BackgroundA Danish cancer pathway has been implemented for patients with serious non-specific symptoms and signs of cancer (NSSC-CPP). The initiative is one of several to improve the long diagnostic interval and the poor survival of Danish cancer patients. However, little is known about the patients investigated under this pathway. We aim to describe the characteristics of patients referred from general practice to the NSSC-CPP and to estimate the cancer probability and distribution in this population.MethodsA cross-sectional study was performed, including all patients referred to the NSSC-CPP at the hospitals in Aarhus or Silkeborg in the Central Denmark Region between March 2012 and March 2013. Data were based on a questionnaire completed by the patient’s general practitioner (GP) combined with nationwide registers. Cancer probability was the percentage of new cancers per investigated patient. Associations between patient characteristics and cancer diagnosis were estimated with prevalence rate ratios (PRRs) from a generalised linear model.ResultsThe mean age of all 1278 included patients was 65.9 years, and 47.5 % were men. In total, 16.2 % of all patients had a cancer diagnosis after six months; the most common types were lung cancer (17.9 %), colorectal cancer (12.6 %), hematopoietic tissue cancer (10.1 %) and pancreatic cancer (9.2 %). All patients in combination had more than 80 different symptoms and 51 different clinical findings at referral. Most symptoms were non-specific and vague; weight loss and fatigue were present in more than half of all cases. The three most common clinical findings were ‘affected general condition’ (35.8 %), ‘GP’s gut feeling’ (22.5 %) and ‘findings from the abdomen’ (13.0 %). A strong association was found between GP-estimated cancer risk at referral and probability of cancer.ConclusionsIn total, 16.2 % of the patients referred through the NSSC-CPP had cancer. They constituted a heterogeneous group with many different symptoms and clinical findings. The GP’s gut feeling was a common reason for referral which proved to be a strong predictor of cancer. The GP’s overall estimation of the patient’s risk of cancer at referral was associated with the probability of finding cancer.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-015-1424-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundKnowledge is sparse on the prevalence of suspicion of cancer and other serious diseases in general practice. Likewise, little is known about the possible implications of this suspicion on future healthcare use and diagnoses.

ObjectiveResearch has suggested that physicians’ gut feelings are associated with parents’ concerns for the well-being of their children. Gut feeling is particularly important in diagnosis of serious low-incidence diseases in primary care. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine whether empathy, that is, the ability to understand what another person is experiencing, relates to general practitioners’ (GPs) use of gut feelings. Since empathy is associated with burn-out, we also examined whether the hypothesised influence of empathy on gut feeling use is dependent on level of burn-out.DesignCross-sectional questionnaire survey. Participants completed the Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy and The Maslach Burnout Inventory.SettingPrimary care.Participants588 active GPs in Central Denmark Region (response rate=70%).Primary outcome measuresSelf-reported use of gut feelings in clinical practice.ResultsGPs who scored in the highest quartile of the empathy scale had fourfold the odds of increased use of gut feelings compared with GPs in the lowest empathy quartile (OR 3.99, 95% CI 2.51 to 6.34) when adjusting for the influence of possible confounders. Burn-out was not statistically significantly associated with use of gut feelings (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.83), and no significant interaction effects between empathy and burn-out were revealed.ConclusionsPhysician empathy, but not burn-out, was strongly associated with use of gut feelings in primary care. As preliminary results suggest that gut feelings have diagnostic value, these findings highlight the importance of incorporating empathy and interpersonal skills into medical training to increase sensitivity to patient concern and thereby increase the use and reliability of gut feeling.

ObjectivesTo examine whether the quality of the patient–physician relationship, assessed by the general practitioner (GP) and the patient, associates with GPs’ use of gut feeling (GF) in cancer diagnosis.DesignCross-sectional questionnaire survey of cancer patients and their GPs.SettingDanish primary care.ParticipantsNewly diagnosed cancer patients and their GPs. Patients completed a questionnaire and provided the name of the GP to whom they have presented their symptoms. The named GP subsequently received a questionnaire.Primary and secondary outcome measuresGPs’ use of GF in the diagnostic process for the particular patient. GPs who answered that they used their GF ‘to a high degree’ or ‘to a very high degree’ were categorised as ‘used their GF to a great extent’. GPs who answered that they used their GF ‘to some degree’, ‘to a limited degree’ or ‘not at all’ were categorised as ‘limited or no use of GF’.ResultsGPs were less likely to use GF when they assessed relational aspects of the patient encounter as difficult compared with less difficult (OR=0.67; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.97). The physician-reported level of empathy was positively associated with use of GF (OR=2.60; 95% CI 1.60 to 4.22). The lower use of GF in difficult encounters was not modified by level of empathy.ConclusionsExperiencing relational aspects of patient encounter as difficult acted as a barrier for the use of GF in cancer diagnosis. Although physician-rated empathy increased use of GF, high empathy did not dissolve the low use of GF in difficult encounters. As diagnosis of cancer is a key challenge in primary care, it is important that GPs are aware that the sensitivity of cancer-related GF is compromised by a difficult patient–physician relationship.

Background The use of simulation-based team training has increased over the past decades. Simulation-based team training within emergency medicine and critical care contexts is best known for its use by trauma teams and teams involved in cardiac arrest. In the domain of emergency medicine, simulation-based team training is also used for other typical time-critical clinical presentations. We aimed to review the existing literature and current state of evidence pertaining to non-technical skills obtained via simulation-based team training in emergency medicine and critical care contexts, excluding trauma and cardiac arrest contexts. Methods This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Before the initiation of the study, the protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database. We conducted a systematic literature search of 10 years of publications, up to December 17, 2019, in the following databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL. Two authors independently reviewed all the studies and extracted data. Results Of the 456 studies screened, 29 trials were subjected to full-text review, and 13 studies were included in the final review. None of the studies was randomized controlled trials, and no studies compared simulation training to different modalities of training. Studies were heterogeneous; they applied simulation-training concepts of different durations and intensities and used different outcome measures for non-technical skills. Two studies reached Kirkpatrick level 3. Out of the remaining 11 studies, nine reached Kirkpatrick level 2, and two reached Kirkpatrick level 1. Conclusions The literature on simulation-based team training in emergency medicine is heterogeneous and sparse, but somewhat supports the hypothesis that simulation-based team training is beneficial to teams’ knowledge and attitudes toward non-technical skills (Kirkpatrick level 2). Randomized trials are called for to clarify the effect of simulation compared to other modalities of team training. Future research should focus on the transfer of skills and investigate improvements in patient outcomes (Kirkpatrick level 4).

The findings in this study might indicate that GPs refer patients assessed to have a higher risk of cancer through direct-access US. The finding was statistically non-significant, and further research is required to confirm this result.

No abstract