ABSTRACT
Dutch medical disciplinary boards consider physicians' gut feelings an element of the professional standards. Some indications can be found in the international literature suggesting intuitive feelings of unease of patients or their relatives can also contribute to adequate diagnostics. What is the view of disciplinary boards on this? A search in the disciplinary boards' database (2010-2017) found 55 rulings where the search term 'ongerust' (worried) was related to a patient, family member or partner and 51 rulings where the term 'bezorgd' (concerned) was related to a patient, family member or partner. The disciplinary boards expect that doctors are prepared to discuss worry and concern with their patients. Additionally, they consider patients' worry and concern to be a useful part of the doctors' diagnostics, which may possibly result in reviewing the diagnosis. This is consistent with the international literature.
Subject(s)
Clinical Decision-Making/methods , Intuition , Physicians/psychology , Emotions , Governing Board , Humans , Netherlands , Physician-Patient Relations , Physicians/organization & administrationABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Intuition is an important part of human decision-making and can be explained by the dual-process theory where analytical and non-analytical reasoning processes continually interact. These processes can also be identified in physicians' diagnostic reasoning. The valuable role of intuition, including gut feelings, has been shown among general practitioners and nurses, but less is known about its role among hospital specialists. This study focused on the diagnostic reasoning of hospital specialists, how they value, experience and use intuition. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-eight hospital specialists in the Netherlands and Belgium participated in six focus groups. The discussions were recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically coded. A circular and iterative analysis was applied until data saturation was achieved. RESULTS: Despite initial reservations regarding the term intuition, all participants agreed that intuition plays an important role in their diagnostic reasoning process. Many agreed that intuition could guide them, but were cautious not to be misguided. They were especially cautious since intuition does not have probative force, for example, in medicolegal situations. 'On-the-job experience' was regarded as a precondition to relying on intuition. Some participants viewed intuition as non-rational and invalid. All participants said that intuitive hunches must be followed by analytical reasoning. Cultural differences were not found. Both the doctor as a person and his/her specialty were seen as important determinants for using intuition. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital specialists use intuitive elements in their diagnostic reasoning, in line with general human decision-making models. Nevertheless, they appear to disagree more on its role and value than previous research has shown among general practitioners. A better understanding of how to take advantage of intuition, while avoiding pitfalls, and how to develop 'skilled' intuition may improve the quality of hospital specialists' diagnostic reasoning.
Subject(s)
Clinical Decision-Making , Intuition , Specialization , Attitude of Health Personnel , Belgium , Focus Groups , Humans , Netherlands , Problem SolvingABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The validated Gut Feelings Questionnaire (GFQ) is a 10-item questionnaire based on the definitions of the sense of alarm and the sense of reassurance. The purpose of the GFQ is to determine the presence or absence of gut feelings in the diagnostic reasoning of general practitioners (GPs).The aim was to test the GFQ on GPs, in real practice settings, to check whether any changes were needed to improve feasibility, and to calculate the prevalence of the GPs' sense of alarm and sense of reassurance in three different countries. SETTING: Primary care, six participating centres in Belgium, France and the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: We performed a think-aloud study with 24 experienced Dutch GPs, GP trainees and medical clerks who filled in the GFQ after diagnosing each of six case vignettes. We then performed a feasibility study in two phases, using a mixed-method approach, with 42 French and Dutch GPs in the first phase and then 10 Belgian, 10 Dutch and 10 French GPs in the second phase. All GPs filled in the GFQ after each of eight consultations with patients presenting new complaints and were subsequently interviewed about the use of the GFQ. OUTCOME MEASURES: GPs' experiences on using the GFQ in real practice, more specifically the average time needed for filling in the questionnaire.The prevalence of GPs' sense of alarm and sense of reassurance. RESULTS: The modified version of the GFQ, created without altering the sense of the validated items, was easy to use in daily practice. The prevalence of the GPs' sense of alarm occurred during 23%-31% of the included consultations. CONCLUSIONS: After a two-step study and several minor adaptations, the final version of the GFQ proved to be a feasible and practical tool to be used for prospective observational studies in daily practice.
