Cargando…

What influences GPs’ use of pelvic examination? A qualitative investigation in primary care

BACKGROUND: Omission of pelvic examination (PE) has been associated with diagnostic delay in women diagnosed with gynaecological cancer. However, PEs are often not carried out by GPs. AIM: To determine the perceptions of GPs about the role of PEs, the barriers to and facilitators of PEs, and GPs’ ex...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Williams, Pauline, Murchie, Peter, Cruickshank, Maggie E, Bond, Christine M, Burton, Christopher D
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Royal College of General Practitioners 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10131233/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37068965
http://dx.doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2022.0363
_version_ 1785031133612736512
author Williams, Pauline
Murchie, Peter
Cruickshank, Maggie E
Bond, Christine M
Burton, Christopher D
author_facet Williams, Pauline
Murchie, Peter
Cruickshank, Maggie E
Bond, Christine M
Burton, Christopher D
author_sort Williams, Pauline
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Omission of pelvic examination (PE) has been associated with diagnostic delay in women diagnosed with gynaecological cancer. However, PEs are often not carried out by GPs. AIM: To determine the perceptions of GPs about the role of PEs, the barriers to and facilitators of PEs, and GPs’ experience of PEs in practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative semi-structured interview study conducted in one health board in Scotland (mixed urban and rural) with an approximate population of 500 000. METHOD: Interviews were conducted face-to-face or by telephone between March and June 2019. Framework analysis used the COM-B behaviour change model concepts of capability, opportunity, and motivation. RESULTS: Data was compatible with all three domains of the COM-B framework. Capability related to training in and maintenance of skills. These went beyond carrying out the examination to interpreting it reliably. Opportunity related to the clinical environment and the provision of chaperones for intimate examination. Interviewees described a range of motivations towards or against PEs that were unrelated to either capability or opportunity. These all related to providing high-quality care, but this was defined in different ways: ‘doing what is best for the individual’, ‘doctors examine’, and ‘GPs as pragmatists’. CONCLUSION: GPs’ reasons for carrying out, or not carrying out, PEs in women with symptoms potentially indicating cancer are complex. The COM-B framework provides a way of understanding this complexity. Interventions to increase the use of PEs, and critics of its non-use, need to consider these multiple factors.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10131233
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Royal College of General Practitioners
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101312332023-04-27 What influences GPs’ use of pelvic examination? A qualitative investigation in primary care Williams, Pauline Murchie, Peter Cruickshank, Maggie E Bond, Christine M Burton, Christopher D Br J Gen Pract Research BACKGROUND: Omission of pelvic examination (PE) has been associated with diagnostic delay in women diagnosed with gynaecological cancer. However, PEs are often not carried out by GPs. AIM: To determine the perceptions of GPs about the role of PEs, the barriers to and facilitators of PEs, and GPs’ experience of PEs in practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative semi-structured interview study conducted in one health board in Scotland (mixed urban and rural) with an approximate population of 500 000. METHOD: Interviews were conducted face-to-face or by telephone between March and June 2019. Framework analysis used the COM-B behaviour change model concepts of capability, opportunity, and motivation. RESULTS: Data was compatible with all three domains of the COM-B framework. Capability related to training in and maintenance of skills. These went beyond carrying out the examination to interpreting it reliably. Opportunity related to the clinical environment and the provision of chaperones for intimate examination. Interviewees described a range of motivations towards or against PEs that were unrelated to either capability or opportunity. These all related to providing high-quality care, but this was defined in different ways: ‘doing what is best for the individual’, ‘doctors examine’, and ‘GPs as pragmatists’. CONCLUSION: GPs’ reasons for carrying out, or not carrying out, PEs in women with symptoms potentially indicating cancer are complex. The COM-B framework provides a way of understanding this complexity. Interventions to increase the use of PEs, and critics of its non-use, need to consider these multiple factors. Royal College of General Practitioners 2023-04-18 /pmc/articles/PMC10131233/ /pubmed/37068965 http://dx.doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2022.0363 Text en © The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is Open Access: CC BY 4.0 licence (http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ).
spellingShingle Research
Williams, Pauline
Murchie, Peter
Cruickshank, Maggie E
Bond, Christine M
Burton, Christopher D
What influences GPs’ use of pelvic examination? A qualitative investigation in primary care
title What influences GPs’ use of pelvic examination? A qualitative investigation in primary care
title_full What influences GPs’ use of pelvic examination? A qualitative investigation in primary care
title_fullStr What influences GPs’ use of pelvic examination? A qualitative investigation in primary care
title_full_unstemmed What influences GPs’ use of pelvic examination? A qualitative investigation in primary care
title_short What influences GPs’ use of pelvic examination? A qualitative investigation in primary care
title_sort what influences gps’ use of pelvic examination? a qualitative investigation in primary care
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10131233/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37068965
http://dx.doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2022.0363
work_keys_str_mv AT williamspauline whatinfluencesgpsuseofpelvicexaminationaqualitativeinvestigationinprimarycare
AT murchiepeter whatinfluencesgpsuseofpelvicexaminationaqualitativeinvestigationinprimarycare
AT cruickshankmaggiee whatinfluencesgpsuseofpelvicexaminationaqualitativeinvestigationinprimarycare
AT bondchristinem whatinfluencesgpsuseofpelvicexaminationaqualitativeinvestigationinprimarycare
AT burtonchristopherd whatinfluencesgpsuseofpelvicexaminationaqualitativeinvestigationinprimarycare