The International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC) has, since its introduction in 1987, been quite successful. Now in its second revised version, it has been translated in 22 languages, accepted by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a member of the Family of International Classifications, and is being widely used both in routine daily practice and in research. In this contribution, it is explained that ICPC was designed as a theoretical classification, and that it has especially great potential when used (1) supported by the ICPC2/ICD10 Thesaurus, (2) in sufficiently large studies to allow all classes to be observed often enough to provide reliable data, and (3) in studies based on data on episodes of care, rather than encounter data only. Under these conditions, the likelihood ratios of symptoms given a diagnosis, and of co-morbidity become available, which define the clinical content of family practice.
ICPC, the RfE and the EoC data model are appropriate tools to study the process of diagnosis in FM. Distributions of diagnostic associations between RfEs and episode titles in the Transition Project international populations show remarkable similarities and congruencies in the process of diagnosis from both the RfE and the episode title perspectives. The congruence of diagnostic associations between populations supports the use of such data from one population to inform diagnostic decisions in another. Differences in the magnitude of such diagnostic associations are significant, and population-specific data are therefore desirable. We propose that both an international (common) and a local (health care system specific) content of FM exist and that the empirical distributions of diagnostic associations presented in this paper are a reflection of both these effects. We also observed that the frequency of exposure to such diagnostic challenges had a strong effect on the confidence intervals of diagnostic ORs reflecting these diagnostic associations. We propose that this constitutes evidence that expertise in FM is associated with frequency of exposure to diagnostic challenges.
Data that are collected with an episode-based model define incidence and prevalence rates much more precisely. Incidence and prevalence rates reflect the content of the doctor-patient encounter in FM but only from a superficial perspective. However, we found evidence of an international FM core content and a local FM content reflected by important similarities in such distributions. FM is a complex discipline, and the reduction of the content of a consultation into one or more medical diagnoses, ignoring the patient's RfE, is a coarse reduction, which lacks power to fully characterize a population's health care needs. In fact, RfE distributions seem to be more consistent between populations than distributions of EoCs are, in many respects.
This is a review of the literature on the role of symptoms in family practice, with a focus on the diagnostic approach in family medicine (FM). We found two, contrasting, approaches to reducing symptoms presented by patients in primary care, especially those which do not immediately allow the definition of a disease-label diagnosis. Years of research into 'medically unexplained symptoms' (MUS) has failed to support an international body of knowledge and cannot convincingly support the philosophy on which the reduction itself is based. This review supports the approach of researching reasons for encounter as they present to the family doctor, without artificial mind-body metaphors. The medical model is shown to be an incomplete reduction of FM, and the concept of MUS fails to improve this situation. A new model based on a substantial paradigm shift is needed. That model should be the biopsychosocial model, reflected in the philosophical concepts of the International Classification of Primary Care and the value of the patient's 'reason for encounter'. There is more to life than medicine may diagnose, and FM should strive to move closer to the lives of our patients than the medical model alone could allow.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.