Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35354664›Full record

ReviewBMJ quality & safety2022

Optimising GPs' communication of advice to facilitate patients' self-care and prompt follow-up when the diagnosis is uncertain: a realist review of 'safety-netting' in primary care.

Claire Friedemann Smith, Hannah Lunn, Geoff Wong, Brian D Nicholson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ quality & safety, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

41 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Safety-netting communication during telephone consultations: an observational study using recorded consultations.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Observational
  5. Review
  6. The Educational Value of the Missed Opportunity.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026
    Article
  7. Variations in the investigation of colorectal cancer-related symptoms in Australian primary care: a retrospective cohort study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  8. Prediagnostic primary care consultations and imaging in emergency-diagnosed versus referred patients with lung cancer: a population-based linked data study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  9. The Probability Space: How GPs Think Before Cancer has a Name.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Safety netting in primary care: managing the low incidence, high uncertainty of severe illness.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Safety-netting advice documentation in out-of-hours primary care: a retrospective cohort from 2013 to 2020.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  20. Perceptions of primary care services among Afro-Peruvians in Lima, Peru.Primary health care research & development · 2025
    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

4 authors.

Claire Friedemann SmithNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK claire.friedemann@phc.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-9934-5882
Hannah LunnChipping Surgery, Wotton-under-Edge, UK.
Geoff WongNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5384-4157
Brian D NicholsonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0661-7362

Funding

Cancer Research UK 21500Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSafety-netting has become best practice when dealing with diagnostic uncertainty in primary care. Its use, however, is highly varied and a lack of evidence-based guidance on its communication could be harming its effectiveness and putting patient safety at risk.

objectiveTo use a realist review method to produce a programme theory of safety-netting, that is, advice and support provided to patients when diagnosis or prognosis is uncertain, in primary care.

methodsFive electronic databases, web searches, and grey literature were searched for studies assessing outcomes related to understanding and communicating safety-netting advice or risk communication, or the ability of patients to self-care and re-consult when appropriate. Characteristics of included documents were extracted into an Excel spreadsheet, and full texts uploaded into NVivo and coded. A random 10% sample was independently double -extracted and coded. Coded data wasere synthesised and itstheir ability to contribute an explanation for the contexts, mechanisms, or outcomes of effective safety-netting communication considered. Draft context, mechanism and outcome configurations (CMOCs) were written by the authors and reviewed by an expert panel of primary care professionals and patient representatives.

results95 documents contributed to our CMOCs and programme theory. Effective safety-netting advice should be tailored to the patient and provide practical information for self-care and reconsultation. The importance of ensuring understanding and agreement with advice was highlighted, as was consideration of factors such as previous experiences with healthcare, the patient's personal circumstances and the consultation setting. Safety-netting advice should be documented in sufficient detail to facilitate continuity of care.

conclusionsWe present 15 recommendations to enhance communication of safety-netting advice and map these onto established consultation models. Effective safety-netting communication relies on understanding the information needs of the patient, barriers to acceptance and explanation of the reasons why the advice is being given. Reduced continuity of care, increasing multimorbidity and remote consultations represent threats to safety-netting communication.

Indexed as

CommunicationSelf CareFollow-Up StudiesHumansPrimary Health CareUncertaintycommunicationdecision makingpatient safetyprimary carerisk management

Identifiers

PMID35354664
PMCPMC9234415

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.