BJGP Open (Dec 2023)

Exploring why European primary care physicians sometimes do not think of, or act on, a possible cancer diagnosis. A qualitative study

  • Senada Hajdarevic,
  • Cecilia Högberg,
  • Mercè Marzo-Castillejo,
  • Vija Siliņa,
  • Jolanta Sawicka-Powierza,
  • Magadalena Esteva,
  • Tuomas Koskela,
  • Davorina Petek,
  • Sara Contreras-Martos,
  • Marcello Mangione,
  • Zlata Ožvačić Adžić,
  • Radost Asenova,
  • Svjetlana Gašparović Babić,
  • Mette Brekke,
  • Krzysztof Buczkowski,
  • Nicola Buono,
  • Saliha Serap Çifçili,
  • Geert-Jan Dinant,
  • Babette Doorn,
  • Robert D Hoffman,
  • George Kuodza,
  • Peter Murchie,
  • Liina Pilv,
  • Aida Puia,
  • Aurimas Rapalavicius,
  • Emmanouil Smyrnakis,
  • Birgitta Weltermann,
  • Michael Harris

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2023.0029
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 7, no. 4

Abstract

Read online

Background: While primary care physicians (PCPs) play a key role in cancer detection, they can find cancer diagnosis challenging, and some patients have considerable delays between presentation and onward referral. Aim: To explore European PCPs’ experiences and views on cases where they considered that they had been slow to think of, or act on, a possible cancer diagnosis. Design & setting: A multicentre European qualitative study, based on an online survey with open-ended questions, asking PCPs for their narratives about cases when they had missed a diagnosis of cancer. Method: Using maximum variation sampling, PCPs in 23 European countries were asked to describe what happened in a case where they were slow to think of a cancer diagnosis, and for their views on why it happened. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Results: A total of 158 PCPs completed the questionnaire. The main themes were as follows: patients’ descriptions did not suggest cancer; distracting factors reduced PCPs’ cancer suspicions; patients’ hesitancy delayed the diagnosis; system factors not facilitating timely diagnosis; PCPs felt that they had acted wrongly; and problems with communicating adequately. Conclusion: The study identified six overarching themes that need to be addressed. Doing so should reduce morbidity and mortality in the small proportion of patients who have a significant, avoidable delay in their cancer diagnosis. The ‘Swiss cheese’ model of accident causation showed how the themes related to each other.

Keywords