Bradley Paula Theresa, Hall Nicola, Maniatopoulos Gregory, Neal Richard D, Paleri Vinidh, Wilkes Scott
Medical School, University of Sunderland, Sunderland, UK
Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK.
BMJ Open. 2021 Feb 19;11(2):e043338. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043338.
Clinical Cancer Decision Tools (CCDTs) aim to alert general practitioners (GPs) to signs and symptoms of cancer, supporting prompt investigation and onward referral. CCDTs are available in primary care in the UK but are not widely utilised. Qualitative research has highlighted the complexities and mechanisms surrounding their implementation and use; this has focused on specific cancer types, formats, systems or settings. This study aims to synthesise qualitative data of GPs' attitudes to and experience with a range of CCDTs to gain better understanding of the factors shaping their implementation and use.
A systematic search of the published (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science and EMBASE) and grey literature (July 2020). Following screening, selection and assessment of suitability, the data were analysed and synthesised using normalisation process theory.
Six studies (2011 to 2019), exploring the views of GPs were included for analysis. Studies focused on the use of several different types of CCDTs (Risk Assessment Tools (RAT) or electronic version of RAT (eRAT), QCancer and the 7-point checklist). GPs agreed CCDTs were useful to increase awareness of signs and symptoms of undiagnosed cancer. They had concerns about the impact on trust in their own clinical acumen, whether secondary care clinicians would consider referrals generated by CCDT as valid and whether integration of the CCDTs within existing systems was achievable.
CCDTs might be a helpful adjunct to clinical work in primary care, but without careful development to legitimise their use GPs are likely to give precedence to clinical acumen and gut instinct. Stakeholder consultation with secondary care clinicians and consideration of how the CCDTs fit into a GP consultation are crucial to successful uptake. The role and responsibilities of a GP as a clinician, gatekeeper, health promoter and resource manager affect the interaction with and implementation of innovations such as CCDTs.
临床癌症决策工具(CCDTs)旨在提醒全科医生(GPs)注意癌症的体征和症状,支持及时进行检查和转诊。CCDTs在英国的初级医疗保健中可用,但未得到广泛应用。定性研究突出了围绕其实施和使用的复杂性及机制;这主要集中在特定癌症类型、形式、系统或环境方面。本研究旨在综合全科医生对一系列CCDTs的态度和经验的定性数据,以更好地理解影响其实施和使用的因素。
对已发表文献(MEDLINE、CINAHL、科学引文索引和EMBASE)和灰色文献(2020年7月)进行系统检索。在筛选、选择和评估适用性之后,使用归一化过程理论对数据进行分析和综合。
纳入六项研究(2011年至2019年)进行分析,这些研究探讨了全科医生的观点。研究聚焦于几种不同类型的CCDTs(风险评估工具(RAT)或RAT的电子版(eRAT)、QCancer和7分清单)的使用。全科医生一致认为CCDTs有助于提高对未确诊癌症体征和症状的认识。他们担心这会对他们自身临床敏锐度的信任产生影响,担心二级医疗保健临床医生是否会将CCDTs生成的转诊视为有效,以及能否将CCDTs整合到现有系统中。
CCDTs可能是初级医疗保健临床工作的有益辅助工具,但如果没有精心开发使其使用合法化,全科医生可能会优先考虑临床敏锐度和直觉。与二级医疗保健临床医生进行利益相关者咨询以及考虑CCDTs如何融入全科医生会诊对于成功采用至关重要。全科医生作为临床医生、把关人、健康促进者和资源管理者的角色和职责会影响与CCDTs等创新的互动及实施。