Communicating safety-netting information in primary care physiotherapy consultations for people with low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Safety-netting involves communicating information to patients about diagnostic uncertainty, the likely time-course of their condition and how to appropriately seek help from a healthcare professional if their condition persists or worsens. Little is known about how physiotherapists communicate safety-netting information to people with low back pain (LBP). OBJECTIVES: This research aimed to use a Safety-Netting Coding Tool (SaNCoT) to explore how physiotherapists communicate safety-netting information to people with LBP. METHODS: The SaNCoT was used to conduct a secondary analysis of audio-recordings and transcripts from 79 primary care physiotherapy consultations (41 initial and 38 follow-up) involving 12 physiotherapists and 41 patients with LBP in Southern England. Quantitative data from the SaNCoT were analysed descriptively. FINDINGS: The study found evidence of diagnostic uncertainty in 53 (67%) appointments and no examples of physiotherapists providing patients with specific information about their condition time-course. Eight patients were given safety-netting advice, but most (57.9%, n = 11) episodes of safety-netting advice did not include specific signs and symptoms for patients to monitor. Potential missed opportunities for safety-netting advice were identified in 19 appointments (24.1%) which tended to relate to the patient's associated leg symptoms but also included possible serious pathology. CONCLUSION: The SaNCoT was successfully used to measure safety-netting communication within physiotherapy consultations and found missed opportunities for providing clear safety-netting advice. Physiotherapists can use the findings to reflect on how they can provide clear safety-netting information to patients with LBP to effectively support patients to self-manage and help them seek appropriate care if their condition deteriorates.

How is diagnostic uncertainty communicated and managed in real world primary care settings?

BACKGROUND: Managing diagnostic uncertainty is a major challenge in primary care due to factors such as the absence of definitive tests, variable symptom presentations and disease evolution. Maintaining patient trust during a period of investigative uncertainty, whilst minimising scope for diagnostic error is a challenge. Mismanagement can lead to diagnostic errors, treatment delays, and suboptimal patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to explore how UK primary care physicians (GPs) address and communicate diagnostic uncertainty in practice. DESIGN: This qualitative study used video and audio-recordings. Verbatim transcripts were coded with a modified, validated tool to capture GPs' actions and communication in primary care consultations that included diagnostic uncertainty. The tool includes items relating to advice regarding new symptoms or symptom deterioration (sometimes called 'safety netting'). Video data was analysed to identify GP and patient body postures during and after the delivery of the management plan. PARTICIPANTS: All patient participants had a consultation with a GP, were over the age of 50 and had (1) at least one new presenting problem or (2) one persistent problem that was undiagnosed. APPROACH: Data collection occurred in GP-patient consultations during 2017-2018 across 7 practices in UK during 2017-2018. KEY RESULTS: GPs used various management strategies to address diagnostic uncertainty, including (1) symptom monitoring without treatment, (2) prescribed treatment with symptom monitoring, and (3) addressing risks that could arise from administrative tasks. GPs did not make management plans for potential treatment side effects. Specificity of uncertainty management plans varied among GPs, with only some offering detailed actions and timescales. The transfer of responsibility for the management plan to patients was usually delivered rather than negotiated, with most patients confirming acceptance before concluding the discussion. CONCLUSIONS: We offer guidance to healthcare professionals, improving awareness of using and communicating management plans for diagnostic uncertainty.

Safety-netting advice documentation out-of-hours: a retrospective cohort from 2013 to 2020.

