement different measures to prevent and control mental health disorders diseases in primary school and college students.
| S-EPMC7227526 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFamily caregivers are often the first line of support for people requiring care; although they may personally stand to benefit, these activities substantially increase the risk of physical and emotional stress. General practitioners (GPs) may provide important support and stabilisation, but need to adjust to the needs and expectations of this group in order to do so. The aim of the study was to compare the needs of family caregivers from GPs to the support they actually experience. Additional aims included determining the main factors affecting satisfaction amongst family caregivers with support from GPs. The results were used to develop possible approaches towards optimisation within the purview of general medical practice.MethodsBetween January and July 2020, 612 people supporting or caring for a family member responded to an online survey posted in seventeen internet forums focused on family caregivers. In addition to the descriptive analysis, a t-test with independent samples was used to identify significant differences between two groups. We also used binary logistic regression analysis to identify indications of potentially influential factors regarding the experienced support from GPs.ResultsAround three out of every four respondents (72%) consulted GPs in care matters. The respondents gave positive responses on their GP's knowledge of the care situation (71%), approachability in various issues connecting with care and service towards the caregiver (82%). GPs' efforts in meeting the needs and requirements of the care recipient were also rated positively (82%). Weaknesses in support from GPs mainly involved the lack of information on advice and assistance services (55%) as well as frequently not identifying or involving caregivers as such soon enough (42%). Results from regression analysis show that the last two aspects play a major role in subjective satisfaction amongst family caregivers with support from GPs.ConclusionsWe recommend that GPs undergo further training to reinforce awareness that the care triad of needs, requirements and stresses amongst family caregivers also plays a vital role in care outcomes. With this in mind, general practice staff should adopt a pre-emptive strategy towards approaching family members about potential issues and informing them about existing assistance and support services.
| S-EPMC7927394 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo identify the ways in which patients with medically unexplained symptoms present their problems and needs to general practitioners and to identify the forms of presentation that might lead general practitioners to feel pressurised to deliver somatic interventions.DesignQualitative analysis of audiorecorded consultations between patients and general practitioners.Setting7 general practices in Merseyside, England.Participants36 patients selected consecutively from 21 general practices, in whom doctors considered that patients' symptoms were medically unexplained.Main outcome measuresInductive qualitative analysis of ways in which patients presented their symptoms to general practitioners.ResultsAlthough 34 patients received somatic interventions (27 received drug prescriptions, 12 underwent investigations, and four were referred), only 10 requested them. However, patients presented in other ways that had the potential to pressurise general practitioners, including: graphic and emotional language; complex patterns of symptoms that resisted explanation; description of emotional and social effects of symptoms; reference to other individuals as authority for the severity of symptoms; and biomedical explanations.ConclusionsMost patients with unexplained symptoms received somatic interventions from their general practitioners but had not requested them. Though such patients apparently seek to engage the general practitioner by conveying the reality of their suffering, general practitioners respond symptomatically.
| S-EPMC403850 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aim Increasingly at GP practices, patients appear who are extremely worried as a result of health information researched online and consequently affected by doubts and concerns. The study highlights GP attitudes and experiences with regard to this patient group. Moreover, it identifies strategies adopted by GPs to respond appropriately to worried or scared patients. Subject and methods In the German federal states of Baden-Württemberg, Rhineland-Palatinate and Saarland, 2532 GPs were surveyed between June and August 2022. Owing to the explorative nature of the study, a descriptive analysis was conducted. Results Of the total respondents, 77% deemed the current problem of internet-related health concerns to be a major challenge in everyday practice. The implications affect patients’ mental stability and expectations towards the doctor (esp. demand for further instrumental diagnosis, 83%). One doctor in five (20%) has experienced the termination of patient contact because the relationship with the patient was no longer possible due to the patient’s uncontrolled online information behaviour. To respond to worried or scared patients, the respondents generally ask certain patient groups about online research (39%) and take this into account in the doctor–patient discussion (23%). Furthermore, the respondents use a detailed explanation of the diagnosis and/or treatment (65%) and recommend websites that they consider reputable (66%). Some of the doctors prefer a joint examination of the information researched by the patient (55%) as well as to explain the benefits and risks of online research (43%). Conclusion Many GPs demonstrate a high level of awareness and sensitivity with regard to extensive online research and potentially worried patients. It seems advisable to actively address the online search for information in the patient consultation to prevent possible negative effects on the doctor–patient relationship and to actively involve the patient. In this respect, it would also be worth considering expanding the medical history to include the dimension of online searching. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10389-023-01909-1.
