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 Silina
  • , Jolanta Sawicka-Powierza
  • , Magadalena Esteva
  • , Tuomas Koskela
  • , Davorina Petek
  • , Sara Contreras-Martos
  • , Marcello Mangione
  • , Zlata Ožvacic Adžic
  • , Radost Asenova
  • , Svjetlana Gašparovic Babic
  • , Mette Brekke
  • , Krzysztof Buczkowski
  • , Nicola Buono
  • , Serap Çifçili Saliha
  • , Geert-Jan Dinant
  • , Babette Doorn
  • , Robert D Hoffman
  • George Kuodza, Peter Murchie, Liina Pilv, Aida Puia, Aurimas Rapalavicius, Emmanouil Smyrnakis, Birgitta Weltermann, Michael Harris
*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Article numberBJGPO.2023.0029
Number of pages12
JournalBJGP Open
Volume7
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 28 Jun 2023

Keywords

  • Cancer
  • Diagnostic Errors
  • Europe
  • Primary Care Physicians
  • Primary Health Care
  • Qualitative research

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Exploring why European primary care physicians sometimes do not think of, or act on, a possible cancer diagnosis. A qualitative study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this