BACKGROUND: Providing safety-netting advice (SNA) in out-of-hours primary care is a recognised standard of safe care but it is not known how frequently this occurs in practice. AIM: Assess the frequency and type of SNA documented in out-of-hours primary care and explore factors associated with its presence. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective cohort using the Birmingham Out-of-hours General Practice Research Database. METHOD: A stratified sample of 30 adult consultation records per month from July 2013 to February 2020 were assessed using a safety-netting coding tool. Associations were tested using linear and logistic regression. RESULTS: The overall frequency of SNA per consultation was 78.0%, increasing from 75.7% (2014) to 81.5% (2019). The proportion of specific SNA and the average number of symptoms patients were told to look out for increased with time. The most common symptom to look out for was if the patients' condition worsened followed by if their symptoms persisted, but only one in five consultations included a time-frame to reconsult for persistent symptoms. SNA was more frequently documented in face-to-face treatment-centre encounters compared to telephone-consultations (Odds Ratio [OR]=1.77, p=0.02), for possible infections (OR=1.53, p=0.006), and less frequently for mental (vs. physical) health consultations (OR=0.33, p=0.002) and where follow-up was planned (OR=0.34, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The frequency of SNA documented in OOH was higher than previously reported during in-hours care. Over time, the frequency of SNA and proportion that contained specific advice increased, however this study highlights potential consultations where SNA could be improved, such as mental health and telephone consultations.

How and why do doctors communicate diagnostic uncertainty: An experimental vignette study.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic uncertainty is common, but its communication to patients is under-explored. This study aimed to (1) characterise variation in doctors' communication of diagnostic uncertainty and (2) explore why variation occurred. METHODS: Four written vignettes of clinical scenarios involving diagnostic uncertainty were developed. Doctors were recruited from five hospitals until theoretical saturation was reached (n = 36). Participants read vignettes in a randomised order, and were asked to discuss the diagnosis/plan with an online interviewer, as they would with a 'typical patient'. Semi-structured interviews explored reasons for communication choices. Interview transcripts were coded; quantitative and qualitative (thematic) analyses were undertaken. RESULTS: There was marked variation in doctors' communication: in their discussion about differential diagnoses, their reference to the level of uncertainty in diagnoses/investigations and their acknowledgement of diagnostic uncertainty when safety-netting. Implicit expressions of uncertainty were more common than explicit. Participants expressed both different communication goals (including reducing patient anxiety, building trust, empowering patients and protecting against diagnostic errors) and different perspectives on how to achieve these goals. Training in diagnostic uncertainty communication is rare, but many felt it would be useful. CONCLUSIONS: Significant variation in diagnostic uncertainty communication exists, even in a controlled setting. Differing communication goals-often grounded in conflicting ethical principles, for example, respect for autonomy versus nonmaleficence-and differing ideas on how to prioritise and achieve them may underlie this. The variation in communication behaviours observed has important implications for patient safety and health inequalities. Patient-focused research is required to guide practice. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: In the design stage of the study, two patient and public involvement groups (consisting of members of the public of a range of ages and backgrounds) were consulted to gain an understanding of patient perspectives on the concept of communicating diagnostic uncertainty. Their feedback informed the formulations of the research questions and the choice of vignettes used.

Helping parents know when to seek help for an acutely ill child: Evidence based co-development of a mobile phone app using complex intervention methodology.

BACKGROUND: Acute illness accounts for the majority of episodes of illness in children under five years of age and is the age group with the highest consultation rate in general practice in the UK. The number of children presenting to emergency care is also steadily increasing, having risen beyond pre-pandemic numbers. Such high, and increasing, rates of consultation have prompted concerns about parents' level of knowledge and confidence in caring for their children when they are ill, and particularly when and how to seek help appropriately. AIM: The ASK SNIFF collaboration research programme identified parents' need for accurate and accessible information to help them know when to seek help for a sick child in 2010. This paper presents the resulting programme of research which aimed to co-develop an evidence-based safety netting intervention (mobile app) to help parents know when to seek help for an acutely ill child under the age of five years in the UK. METHODS: Our programme used a collaborative six step process with 147 parent and 324 health professional participants over a period of six years including: scoping existing interventions, systematic review, qualitative research, video capture, content identification and development, consensus methodology, parent and expert clinical review. RESULTS: Our programme has produced evidence-based content for an app supported by video clips. Our collaborative approach has supported every stage of our work, ensuring that the end result reflects the experiences, perspectives and expressed needs of parents and the clinicians they consult. CONCLUSION: We have not found any other resource which has used this type of approach, which may explain why there is no published evaluation data demonstrating the impact of existing UK resources. Future mobile apps should be designed and developed with the service users for whom they are intended.

