Cargando…
What is important to the GP in recognizing acute appendicitis in children: a delphi study
BACKGROUND: For diagnostic research on appendicitis in registration data, insight is needed in the way GPs generate medical records. We aimed to reach a consensus on the features that GPs consider important in the consultation and medical records when evaluating a child with suspected appendicitis....
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10591392/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37872491 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12875-023-02167-6 |
_version_ | 1785124213219131392 |
---|---|
author | Blok, Guus C.G.H. Berger, Marjolein Y. Ahmeti, Arjan B. Holtman, Gea A. |
author_facet | Blok, Guus C.G.H. Berger, Marjolein Y. Ahmeti, Arjan B. Holtman, Gea A. |
author_sort | Blok, Guus C.G.H. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: For diagnostic research on appendicitis in registration data, insight is needed in the way GPs generate medical records. We aimed to reach a consensus on the features that GPs consider important in the consultation and medical records when evaluating a child with suspected appendicitis. METHODS: We performed a three-round Delphi study among Dutch GPs selected by purposive sampling. An initial feature list was created based on a literature search and features in the relevant Dutch guideline. Finally, using a vignette describing a child who needed later reassessment, we asked participants to complete an online questionnaire about which consultation features should be addressed and recorded. RESULTS: A literature review and Dutch guideline yielded 95 consultation features. All three rounds were completed by 22 GPs, with the final consensus list containing 26 symptoms, 29 physical assessments and signs, 2 additional tests, and 8 further actions (including safety-netting, i.e., informing the patient about when to contact the GP again). Of these, participants reached consensus that 37 should be actively addressed and that 20 need to be recorded if findings are negative. CONCLUSIONS: GPs agreed that negative findings do not need to be recorded for most features and that records should include the prognostic and safety-netting advice given. The results have implications in three main domains: for research, that negative findings are likely to be missing; for medicolegal purposes, that documentation cannot be expected to be complete; and for clinical practice, that safety-netting advice should be given and documented. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-023-02167-6. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10591392 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-105913922023-10-24 What is important to the GP in recognizing acute appendicitis in children: a delphi study Blok, Guus C.G.H. Berger, Marjolein Y. Ahmeti, Arjan B. Holtman, Gea A. BMC Prim Care Research BACKGROUND: For diagnostic research on appendicitis in registration data, insight is needed in the way GPs generate medical records. We aimed to reach a consensus on the features that GPs consider important in the consultation and medical records when evaluating a child with suspected appendicitis. METHODS: We performed a three-round Delphi study among Dutch GPs selected by purposive sampling. An initial feature list was created based on a literature search and features in the relevant Dutch guideline. Finally, using a vignette describing a child who needed later reassessment, we asked participants to complete an online questionnaire about which consultation features should be addressed and recorded. RESULTS: A literature review and Dutch guideline yielded 95 consultation features. All three rounds were completed by 22 GPs, with the final consensus list containing 26 symptoms, 29 physical assessments and signs, 2 additional tests, and 8 further actions (including safety-netting, i.e., informing the patient about when to contact the GP again). Of these, participants reached consensus that 37 should be actively addressed and that 20 need to be recorded if findings are negative. CONCLUSIONS: GPs agreed that negative findings do not need to be recorded for most features and that records should include the prognostic and safety-netting advice given. The results have implications in three main domains: for research, that negative findings are likely to be missing; for medicolegal purposes, that documentation cannot be expected to be complete; and for clinical practice, that safety-netting advice should be given and documented. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-023-02167-6. BioMed Central 2023-10-23 /pmc/articles/PMC10591392/ /pubmed/37872491 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12875-023-02167-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Blok, Guus C.G.H. Berger, Marjolein Y. Ahmeti, Arjan B. Holtman, Gea A. What is important to the GP in recognizing acute appendicitis in children: a delphi study |
title | What is important to the GP in recognizing acute appendicitis in children: a delphi study |
title_full | What is important to the GP in recognizing acute appendicitis in children: a delphi study |
title_fullStr | What is important to the GP in recognizing acute appendicitis in children: a delphi study |
title_full_unstemmed | What is important to the GP in recognizing acute appendicitis in children: a delphi study |
title_short | What is important to the GP in recognizing acute appendicitis in children: a delphi study |
title_sort | what is important to the gp in recognizing acute appendicitis in children: a delphi study |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10591392/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37872491 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12875-023-02167-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT blokguuscgh whatisimportanttothegpinrecognizingacuteappendicitisinchildrenadelphistudy AT bergermarjoleiny whatisimportanttothegpinrecognizingacuteappendicitisinchildrenadelphistudy AT ahmetiarjanb whatisimportanttothegpinrecognizingacuteappendicitisinchildrenadelphistudy AT holtmangeaa whatisimportanttothegpinrecognizingacuteappendicitisinchildrenadelphistudy |