Factors affecting the documentation of spoken safety-netting advice in routine GP consultations: a cross-sectional study

Author:

Edwards Peter JORCID,Bennett-Britton IanORCID,Ridd Matthew JORCID,Booker MatthewORCID,Barnes Rebecca KORCID

Abstract

BackgroundPrevious studies have reported how often safety-netting is documented in medical records, but it is not known how this compares with what is verbalised and what factors might influence the consistency of documentation.AimTo compare spoken and documented safety-netting advice and to explore factors associated with documentation.Design and settingA cross-sectional study, using an existing GP consultations archive.MethodObservational coding involving classifying and quantifying medical record entries and comparison with spoken safety-netting advice in 295 video-/audio-recorded consultations. Associations were tested using logistic regression.ResultsTwo-thirds of consultations (192/295) contained spoken safety-netting advice that applied to less than half of the problems assessed (242/516). Only one-third of consultations (94/295) had documented safety-netting advice, which covered 20.3% of problems (105/516). The practice of GPs varied widely, from those that did not document their safety-netting advice to those that nearly always did so (86.7%). GPs were more likely to document their safety-netting advice for new problems (P = 0.030), when only a single problem was discussed in a consultation (P = 0.040), and when they gave specific rather than generic safety-netting advice (P = 0.007). In consultations where multiple problems were assessed (n = 139), the frequency of spoken and documented safety-netting advice decreased the later a problem was assessed.ConclusionGPs frequently do not document the safety-netting advice they have given to patients, which may have medicolegal implications in the event of an untoward incident. GPs should consider how safely they can assess and document more than one problem in a single consultation and this risk should be shared with patients to help manage expectations.

Publisher

Royal College of General Practitioners

Subject

Family Practice

Reference38 articles.

1. Jones D Dunn L Watt I Macleod U (2019) Safety netting for primary care: evidence from a literature review. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp18X700193.

2. Can safety-netting improve cancer detection in patients with vague symptoms?

3. Edwards PJ Ridd MJ Sanderson E Barnes RK (2019) Development of a tool for coding safety-netting behaviours in primary care: a mixed-methods study using existing UK consultation recordings. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp19X706589.

4. Neighbour R (1987) The inner consultation (MTP Press, Lancaster).

5. Royal College of General Practitioners (2011) Urgent and emergency care clinical audit toolkit (Royal College of General Practitioners, London) https://www.rcgp.org.uk/-/media/Files/CIRC/Urgent-and-emergency-audit/RCGP-Urgentand-Emergency-Care-Toolkit.ashx?la=en (accessed 24 May 2021).

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3