'Provision of safety netting information during child health consultations; a systematic narrative review of caregivers' perspectives'.

Safety netting (SN) provides specific information to caregivers identifying need to re-consult. SN is often used to bridge diagnostic uncertainty for first-contact healthcare professionals. This systematic narrative review investigated experiences of caregivers' regarding SN information received during acute child health consultations. Searches between April and December 2021 of six bibliographic databases (CINAHL, PsycINFO, BNI, EMCARE, MEDLINE and Web of Science) identified 3258 records. No studies were excluded based on quality and nine papers were included; the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to critically analyse papers and findings were summarised narratively. Four themes emerged: Importance of receiving Red-Flag-Symptom information, influences of specific mediums for information transfer to caregivers, key principles of SN as desired by caregivers and contextual influences of information transfer to caregivers. Quality of evidence was fair; review findings could provide underpinning principles to enable first-contact clinicians to enhance their person-centred approach to SN practice. There was a paucity of evidence generally, with a relatively small number of studies that captured specific SN activity during consultations. More research is also needed to capture the full-breadth of first-contact clinicians, particularly in non-clinical settings such as the home or school.

Evaluation of 13,466 Fecal Immunochemical Tests in Patients Attending Primary Care for High- and Low-Risk Gastrointestinal Symptoms of Colorectal Cancer.

AIM/OBJECTIVE: Quantitative fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) were recommended by NICE for patients in primary care presenting with low-risk symptoms of colorectal cancer (CRC). FIT is more accurate in the detection of CRC than symptom criteria. Despite this, CRC still occurs with a negative FIT and the importance of safety netting for patients with severe or persistent symptoms is paramount. We aimed to evaluate the utilization and accuracy of FIT for CRC in low and high-risk symptom groups presenting to primary care, the effectiveness of safety netting in primary care, referral practices with FIT utilization for symptomatic patients and the clinical features of FIT negative patients with CRC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical records and databases of all patients undertaking a FIT sample in the Herts Valleys CCG between June 2019 and November 2021 were reviewed. 13,466 consecutive FIT samples were requested for 12,231 patients between June 2019 and November 2021. RESULTS: Analysis of diagnostic accuracy was undertaken for the first 5341 patients with a minimum of 12 months follow up. Sensitivity for CRC, in FIT ≥ 4 µg Hb/g, ≥ 10 µg Hb/g and ≥ 100 µg Hb/g was 93% (95% CI 85-98%), 91% (95% CI 82-96%) and 72% (95% CI 60-81%) with a number needed to investigate of 36, 19 and 6, respectively. CONCLUSION: A FIT ≥ 10 µg Hb/g in conjunction with ongoing GP clinical concern within 8 weeks had a sensitivity for CRC of 97% (95% CI 90-100%), a PPV of 3.6% (95% CI 3.4-3.7%) and a number needed to investigate to detect one CRC of 28.

What to Look Out for, What to Do, and When: 3 Key Messages for Safely Treating Neck Pain, Headache, and/or Orofacial Symptoms in Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Settings.

SYNOPSIS: Neck pain, headache, and/or orofacial symptoms are potentially the first (nonischemic) symptoms of an underlying vascular pathology or blood flow limitation. If an underlying vascular pathology or blood flow limitation is not recognized by the musculoskeletal rehabilitation clinician, it can subsequently be aggravated by treatment, raising the risk of serious adverse events. We argue that clinicians can make an important, and potentially lifesaving, difference by providing specific information and advice. This is especially the case in patients with an intermediate level of concern, for example, in patients who only show a few concerning features regarding a possible underlying serious condition and for whom an initial vasculogenic hypothesis was rejected during the clinical reasoning process. We present background information to help the reader understand the context of the problem and suggestions for how clinicians can provide appropriate information and advice to patients who present with neck pain, headache, and/or orofacial symptoms. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(2):59-63. Epub: 28 October 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.11568.

