Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31685542›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2019

Quality improvements of safety-netting guidelines for cancer in UK primary care: insights from a qualitative interview study of GPs.

Alice Tompson, Brian D Nicholson, Sue Ziebland, Julie Evans, Clare Bankhead

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Hidden systems in primary care cancer detection: an embedded qualitative intervention development study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Primary care practice and cancer suspicion during the first three COVID-19 lockdowns in the UK: a qualitative study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alice TompsonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Brian D NicholsonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Sue ZieblandNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Julie EvansNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Clare BankheadNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.
University of Oxford · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 21500
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSafety netting is a diagnostic strategy that involves monitoring patients with symptoms possibly indicative of serious illness, such as cancer, until they are resolved. Optimising safety-netting practice in primary care has been proposed to improve quality of care and clinical outcomes. Introducing guidelines is a potential means to achieve this.

aimTo seek the insight of frontline GPs regarding proposed safety-netting guidelines for suspected cancer in UK primary care. DESIGN AND

settingA qualitative interview study with 25 GPs practising in Oxfordshire, UK.

methodTranscripts from semi-structured interviews were analysed thematically by a multidisciplinary research team using a mind-mapping approach.

resultsGPs were supportive of initiatives to optimise safety netting. Guidelines on establishing who has responsibility for follow-up, keeping patient details up to date, and ensuring test result review is conducted by someone with knowledge of cancer guidelines were already being followed. Sharing diagnostic uncertainty and ensuring an up-to-date understanding of guidelines were only partially implemented. Neither informing patients of all (including negative) test results nor ensuring recurrent unexplained symptoms are always flagged and referred were considered feasible. The lack of detail, for example, the expected duration of symptoms, caused some concern. Overall, doubts were expressed about the feasibility of the guidelines given the time, recruitment, and resource challenges faced in UK primary care.

conclusionGPs expressed general support for safety netting, yet were unconvinced that key elements of the guidelines were feasible, especially in the context of pressures on general practice staffing and time.

Indexed as

General PractitionersPractice Guidelines as TopicPrimary Health CareQuality ImprovementWatchful WaitingFeasibility StudiesHumansNeoplasmsPatient SafetyQualitative ResearchUnited Kingdomdiagnosisgeneral practiceneoplasmspatient safetyqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID31685542
PMCPMC6833915
OpenAlexW2988620007

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.