Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36604136›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

Agreement between patient's description of abdominal symptoms of possible upper gastrointestinal cancer and general practitioner consultation notes: a qualitative analysis of video-recorded UK primary care consultation data.

Victoria Hardy, Juliet Usher-Smith, Stephanie Archer, Rebecca Barnes, John Lancaster, Margaret Johnson, Matthew Thompson, Jon Emery, Hardeep Singh, Fiona M Walter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

10 authors.

Victoria HardyDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK veh29@medschl.cam.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-8620-4404
Juliet Usher-SmithDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8501-2531
Stephanie ArcherDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1349-7178
Rebecca BarnesNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
John LancasterDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Margaret JohnsonDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Matthew ThompsonDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0256-8444
Jon EmeryCentre for Cancer Research and General Practice and Primary Care Academic Centre, University of Melbourne Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5274-6336
Hardeep SinghHouston Veterans Affairs Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, Texas, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4419-8974
Fiona M WalterDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7191-6476

Funding

Cancer Research UK 20861Cancer Research UK C12292/A20861Cancer Research UK C8640/A23385
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAbdominal symptoms are common in primary care but infrequently might be due to an upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer. Patients' descriptions may differ from medical terminology used by general practitioners (GPs). This may affect how information about abdominal symptoms possibly due to an UGI cancer are documented, creating potential missed opportunities for timely investigation.

objectivesTo explore how abdominal symptoms are communicated during primary care consultations, and identify characteristics of patients' descriptions that underpin variation in the accuracy and completeness with which they are documented in medical records. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Primary care consultation video recordings, transcripts and medical records from an existing dataset were screened for adults reporting abdominal symptoms. We conducted a qualitative content analysis to capture alignments (medical record entries matching patient verbal and non-verbal descriptions) and misalignments (symptom information omitted or differing from patient descriptions). Categories were informed by the Calgary-Cambridge guide's 'gathering information' domains and patterns in descriptions explored.

resultsOur sample included 28 consultations (28 patients with 18 GPs): 10 categories of different clinical features of abdominal symptoms were discussed. The information GPs documented about these features commonly did not match what patients described, with misalignments more common than alignments (67 vs 43 instances, respectively). Misalignments often featured patients using vague descriptors, figurative speech, lengthy explanations and broad hand gestures. Alignments were characterised by patients using well-defined terms, succinct descriptions and precise gestures for symptoms with an exact location. Abdominal sensations reported as 'pain' were almost always documented compared with expressions of 'discomfort'.

conclusionsAbdominal symptoms that are well defined or communicated as 'pain' may be more salient to GPs than those expressed vaguely or as 'discomfort'. Variable documentation of abdominal symptoms in medical records may have implications for the development of clinical decision support systems and decisions to investigate possible UGI cancer.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal NeoplasmsGeneral PractitionersAdultHumansPainPrimary Health CareReferral and ConsultationUnited Kingdommedical education & trainingprimary carequalitative research

Identifiers

PMID36604136
PMCPMC9827246

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.