SAFETY NETTING CONCEPT IN PRIMARY CARE CONSULTATION.

Introduction: Patient safety in primary care setting is important and effort geared towards this cannot be over-emphasised. Patient safety can be achieved through various means, but one mechanism to improve patient safety in resourceconstrained settings is through a practice known as safety netting. Safety netting is widely recommended in national guidelines with varying definitions and scope; hence there is no consensus on when safety netting should be used and what should be the content. Methodology: A narrative overview of the evidence on safety netting concept in primary care consultation was conducted. Scholastic articles and Papers by International organizations were searched using terms like 'safety netting', 'primary care consultation', 'family physician', 'consultation technique', and 'patient safety' in primary care. Most resources found were in the developed countries (the West) and none was found in Africa or the Middle East.Safety netting is a technique in consultation to communicate uncertainty, provide patient information on red-flag symptoms, and plan for future appointments to ensure timely re-assessment of a patient's condition. The content of safetynetting advice may encompass the chronology of the illness, advice on worrying symptoms to look out for, and specific information on how, when and where to seek help. Safety netting was considered to be particularly important when consulting with the acutely unwell, patients with multi-morbidity, children and those with mental health problems. Conclusion: Safety netting is more than solely the communication of uncertainty within a consultation. It should include plans for follow-up as well as important administrative aspects, such as the communication of test results. Effective safety netting should be geared towards the patient and provide enough practical clue for self-care and re-consultation.

How does safety netting for lung cancer symptoms help patients to reconsult appropriately? A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Safety netting in primary care is considered an important intervention for managing diagnostic uncertainty. This is the first study to examine how patients understand and interpret safety netting advice around low-risk potential lung cancer symptoms, and how this affects reconsultation behaviours. METHODS: Qualitative interview study in UK primary care. Pre-covid-19, five patients were interviewed in person within 2-3 weeks of a primary care consultation for potential lung cancer symptom(s), and again 2-5 months later. The general practitioner (GP) they last saw was interviewed face-to-face once. During the covid-19 pandemic, an additional 15 patients were interviewed only once via telephone, and their GPs were not interviewed or contacted in any way. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: The findings from our thematic analysis suggest that patients prefer active safety netting, as part of thorough and logical diagnostic uncertainty management. Passive or ambiguous safety netting may be perceived as dismissive and cause delayed reconsultation. GP safety netting strategies are not always understood, potentially causing patient worry and dissatisfaction. Telephone consultations and the diagnostic overshadowing of COVID-19 on respiratory symptoms impacted GPs' safety netting strategies and patients' appetite for active follow up measures. CONCLUSIONS: Safety netting guidelines do not yet offer solutions that have been proven to promote symptom vigilance and timely reconsultation for low-risk lung cancer symptoms. This may have been affected by primary care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients prefer active or pre-planned safety netting coupled with thorough consultation techniques and a comprehensible diagnostic strategy, and may respond adversely to passive safety netting advice.

Course of uncomplicated acute gastroenteritis in children presenting to out-of-hours primary care.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this article is to describe the courses of vomiting, diarrhea, fever, and clinical deterioration, in children with uncomplicated gastroenteritis at presentation. This study was performed as a 7-day prospective follow-up study in an out-of-hours primary care service. The course of vomiting, diarrhea, and fever was analyzed by generalized linear mixed modeling. Because young children (≤ 12 months) and children with severe vomiting are at increased risk of dehydration, the potentially more complicated courses of these groups are described separately. The day(s) most frequently associated with deterioration and the symptoms present in children who deteriorated during follow-up were also described. RESULTS: In total, 359 children presented with uncomplicated acute gastroenteritis to the out-of-hours primary care service. Of these, 31 (8.6%) developed a complicated illness and needed referral or hospitalization. All symptoms decreased within 5 days in most children (> 90%). Vomiting and fever decreased rapidly, but diarrhea decreased at a somewhat slower pace, especially among children aged 6-12 months. Children who deteriorated during follow-up had a higher frequency of vomiting at presentation and higher frequencies of vomiting and fever during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of vomiting, not its duration, appears to be the more important predictor of deterioration. When advising parents, it is important to explain the typical symptom duration and to focus on alarm symptoms. Clinicians should be vigilant for children with higher vomiting frequencies at presentation and during follow-up because these children are more likely to deteriorate.

