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.

There is a lot of congruence in diagnostic process and concepts between populations, across age groups, years of observation and FD practices, despite differences in the strength of such diagnostic associations. There is particularly little variability of diagnostic ORs across years of observation and between individual FD practices. Given our findings, it makes sense to aggregate diagnostic data from different FD practices and years of observation. Our findings support the existence of common core diagnostic concepts in international FM.

Purpose: Family physicians (FPs) have to recognize alarm symptoms and estimate the probability of cancer to manage these symptoms correctly. Mostly, patients start the consultation with a spontaneous statement on why they visit the doctor. This is also called the reason for encounter (RFE). It precedes the interaction and interpretation by FPs and patients. The aim of this study is to investigate the predictive value of alarm symptoms as the RFE for diagnosing cancer in primary care.Design and setting: Retrospective cohort study in a Dutch practice-based research network (Family Medicine Network).Method: We analyzed all patients >45 years of age listed in the practice-based research network, FaMe-net, in the period 1995 to 2014 (118.219 patient years). We focused on a selection of alarm symptoms as defined by the Dutch Cancer Society and Cancer Research UK. We calculated the positive predictive value (PPV) of alarm symptoms, spontaneously mentioned in the beginning of the consultation by the patient (RFE), for diagnosing cancer.Results: The highest PPVs were found for patients spontaneously mentioning a breast lump (PPV 14.8%), postmenopausal bleeding (PPV 3.9%), hemoptysis (PPV 2.7%), rectal bleeding (PPV 2.6%), hematuria (PPV 2.2%) and change in bowel movements (PPV 1.8%).Conclusion: Patients think about going to their physician and think about their first uttered statements during the consultation. In the case of cancer, the diagnostic workup during the consultation on alarm symptoms will add to the predictive value of these reasons for encounter. However, it is important to realize that the statement made by the patient entering the consultation room has a significant predictive value in itself. (J Am Board Fam Med 2017;30:806 -812.)