What makes general practitioners order blood tests for patients with unexplained complaints? A cross-sectional study

被引:18
作者
Koch, Helen [1 ]
van Bokhoven, Marloes A. [3 ]
ter Riet, Gerben [1 ,2 ]
Hessels, Kirsten M. [3 ]
van der Weijden, Trudy [3 ]
Dinant, Geert-Jan [3 ]
Bindels, Patrick J. E. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Amsterdam, Div Clin Methods & Publ Hlth, Dept Gen Practice, Acad Med Ctr, NL-1100 DD Amsterdam, Netherlands
[2] Univ Zurich, Horten Ctr, Zurich, Switzerland
[3] Univ Maastricht, Dept Gen Practice, Care & Publ Hlth Res Inst CAPHRI, Maastricht, Netherlands
关键词
Blood test ordering; unexplained complaints; determinants; cross-sectional study;
D O I
10.1080/13814780902855762
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Background: Approximately 13% of consultations in general practice involve patients with unexplained complaints (UCs). These consultations often end with general practitioners (GPs) ordering blood tests of questionable diagnostic informativeness. Objective: We studied factors potentially associated with GPs' decisions to order blood tests. Methods: Cross-sectional study. Twenty-seven GPs completed registration forms after each consultation concerning newly presented UCs. Results: Of the 100 analysable patients, 59 had at least one blood test ordered. The median number of ordered tests was 10 (interpercentile range [IPR-90] 2-15). Compared to abdominal complaints, the blood test ordering (BTO) probability for fatigue was five times higher (relative risk [RR] 5.2). Duration of complaints for over 4 weeks also increased this probability (RR 1.6). Factors associated with a lower BTO probability were: likelihood of background psychosocial factors (RR 0.4) and GPs having a syndrome rather than symptom type of working hypothesis (RR 0.5). Conclusion: We found a high rate of BTO among GPs confronted with patients with UCs. Furthermore, a considerable number of tests were ordered. The selectivity in BTO behaviour of GPs can be improved upon.
引用
收藏
页码:22 / 28
页数:7
相关论文
共 31 条
[31]   What's the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes [J].
Zhang, J ;
Yu, KF .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1998, 280 (19) :1690-1691