Factors shaping the implementation and use of Clinical Cancer Decision Tools by GPs in primary care: a qualitative framework synthesis

被引:9
作者
Bradley, Paula Theresa [1 ]
Hall, Nicola [2 ]
Maniatopoulos, Gregory [3 ]
Neal, Richard D. [4 ]
Paleri, Vinidh [5 ]
Wilkes, Scott [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Sunderland, Med Sch, Sunderland, England
[2] Univ Newcastle Tyne, Fac Med Sci, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne & Wear, England
[3] Northumbria Univ, Newcastle Business Sch, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne & Wear, England
[4] Univ Leeds, Inst Hlth Sci, Leeds, W Yorkshire, England
[5] Royal Marsden Hosp NHS Trust, Head & Neck Unit, London, England
来源
BMJ OPEN | 2021年 / 11卷 / 02期
关键词
primary care; oncology; qualitative research; SUPPORT TOOLS;
D O I
10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043338
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objective Clinical Cancer Decision Tools (CCDTs) aim to alert general practitioners (GPs) to signs and symptoms of cancer, supporting prompt investigation and onward referral. CCDTs are available in primary care in the UK but are not widely utilised. Qualitative research has highlighted the complexities and mechanisms surrounding their implementation and use; this has focused on specific cancer types, formats, systems or settings. This study aims to synthesise qualitative data of GPs' attitudes to and experience with a range of CCDTs to gain better understanding of the factors shaping their implementation and use. Design A systematic search of the published (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science and EMBASE) and grey literature (July 2020). Following screening, selection and assessment of suitability, the data were analysed and synthesised using normalisation process theory. Results Six studies (2011 to 2019), exploring the views of GPs were included for analysis. Studies focused on the use of several different types of CCDTs (Risk Assessment Tools (RAT) or electronic version of RAT (eRAT), QCancer and the 7-point checklist). GPs agreed CCDTs were useful to increase awareness of signs and symptoms of undiagnosed cancer. They had concerns about the impact on trust in their own clinical acumen, whether secondary care clinicians would consider referrals generated by CCDT as valid and whether integration of the CCDTs within existing systems was achievable. Conclusions CCDTs might be a helpful adjunct to clinical work in primary care, but without careful development to legitimise their use GPs are likely to give precedence to clinical acumen and gut instinct. Stakeholder consultation with secondary care clinicians and consideration of how the CCDTs fit into a GP consultation are crucial to successful uptake. The role and responsibilities of a GP as a clinician, gatekeeper, health promoter and resource manager affect the interaction with and implementation of innovations such as CCDTs.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 36 条
  • [1] What if cancer survival in Britain were the same as in Europe: how many deaths are avoidable?
    Abdel-Rahman, M.
    Stockton, D.
    Rachet, B.
    Hakulinen, T.
    Coleman, M. P.
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2009, 101 : S115 - S124
  • [2] Communicating risk
    Ahmed, Haroon
    Naik, Gurudutt
    Willoughby, Hannah
    Edwards, Adrian G. K.
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2012, 344
  • [3] Akanuwe J., 2018, EXPLORING SERVICE US
  • [4] [Anonymous], 2019, CASP qualitative checklist
  • [5] Clinical reminder alert fatigue in healthcare: a systematic literature review protocol using qualitative evidence
    Backman, Ruth
    Bayliss, Susan
    Moore, David
    Litchfield, Ian
    [J]. SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2017, 6
  • [6] Ban Jong-Wook, 2020, BJGP Open, V4, DOI 10.3399/bjgpopen20X101081
  • [8] Booth A., 2004, Evidence-based practice for information professionals: a handbook
  • [9] Innovations in framework synthesis as a systematic review method
    Brunton, Ginny
    Oliver, Sandy
    Thomas, James
    [J]. RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2020, 11 (03) : 316 - 330
  • [10] Implementing a QCancer risk tool into general practice consultations: an exploratory study using simulated consultations with Australian general practitioners
    Chiang, P. P-C
    Glance, D.
    Walker, J.
    Walter, F. M.
    Emery, J. D.
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2015, 112 : S77 - S83