Safety netting advice for respiratory tract infections in out-of-hours primary care: A qualitative analysis of consultation videos.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) use safety netting advice to communicate with patients when and how to seek further help when their condition fails to improve or deteriorate. Although many respiratory tract infections (RTI) during out-of-hours (OOH) care are self-limiting, often antibiotics are prescribed. Providing safety netting advice could enable GPs to safely withhold an antibiotic prescription by dealing both with their uncertainty and the patients' concerns. OBJECTIVES: To explore how GPs use safety netting advice during consultations on RTIs in OOH primary care and how this advice is documented in the electronic health record. METHODS: We analysed video observations of 77 consultations on RTIs from 19 GPs during OOH care using qualitative framework analysis and reviewed the medical records. Videos were collected from August until November 2018 at the Antwerp city GP cooperative, Belgium. RESULTS: Safety netting advice on alarm symptoms, expected duration of illness and/or how and when to seek help is often lacking or vague. Communication of safety netting elements is scattered throughout the end phase of the consultation. The advice is seldom recorded in the medical health record. GPs give more safety netting advice when prescribing an antibiotic than when they do not prescribe an antibiotic. CONCLUSION: We provided a better understanding of how safety netting is currently carried out in OOH primary care for RTIs. Safety netting advice during OOH primary care is limited, unspecific and not documented in the medical record.

The Shared Safety Net Action Plan (SSNAP): a co-designed intervention to reduce delays in cancer diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Safety netting in primary care may help diagnose cancer earlier, but it is unclear what the format and content of an acceptable safety-netting intervention would be. This project aimed to co-design a safety-netting intervention with and for primary care patients and staff. AIM: This work sought to address how a safety-netting intervention would be implemented in practice; and, if and how a safety-netting intervention would be acceptable to all stakeholders. DESIGN AND SETTING: Patient representatives, GPs, and nurse practitioners were invited to a series of co-design workshops. Patients who had and had not received a diagnosis of cancer and primary care practices took part in separate focus groups. METHOD: Three workshops using creative co-design processes developed the format and content of the intervention prototype. The COM-B Framework underpinned five focus groups to establish views on capability, opportunity, and motivation to use the intervention to assist with prototype refinement. RESULTS: Workshops and focus groups suggested the intervention format and content should incorporate visual and written communication specifying clear timelines for monitoring symptoms and when to present back; be available in paper and electronic forms linked to existing computer systems; and be able to be delivered within a 10-minute consultation. Intervention use themes included 'building confidence through partnership', 'using familiar and current procedures and systems', and 'seeing value'. CONCLUSION: The Shared Safety Net Action Plan (SSNAP) - a safety-netting intervention to assist the timely diagnosis of cancer in primary care, was successfully co-designed with and for patients and primary care staff.

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

BACKGROUND: Previous 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. AIM: To compare spoken and documented safety-netting advice and to explore factors associated with documentation. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional study, using an existing GP consultations archive. METHOD: Observational 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. RESULTS: Two-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. CONCLUSION: GPs 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.

Protocol for a feasibility study incorporating a randomised pilot trial with an embedded process evaluation and feasibility economic analysis of ThinkCancer!: a primary care intervention to expedite cancer diagnosis in Wales.