| S-EPMC10096108 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAfter the 'first wave' in spring 2020, opinions regarding the threat and measures against COVID-19 seemed to vary among German general practitioners (GPs).ObjectivesTo systematically investigate opinions and to identify subgroups of GPs sharing similar views.MethodsA questionnaire was sent to all 210 practices accredited for undergraduate teaching of family medicine at the Medical Faculty of the Technical University of Munich. Questions addressed personal opinions regarding risks, dilemmas, restrictions and their relaxation associated with COVID-19, and personal fears, symptoms of depression and anxiety. Patterns of strong opinions ('archetypes') were identified using archetypal analysis, a statistical method seeking extremal points in the multidimensional data.ResultsOne hundred and sixty-one GPs sent back a questionnaire (response rate 77%); 143 (68%) with complete data for all 38 relevant variables could be included in the analysis. We identified four archetypes with subgroups of GPs tending in the direction of these archetypes: a small group of 'Sceptics' (n = 12/8%) considering threats of COVID-19 as overrated and measures taken as exaggerated; 'Hardliners' (n = 34/24%) considering threats high and supporting strong measures; 'Balancers' (n = 77/54%) who also rated the threats high but were more critical about potentially impairing the quality of life of elderly people and children; and 'Anxious' GPs (n = 20/14%) tending to report more fear, depressive and anxiety symptoms.ConclusionAmong the participants in this survey, opinions regarding the threat and the measures taken against COVID-19 during the 'first wave' in Germany in spring 2020 varied greatly.
| S-EPMC8330783 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUse of sepsis-criteria in hospital settings is effective in realizing early recognition, adequate treatment and reduction of sepsis-associated morbidity and mortality. Whether general practitioners (GPs) use these diagnostic criteria is unknown.ObjectiveTo gauge the knowledge and use of various diagnostic criteria. To determine which parameters GPs associate with an increased likelihood of sepsis.MethodsTwo thousand five hundred and sixty GPs were invited and 229 agreed to participate in a survey, reached out to through e-mail and WhatsApp groups. The survey consisted of two parts: the first part aimed to obtain information about the GP, training and knowledge about sepsis recognition, and the second part tested specific knowledge using six realistic cases.ResultsTwo hundred and six questionnaires, representing a response rate of 8.1%, were eligible for analysis. Gut feeling (98.1%) was the most used diagnostic method, while systemic inflammatory response syndrome (37.9%), quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) (7.8%) and UK Sepsis Trust criteria (UKSTc) (1.5%) were used by the minority of the GPs. Few of the responding GPs had heard of either the qSOFA (27.7%) or the UKSTc (11.7%). Recognition of sepsis varied greatly between GPs. GPs most strongly associated the individual signs of the qSOFA (mental status, systolic blood pressure, capillary refill time and respiratory rate) with diagnosing sepsis in the test cases.ConclusionsGPs mostly use gut feeling to diagnose sepsis and are frequently not familiar with the 'sepsis-criteria' used in hospital settings, although clinical reasoning was mostly in line with the qSOFA score. In order to improve sepsis recognition in primary care, GPs should be educated in the use of available screening tools.
