BackgroundMissed opportunities for diagnosing cancer cause patients harm and have been attributed to suboptimal use of tests and referral pathways in primary care. Primary care physician (PCP) factors have been suggested to affect decisions to investigate cancer, but their influence is poorly understood.ObjectiveTo synthesise evidence evaluating the influence of PCP factors on decisions to investigate symptoms of possible cancer.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL and PsycINFO between January 1990 and March 2021 for relevant citations. Studies examining the effect or perceptions and experiences of PCP factors on use of tests and referrals for symptomatic patients with any cancer were included. PCP factors comprised personal characteristics and attributes of physicians in clinical practice.Data extraction and synthesisCritical appraisal and data extraction were undertaken independently by two authors. Due to study heterogeneity, data could not be statistically pooled. We, therefore, performed a narrative synthesis.Results29 studies were included. Most studies were conducted in European countries. A total of 11 PCP factors were identified comprising modifiable and non-modifiable factors. Clinical judgement of symptoms as suspicious or 'alarm' prompted more investigations than non-alarm symptoms. ‘Gut feeling’ predicted a subsequent cancer diagnosis and was perceived to facilitate decisions to investigate non-specific symptoms as PCP experience increased. Female PCPs investigated cancer more than male PCPs. The effect of PCP age and years of experience on testing and referral decisions was inconclusive.ConclusionsPCP interpretation of symptoms as higher risk facilitated testing and referral decisions for possible cancer. However, in the absence of 'alarm' symptoms or ‘gut feeling’, PCPs may not investigate cancer. PCPs require strategies for identifying patients with non-alarm and non-specific symptoms who need testing or referral.PROSPERO registration numberCRD420191560515.

Background: The CanRisk tool enables the collection of risk factor information and calculation of estimated future breast cancer risks based on the multifactorial Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) model. Despite BOADICEA being recommended in NICE guidelines and CanRisk being freely available for use, the CanRisk tool has not yet been implemented widely in primary care. Aim: The aim of this study was to explore the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the CanRisk tool in primary care. Design and setting: A multi-methods study, conducted with primary care practitioners (PCPs) in the UK. Methods: Three methods were employed. Participants completed two vignette-based case studies, a semi-structured interview and a questionnaire. Results: 16 PCPs completed the study. The main barriers to implementation were: the time needed to complete the tool, competing priorities, IT infrastructure, and PCPs’ lack of confidence and knowledge to use the tool. The main facilitators included: easy navigation of the tool, its potential clinical impact, and the increasing availability of and expectation to use risk prediction tools. Conclusion: This more developed understanding of the barriers and facilitators to the use of CanRisk in primary care highlights that future implementation activities should focus on reducing the time needed to complete a CanRisk calculation, integrating the CanRisk tool into existing IT infrastructure, and identifying appropriate contexts in which to conduct a CanRisk calculation. PCPs may also benefit from information about cancer risk assessment and CanRisk specific training.

AimsPsychiatric illness is associated with premature mortality, which is largely attributable to physical health conditions. Low fruit and vegetable intake is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, which contributes significantly to this disparity in physical health. This study used routinely collected data from electronic health records to assess fruit and vegetable intake among psychiatric inpatients across a UK mental health trust.MethodWe conducted an anonymised search of de-identified electronic patient records from the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust (CPFT) research database. We collected data on ICD-10 diagnosis and fruit and vegetable intake for patients aged 18 years or over, with a recorded ICD-10 psychiatric diagnosis, admitted to CPFT inpatient facilities between March 2013 and January 2019 inclusive (n = 1031). Information on fruit and vegetable intake is recorded as part of a General Health and Lifestyle questionnaire, routinely performed within a week of admission. Fruit and vegetable intake in different ICD-10 diagnostic categories was compared using a one-way ANOVA.ResultAmong patients for whom data on fruit and vegetable intake was recorded (n = 768), the prevalence of low fruit and vegetable intake (defined as <5 portions/day) was 75.9%, and mean fruit and vegetable intake was 2.85 portions/day (95% CI 2.72-2.98). Fruit and vegetable intake was lowest among patients with schizophrenia (mean = 2.3 portions/day), significantly worse than other diagnostic groups. In patients with schizophrenia, prevalence of low fruit and vegetable intake was 86.5%.ConclusionLow fruit and vegetable intake is common among CPFT psychiatric inpatients, particularly those with schizophrenia. Interventions to improve dietary habits, such as increasing tailored for individuals with psychiatric illness may help to reduce the risk of physical illness.

AimsSpringbank Ward is a specialist unit for patients with a diagnosis of emotionally unstable personality disorder (EUPD). Psychiatric wards often use restrictive practices to try and minimise suicide risk. Using risk assessment checklists to decide whether to grant leave is one example. Research shows that it is not possible to predict suicide at an individual level, regardless of the assessment method used, so we questioned the utility of such an approach. A previous evaluation of our leave protocol showed that patients and staff would favour a less restrictive and more personalised approach. We introduced a new protocol that eliminated use of checklists, replacing them with an optional 1:1 conversation with staff before leaving the ward. Our aim was to gauge patient and staff satisfaction with the new protocol and investigate their views on the change.MethodsData were obtained through structured interviews with staff who assessed risk (nurses and psychiatrists) and patients. 9 patients and 8 members of staff were interviewed between 9–19 March 2021. Interviewees were presented with diagrams of both the new protocol and old risk assessment checklist and asked a series of questions, including: rating their satisfaction; any potential improvements; and whether they would prefer the previous or current protocol. Thematic analysis of interview answers was used to explore patient and staff perspectives. Two authors independently analysed the interview transcripts, before discussing any discrepancies to reach a unified set of themes, subthemes and codes.ResultsBoth patients and staff gave the new protocol an average satisfaction rating of 4.1/5. Thematic analysis generated five themes: “taking ownership”, “autonomy Vs restriction”, “staff-patient interaction”, “staff expertise” and “protocol efficiency”. Most interviewees agreed that the new protocol supported patients in taking responsibility for their safety, helping to prepare for life in the community. The protocol was considered minimally restrictive and more efficient than the previous system. The importance of communication and trust between patients and staff, as well as the use of staff intuition in holistically assessing risk, was emphasised. Potential disadvantages included the perceived riskiness of reducing restrictions and difficulty seeking support early in the admission.ConclusionIn general, the new protocol is rated highly by patients and staff and is considered to be minimally restrictive and more holistic, in line with the aims established by our previous evaluation. Our findings have implications regarding risk management for inpatients with EUPD.