BACKGROUND: Compared to the rest of Europe, the UK has relatively poor cancer outcomes, with late diagnosis and a slow referral process being major contributors. General practitioners (GPs) are often faced with patients presenting with a multitude of non-specific symptoms that could be cancer. Safety netting can be used to manage diagnostic uncertainty by ensuring patients with vague symptoms are appropriately monitored, which is now even more crucial due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and its major impact on cancer referrals. The ThinkCancer! workshop is an educational behaviour change intervention aimed at the whole general practice team, designed to improve primary care approaches to ensure timely diagnosis of cancer. The workshop will consist of teaching and awareness sessions, the appointment of a Safety Netting Champion and the development of a bespoke Safety Netting Plan and has been adapted so it can be delivered remotely. This study aims to assess the feasibility of the ThinkCancer! intervention for a future definitive randomised controlled trial. METHODS: The ThinkCancer! study is a randomised, multisite feasibility trial, with an embedded process evaluation and feasibility economic analysis. Twenty-three to 30 general practices will be recruited across Wales, randomised in a ratio of 2:1 of intervention versus control who will follow usual care. The workshop will be delivered by a GP educator and will be adapted iteratively throughout the trial period. Baseline practice characteristics will be collected via questionnaire. We will also collect primary care intervals (PCI), 2-week wait (2WW) referral rates, conversion rates and detection rates at baseline and 6 months post-randomisation. Participant feedback, researcher reflections and economic costings will be collected following each workshop. A process evaluation will assess implementation using an adapted Normalisation Measure Development (NoMAD) questionnaire and qualitative interviews. An economic feasibility analysis will inform a future economic evaluation. DISCUSSION: This study will allow us to test and further develop a novel evidenced-based complex intervention aimed at general practice teams to expedite the diagnosis of cancer in primary care. The results from this study will inform the future design of a full-scale definitive phase III trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04823559 .

The early diagnosis of cancer in primary care: A qualitative exploration of the patient's role and acceptable safety-netting strategies.

OBJECTIVES: The study had two aims-to assess the components considered important for patient involvement in diagnosing cancer earlier in primary care and to assess the acceptability, feasibility, cost and burden of three safety-netting interventions in terms of their potential to become a sustainable component of standard care and improve diagnostic outcomes for cancer in a primary care setting. METHOD: Fifteen interviews were conducted with patients and GPs/Nurse Practitioners. Findings were fed back at a workshop with 18 stakeholders who helped to conceptualise an intervention. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. Stakeholder discussions were captured through group feedback sessions. RESULTS: Three key themes around stakeholders' views on patient involvement emerged from the interviews. These were keeping the door open, roles and responsibilities and fear of cancer. Interview findings and workshop feedback identified the intervention should include a verbal discussion and plan, written information and a patient prompt option. CONCLUSION: Patient involvement in diagnosing cancer in primary care is considered acceptable to patients and HCPs. Factors that facilitate or hinder involvement have been identified. Components deemed important in a safety-netting intervention, and potential costs and benefits were established. This knowledge can direct future research and the development of safety-netting interventions.

Development of a tool for coding safety-netting behaviours in primary care: a mixed-methods study using existing UK consultation recordings.

BACKGROUND: Safety netting is recommended in a variety of clinical settings, yet there are no tools to record clinician safety-netting communication behaviours. AIM: To develop and assess the inter-rater reliability (IRR) of a coding tool designed to assess safety-netting communication behaviours in primary care consultations. DESIGN AND SETTING: A mixed-methods study using an existing dataset of video-and audio-recorded UK primary care consultations. METHOD: Key components that should be assessed in a coding tool were identified using the published literature and relevant guidelines. An iterative approach was utilised to continuously refine and generate new codes based on the application to real-life consultations. After the codebook had been generated, it was applied to 35 problems in 24 consultations independently by two coders. IRR scores were then calculated. RESULTS: The tool allows for the identification and quantification of the key elements of safety-netting advice including: who initiates the advice and at which stage of the consultation; the number of symptoms or conditions the patient is advised to look out for; what action patients should take and how urgently; as well as capturing how patients respond to such advice plus important contextual codes such as the communication of diagnostic uncertainty, the expected time course of an illness, and any follow-up plans. The final tool had substantial levels of IRR with the mean average agreement for the final tool being 88% (κ = 0.66). CONCLUSION: The authors have developed a novel tool that can reliably code the extent of clinician safety-netting communication behaviours.

