TY - JOUR

T1 - Responsibility for follow-up during the diagnostic process in primary care

T2 - a secondary analysis of International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership data

AU - Nicholson, Brian D

AU - Goyder, Clare R

AU - Bankhead, Clare R

AU - Toftegaard, Berit S

AU - Rose, Peter W

AU - Thulesius, Hans

AU - Vedsted, Peter

AU - Perera, Rafael

N1 - © British Journal of General Practice 2018.

PY - 2018/5

Y1 - 2018/5

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

U2 - 10.3399/bjgp18X695813

DO - 10.3399/bjgp18X695813

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 29686134

VL - 68

SP - e323-e332

JO - British Journal of General Practice

JF - British Journal of General Practice

SN - 0960-1643

IS - 670

ER -