| S-EPMC8527837 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSignificant challenges remain in the early identification of child developmental disabilities in the community. Implementing supports and services early in the life course has been shown to promote positive developmental outcomes for children at high likelihood of developmental disabilities, including autism. As part of a cluster randomised controlled trial, this study seeks to examine and compare the perspectives and experiences of Australian general practitioners (GPs) in relation to a digital developmental surveillance program for autism and usual care pathway, in general practice clinics.MethodsA qualitative research methodology with semi-structured interviews and thematic inductive analysis underpinned by grounded theory was utilised. All GPs from South Western Sydney (NSW) and Melbourne (Victoria) who participated in the main program ("GP Surveillance for Autism") were invited to the interview. GPs who provided consent were interviewed either over online or in-person meeting. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded using NVivo12 software. Inductive interpretive approach was adopted and data were analysed thematically.ResultsTwenty-three GPs across the two sites (NSW: n = 11; Victoria: n = 12) agreed to be interviewed; data saturation had reached following this number of participants. Inductive thematic coding and analysis yielded eight major themes and highlighted common enablers such as the role of GPs in early identification and subsequent supports, enhanced communication between clinicians/professionals, relationship-building with patients, and having standardised screening tools. Specific facilitators to the feasibility and acceptability of a digital screening program for the early identification of developmental disabilities, including the early signs of autism, and encouraging research and education for GPs. However, several practical and socioeconomic barriers were identified, in addition to limited knowledge and uptake of child developmental screening tools as well as COVID-19 lockdown impacts. Common and specific recommendations involve supporting GPs in developmental/paediatrics training, streamlined screening process, and funding and resources in the primary healthcare services.ConclusionsThe study highlighted the need for practice and policy changes, including further training of GPs alongside sufficient time to complete developmental checks and appropriate financial remuneration through a Medicare billing item. Further research is needed on implementation and scale up of a national surveillance program for early identification of developmental disabilities, including autism.
| S-EPMC10416397 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundChinese medicine practitioners (CMPs) play an important part in rural and regional Australian healthcare. A survey was conducted to investigate referral practices between Chinese medicine (CM) and conventional primary health care practitioners in this region.MethodsA 27-item questionnaire was sent to all 1486 general practitioners (GPs) currently practising in rural and regional Divisions of General Practice in New South Wales, Australia. This survey explored GP opinions, perceptions and practices in relation to complementary and alternative medicine or Chinese medicine specifically.ResultsA total of 585 GPs completed the questionnaire. Forty-nine were returned as 'no longer at this address', resulting in an adjusted response rate of 40.7%. One in ten GPs (9.9%) had referred their patients to CMPs at least a few times over the past 12 months, one in five GPs (17.4%) could not locate a CMP to refer to in their local area, and over one-third of GPs (37.7%) stated they would not refer to a CMP under any circumstances. GPs that had graduated from an Australian medical college (OR = 3.71; CI: 1.22, 11.23), GPs observing positive responses previously in patients using CM (OR = 2.53; 95% CI: 1.12, 8.58), GPs perceiving a lack of other options for patients (OR = 3.10; 95% CI: 1.12, 8.58), GPs reporting satisfactory or higher levels of CM knowledge (OR = 15.62; 95% CI: 5.47, 44.56), and GPs interested in increasing their complementary and alternative medicine knowledge (OR = 3.28; 95% CI: 1.17, 9.21) referred to CMPs more frequently than did other groups of GPs amongst the rural GPs included in this study.ConclusionThere has been little interaction between CMPs and Australian rural and regional GPs.
| S-EPMC3655835 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Undetected dementia in primary care is a global problem. Since general practitioners (GPs) act as the first step in the identification process, examining their routines could help us to enhance the currently low recognition rates.Objectives: The study aimed to explore, for the first time in Hungary, the dementia identification practices and views of GPs.Methods: In the context of an extensive, national survey (February-November 2014) 8% of all practicing GPs in Hungary (n = 402) filled in a self-administered questionnaire. The questions (single, multiple-choice, Likert-type) analysed in the present study explored GPs' methods and views regarding dementia identification and their ideas about the optimal circumstances of case-finding.Results: The vast majority of responding GPs (97%) agreed that the early recognition of dementia would enhance both the patients' and their relatives' well-being. When examining the possibility of dementia, most GPs (91%) relied on asking the patients general questions and only a quarter of them (24%) used formal tests, even though they were mostly satisfied with both the Clock Drawing Test (69%) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (65%). Longer consultation time was chosen as the most important facet of improvement needed for better identification of dementia in primary care (81%). Half of the GPs (49%) estimated dementia recognition rate to be lower than 30% in their practice.Conclusions: Hungarian GPs were aware of the benefits of early recognition, but the shortage of consultation time in primary care was found to be a major constraint on efficient case-finding.
| S-EPMC7006793 | biostudies-literature