BackgroundThe role of the general practitioner (GP) in cancer follow-up is poorly defined. We wanted to describe and analyse the role of the GP during initial follow-up of patients with recently treated cancer, from the perspective of patients, their relatives and their GPs.MethodsOne focus group interview with six GPs from the city of Bodø and individual interviews with 17 GPs from the city of Tromsø in North Norway. Text analysis of the transcribed interviews and of free text comments in two questionnaires from 91 patients with cancer diagnosed between October 1999 and September 2000 and their relatives from Tromsø.ResultsThe role of the GP in follow-up of patients with recently treated cancer is discussed under five main headings: patient involvement, treating the cancer and treating the patient, time and accessibility, limits to competence, and the GP and the hospital should work together.ConclusionThe GP has a place in the follow-up of many patients with cancer, also in the initial phase after treatment. Patients trust their GP to provide competent care, especially when they have more complex health care needs on top of their cancer. GPs agree to take a more prominent role for cancer patients, provided there is good access to specialist advice. Plans for follow-up of individual patients could in many cases improve care and cooperation. Such plans could be made preferably before discharge from in-patient care by a team consisting of the patient, a carer, a hospital specialist and a general practitioner. Patients and GPs call on hospital doctors to initiate such collaboration.
Background. Only a few patients on a GP ' s list develop cancer each year. To fi nd these cases in the jumble of presented problems is a challenge. Objective. To explore how general practitioners (GPs) come to think of cancer in a clinical encounter. Design. Qualitative interviews with Norwegian GPs, who were invited to think back on consultations during which the thought of cancer arose. The 11 GPs recounted and refl ected on 70 such stories from their practices. A phenomenographic approach enabled the study of variation in GPs ' ways of experiencing. Results. Awareness of cancer could arise in several contexts of attention: (1) Practising basic knowledge : explicit rules and skills, such as alarm symptoms, epidemiology and clinical know-how; (2) Interpersonal awareness : being alert to changes in patients ' appearance or behaviour and to cues in their choice of words, on a background of basic knowledge and experience; (3) Intuitive knowing : a tacit feeling of alarm which could be diffi cult to verbalize, but nevertheless was helpful. Intuition built on the earlier mentioned contexts: basic knowledge, experience, and interpersonal awareness; (4) Fear of cancer : the existential context of awareness could affect the thoughts of both doctor and patient. The challenge could be how not to think about cancer all the time and to fi nd ways to live with insecurity without becoming over-precautious. Conclusion : The thought of cancer arose in the relationship between doctor and patient. The quality of their interaction and the doctor ' s accuracy in perceiving and interpreting cues were decisive.
12.4% of GP patients presented with WSC. A general symptom may have cancer diagnostic value, but usually, only when it occurs along with a focal symptom. PPV of any single symptom is low, and decisions about referral require additional information.
BackgroundAbdominal symptoms are diagnostically challenging to general practitioners (GPs): although common, they may indicate cancer. In a prospective cohort of patients, we examined abdominal symptom frequency, initial diagnostic suspicion, and actions of GPs in response to abdominal symptoms.MethodsOver a 10-day period, 493 GPs in Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Scotland, recorded consecutive consultations: sex, date of birth and any specified abdominal symptoms. For patients with abdominal symptoms, additional data on non-specific symptoms, GPs’ diagnostic suspicion, and features of the consultation were noted. Data on all cancer diagnoses among all included patients were requested from the GPs eight months later.FindingsConsultations with 61802 patients were recorded. Abdominal symptoms were recorded in 6264 (10.1%) patients. A subsequent malignancy was reported in 511 patients (0.8%): 441 (86.3%) had a new cancer, 70 (13.7%) a recurrent cancer. Abdominal symptoms were noted in 129 (25.2%) of cancer patients (P < 0.001), rising to 34.5% for the 89 patients with cancer located in the abdominal region. PPV for any cancer given any abdominal symptom was 2.1%.In symptomatic patients diagnosed with cancer, GPs noted a suspicion of cancer for 85 (65.9%) versus 1895 (30.9%) when there was no subsequent cancer (P < 0.001). No suspicion was noted in 32 (24.8%) cancer patients. The GP’s intuitive cancer suspicion was independently associated with a subsequent new cancer diagnosis (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.15–3.89).Laboratory tests were ordered for 45.4% of symptomatic patients, imaging for 10.4%, referral or hospitalization for 20.0%: all were more frequent in subsequent cancer patients (P < 0.001).InterpretationAbdominal symptoms pointed to abdominal cancers rather than to other cancers. However, the finding of abdominal symptoms in only one third of patients with an abdominal cancer, and the lack of cancer suspicion in a quarter of symptomatic cancer patients, provide challenges for GPs’ diagnostic thinking and referral practices.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.