The strategies used by general practitioners in making a diagnosis are being formally recognised; this article is the first in a series that will illustrate their application, and is accompanied by a case study (doi:)

ObjectiveExamine clinical reasoning and decision making in an out of hours (OOH) primary care setting to gain insights into how general practitioners (GPs) make clinical decisions and manage risk in this environment.DesignSemi-structured interviews using open-ended questions.SettingA 2-month qualitative interview study conducted in Oxfordshire, UK.Participants21 GPs working in OOH primary care.ResultsThe most powerful themes to emerge related to dealing with urgent potentially high-risk cases, keeping patients safe and responding to their needs, while trying to keep patients out of hospital and the concept of ‘fire fighting’. There were a number of well-defined characteristics that GPs reported making presentations easy or difficult to deal with. Severely ill patients were straightforward, while the older people, with complex multisystem diseases, were often difficult. GPs stopped collecting clinical information and came to clinical decisions when high-risk disease and severe illness requiring hospital attention has been excluded; they had responded directly to the patient's needs and there was a reliable safety net in place. Learning points that GPs identified as important for trainees in the OOH setting included the importance of developing rapport in spite of time pressures, learning to deal with uncertainty and learning about common presentations with a focus on critical cues to exclude severe illness.ConclusionsThe findings support suggestions that improvements in primary care OOH could be achieved by including automated and regular timely feedback system for GPs and individual peer and expert clinician support for GPs with regular meetings to discuss recent cases. In addition, trainee support and mentoring to focus on clinical skills, knowledge and risk management issues specific to OOH is currently required. Investigating the stopping rules used for diagnostic closure may provide new insights into the root causes of clinical error in such a high-risk setting.

ObjectiveWe investigate the mechanisms of diagnostic error in primary care consultations to detect warning signs for possible error. We aim to identify places in the diagnostic reasoning process associated with major risk indicators.DesignA qualitative study using semistructured interviews with open-ended questions.SettingA 2-month study in primary care conducted in Oxfordshire, UK.ParticipantsWe approached about 25 experienced general practitioners by email or word of mouth, 15 volunteered for the interviews and were available at a convenient time.InterventionInterview transcripts provided 45 cases of error. Three researchers searched these independently for underlying themes in relation to our conceptual framework.Outcome measuresLocating steps in the diagnostic reasoning process associated with major risk of error and detecting warning signs that can alert clinicians to increased risk of error.ResultsInitiation and closure of the cognitive process are most exposed to risk of error. Cognitive biases developed early in the process lead to errors at the end. These warning signs can be used to alert clinicians to the increased risk of diagnostic error. Ignoring red flags or critical cues was related to processes being biased through the initial frame, but equally well, it could be explained by knowledge gaps.ConclusionsCognitive biases developed at the initial framing of the problem relate to errors at the end of the process. We refer to these biases as warning signs that can alert clinicians to the increased risk of diagnostic error. We conclude that lack of knowledge is likely to be an important factor in diagnostic error. Reducing diagnostic errors in primary care should focus on early and systematic recognition of errors including near misses, and a continuing professional development environment that promotes reflection in action to highlight possible causes of process bias and of knowledge gaps.

Rationale and aim The rapidly changing knowledge base of clinical practice highlights the need to keep abreast of knowledge changes that are most relevant for the practitioner. We aimed to develop a model for reflection on clinical practice that identified the key elements of medical knowledge needed for good medical practice. Method The dual theory of cognition, an integration of intuitive and analytic processes, provided the framework for the study. The design looked at the congruence between the clinical thinking process and the dual theory. A one-year study was conducted in general practice clinics in Oxfordshire, UK. Thirty-five general practitioners participated in 20-minute interviews to discuss how they worked through recently seen clinical cases. Over a one-year period 72 cases were recorded from 35 interviews. These were categorized according to emerging themes, which were manually coded and substantiated with verbatim quotations. Results There was a close fit between the dual theory and participants' clinical thinking processes. This included instant problem framing, consistent with automatic intuitive thinking, focusing on the risk and urgency of the case. Salient features accounting for these choices were recognizable. There was a second reflective phase, leading to the review of initial judgements. Conclusions The proposed model highlights the critical steps in decision making. This allows regular recalibration of knowledge that is most critical at each of these steps. In line with good practice, the model also links the crucial knowledge used in decision making, to value judgments made in relation to the patient.

A condition commonly seen after motor vehicle accidents, the Late Whiplash Syndrome, which is defined as a collection of symptoms and disabilities seen more than six months after a neck injury occurring in a motor vehicle accident, is examined in a series of 300 cases. The author suggests that the development of the Late Whiplash Syndrome, some of whose characteristics are viewed as illness and some as illness behavior, depends on social variables. The differential distribution in Western countries and in Singapore is related to sanctions against entry into the sick role associated with this type of injury which are present in countries such as Singapore. Conversely, motor vehicle injury is legitimized in Western Countries such as Australia as an historical overview shows. The author's model of the Late Whiplash Syndrome lends itself to generalizations about the development of social illness in different cultures.