Safety netting in routine primary care consultations: an observational study using video-recorded UK consultations.

BACKGROUND: Safety-netting advice is information shared with a patient or their carer designed to help them identify the need to seek further medical help if their condition fails to improve, changes, or if they have concerns about their health. AIM: To assess when and how safety-netting advice is delivered in routine GP consultations. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was an observational study using 318 recorded GP consultations with adult patients in the UK. METHOD: A safety-netting coding tool was applied to all consultations. Logistic regression for the presence or absence of safety-netting advice was compared between patient, clinician, and problem variables. RESULTS: A total of 390 episodes of safety-netting advice were observed in 205/318 (64.5%) consultations for 257/555 (46.3%) problems. Most advice was initiated by the GP (94.9%) and delivered in the treatment planning (52.1%) or closing (31.5%) consultation phases. Specific advice was delivered in almost half (47.2%) of episodes. Safety-netting advice was more likely to be present for problems that were acute (odds ratio [OR] 2.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.30 to 3.64), assessed first in the consultation (OR 2.94, 95% CI = 1.85 to 4.68) or assessed by GPs aged ≤49 years (OR 2.56, 95% CI = 1.45 to 4.51). Safety-netting advice was documented for only 109/242 (45.0%) problems. CONCLUSION: GPs appear to commonly give safety-netting advice, but the contingencies or actions required on the patient's part may not always be specific or documented. The likelihood of safety-netting advice being delivered may vary according to characteristics of the problem or the GP. How to assess safety-netting outcomes in terms of patient benefits and harms does warrant further exploration.

Safety netting for primary care: evidence from a literature review.

BACKGROUND: Ensuring patient safety is vital in primary care. One mechanism to increase patient safety is through a practice known as safety netting. Safety netting is widely recommended in national guidelines; however, a variety of definitions exist with no consensus on when safety netting should be used and what advice or actions it should contain. AIM: This study aimed to identify different definitions of safety netting to provide conceptual clarity and propose a common approach to safety netting in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Literature review and evidence synthesis of international articles relating to safety netting in primary care. METHOD: An electronic database and grey-literature search was conducted using terms around the theme of safety netting with broad inclusion criteria. RESULTS: A total of 47 studies were included in the review. Safety netting was defined as a consultation technique to communicate uncertainty, provide patient information on red-flag symptoms, and plan for future appointments to ensure timely re-assessment of a patient's condition. Safety-netting advice may include information on the natural history of the illness, advice on worrying symptoms to look out for, and specific information on how and when to seek help. In addition to advice within the consultation, safety netting includes follow-up of investigations and hospital referrals. Safety netting was considered to be particularly important when consulting with children, the acutely unwell, patients with multimorbidity, and those with mental health problems. CONCLUSION: Safety netting is more than solely the communication of uncertainty within a consultation. It should include plans for follow-up as well as important administrative aspects, such as the communication of test results and management of hospital letters.

Assessment and management of cauda equina syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: Cauda equina syndrome (CES) is a rare condition that affects the nerves in the spine supplying the bladder, bowel and sexual function. Identification and subsequent urgent action is required to avoid permanent damage to these essential organs. Delays in diagnosis can have devastating and life changing consequences for patients and result in high cost negligence claims. PURPOSE: The purpose of this masterclass is to examine the current evidence and provide an evidence-based, clinically reasoned approach in the safe management of patients presenting with CES. It will include a focus on the importance of communication, documentation and a practical approach to safety netting those at risk. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: CES has significant implications for patients and clinicians alike. Timely, effective diagnosis and management of patients with CES results in a better outcome.