What factors empower general practitioners for early cancer diagnosis? A 20-country European Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Some symptoms are recognised as red flags for cancer, causing the General Practitioner (GP) to refer the patient for investigation without delay. However, many early symptoms of cancer are vague and unspecific, and in these cases, a delay in referral risks a diagnosis of cancer that is too late. Empowering GPs in their management of patients that may have cancer is likely to lead to more timely cancer diagnoses. AIM: To identify the factors that affect European GPs' empowerment in making an early diagnosis of cancer. METHODS: This was a Delphi study involving GPs in 20 European countries. We presented GPs with 52 statements representing factors that could empower GPs to increase the number of early cancer diagnoses. Over three Delphi rounds, we asked GPs to indicate the clinical relevance of each statement on a Likert scale.The final list of statements indicated those that were considered by consensus to be the most relevant. RESULTS: In total, 53 GPs from 20 European countries completed the Delphi process, out of the 68 GPs who completed round one. Twelve statements satisfied the pre-defined criteria for relevance. Five of the statements related to screening and four to the primary/secondary care interface. The other selected statements concerned information technology (IT) and GPs' working conditions. Statements relating to training, skills and working efficiency were not considered priority areas. CONCLUSION: GPs consider that system factors relating to screening, the primary-secondary care interface, IT and their working conditions are key to enhancing their empowerment in patients that could have cancer. These findings provide the basis for seeking actions and policies that will support GPs in their efforts to achieve timely cancer diagnosis.

How preferred learning approaches change with time: a survey of GPs and GP Specialist Trainees.

Background The Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST) questionnaire assesses whether learners prefer a deep, strategic or surface approach to learning. This study aimed to establish the effect of time since qualification, gender and work role on ASSIST scores of General Practitioners (GPs) and GP Specialist Trainees (GPSTs). Methods An anonymous online questionnaire with demographic questions and the ASSIST survey was completed by 1005 GPs and GPSTs from across the United Kingdom. Results Of the 544 GPs and 461 GPSTs completing the survey, 96.5% preferred a deep and/or strategic approach to learning. There was a significant increase in the preference for a deep approach with time from graduation and significantly less preference for a surface approach. There was no significant change in any of the scores over the GPST years. Men had significantly higher scores for a deep approach than women. Conclusions GPs and GPSTs prefer deep and strategic approaches to a surface approach. While higher levels of GP experience are associated with a higher deep approach score and a lower surface approach score, this change is not seen during progression through GP training. Men have higher scores for a deep approach than women.

Written reflection in assessment and appraisal: GP and GP trainee views.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, evidence of written reflection is part of licensing and revalidation for general practitioners (GPs). However, there is little evidence of specific benefits compared to other forms of reflective practice. AIM: To seek GPs' and general practice (GP) trainees' views on the role of written reflection in learning and assessment. DESIGN AND SETTING: An online survey of 1005 GPs and GP trainees (GPTs) in the UK. METHOD: An anonymous questionnaire containing 38 attitudinal items was administered. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse Likert scale responses, thematic analysis for free-text responses. RESULTS: In total 544 GPs and 461 GPTs completed the survey, with 842 (83.8%) agreeing they find verbal reflection with a colleague more useful than written reflection. Three quarters disagreed that written reflection is a way of identifying poorly performing GPs. Over 70% of respondents stated that summative, written reflection is a time-consuming, box-ticking exercise which distracts from other learning. They question its validity as part of assessment and state that its use may contribute to current difficulties with recruitment and retention to GP. CONCLUSIONS: For many GPs, written reflection is an onerous process rather than beneficial to their learning, indicating its continued use in assessment needs to be critically examined.

What do General Practitioners think of written reflection? A focus group study.

BACKGROUND: Written reflection has become a key part of evidence for assessment for General Practitioners (GPs) and GP Specialist Trainees (GPSTs), as it is thought to enhance the reflective process and demonstrate on-going learning. However, the educational value of mandatory reflection has been questioned, and there is little evidence on the acceptability of written reflection to clinicians. AIM: To explore the views of GPs and GPSTs on the use of written reflection in the MRCGP and NHS appraisal. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative approach with GPs and GPSTs from the South of England. METHOD: Three focus group discussions with 11 GPs and 14 GPSTs. Thematic analysis was used on the coded texts. RESULTS: There were diverse views on the value of written reflection. Some participants with particular learning styles found it useful; some viewed it as a 'tick-box' exercise and as a game. Some questioned its value as a tool for quality improvement. Its use may have opportunity costs on clinical work, other learning and leisure time. CONCLUSION: Written reflection produced strong feelings among participants. Research is needed to gauge how commonly these feelings are held, to allow informed decisions on the place of written reflection in education and assessment.

Optimization of primer-specific filter metrics for the assessment of mitochondrial DNA sequence data.

Filter metrics are used as a quick assessment of sequence trace files in order to sort data into different categories (i.e. high quality, review, and low quality) without human intervention. The filter metrics consist of two numerical parameters for sequence quality assessment: trace score (TS) and contiguous read length (CRL). Primer-specific settings for the TS and CRL were established using a calibration dataset of 2817 traces and validated using a concordance dataset of 5617 traces. Prior to optimization, 57% of the traces required manual review before import into a sequence analysis program, whereas after optimization only 28% of the traces required manual review. After optimization of primer-specific filter metrics for mitochondrial DNA sequence data, an overall reduction of review of trace files translates into increased throughput of data analysis and decreased time required for manual review.