The burden of persistent symptom diagnoses in primary care patients: a cross-sectional study.

INTRODUCTION: The burden of symptoms is a subjective experience of distress. Little is known on the burden of feeling unwell in patients with persistent symptom diagnoses. The aim of this study was to assess the burden in primary care patients with persistent symptom diagnoses compared to other primary care patients. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed in which an online survey was sent to random samples of 889 patients with persistent symptom diagnoses (>1 year) and 443 other primary care patients after a transactional identification in a Dutch primary care data registry. Validated questionnaires were used to assess the severity of symptoms (PHQ-15), Symptom Intensity and Symptom Interference questionnaires, depression (PHQ-9), anxiety (GAD-7), quality of life (SF-12 and EQ-5D-5L)) and social functioning (SPF-ILs). RESULTS: Overall, 243 patients completed the survey: 178 (73.3%) patients in the persistent symptom diagnoses group and 65 (26.7%) patients in the control group. In the persistent group, 65 (36.5%) patients did not have persistent symptom(s) anymore according to the survey response. Patients who still had persistent symptom diagnoses (n = 113, 63.5%) reported significantly more severe somatic symptoms (mean difference = 3.6, [95% CI: 0.24, 4.41]), depression (mean difference = 3.0 [95% CI: 1.24, 3.61]) and anxiety (mean difference = 2.3 [95% CI: 0.28, 3.10]) and significantly lower physical functioning (mean difference = - 6.8 [95% CI: -8.96, -3.92]). CONCLUSION: Patients with persistent symptom diagnoses suffer from high levels of symptoms burden. The burden in patient with persistent symptoms should not be underestimated as awareness of this burden may enhance person-centered care.

Patients' Characteristics and General Practitioners' Management of Patients with Symptom Diagnoses.

INTRODUCTION: Symptom diagnoses are diagnoses used in primary care when the relevant diagnostic criteria of a disease are not fulfilled. Although symptom diagnoses often get resolved spontaneously without a clearly defined illness nor treatment, up to 38% of these symptoms persist more than 1 year. It is largely unknown how often symptom diagnoses occur, which symptoms persist, and how general practitioners (GPs) manage them. AIM: Explore morbidity rates, characteristics and management of patients with nonpersistent (≤1 year) and persistent (>1 year) symptom diagnoses. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed in a Dutch practice-based research network including 28,590 registered patients. We selected symptom diagnosis episodes with at least 1 contact in 2018. We performed descriptive statistics, Student's T and χ2 tests to summarize and compare patients' characteristics and GP management strategies in the nonpersistent and persistent groups. RESULTS: The incidence rate of symptom diagnoses was 767 episodes per 1000 patient-years. The prevalence rate was 485 patients per 1000 patient-years. Out of the patients who had a contact with their GPs, 58% had at least 1 symptom diagnosis, from which 16% were persistent (>1 year). In the persistent group, we found significantly more females (64% vs 57%), older patients (mean: 49 vs 36 years of age), patients with more comorbidities (71% vs 49%), psychological (17% vs 12%) and social (8% vs 5%) problems. Prescriptions (62% vs 23%) and referral (62.7% vs 30.6%) rates were significantly higher in persistent symptom episodes. CONCLUSION: Symptom diagnoses are highly prevalent (58%) of which a considerable part (16%) persists more than a year.

Development of a blended communication training program for managing medically unexplained symptoms in primary care using the intervention mapping approach.

BACKGROUND: General practice (GP) training in how to communicate with patients with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) is limited. OBJECTIVE: Development, implementation and evaluation of an evidence-based communication training program for GP residents focused on patients with MUS in primary care. METHODS: We used the intervention mapping (IM) framework to systematically develop the MUS training program. We conducted a needs assessment to formulate change objectives and identified teaching methods for a MUS communication training program. Next, we developed, implemented and evaluated the training program with 46 residents by assessing their self-efficacy and by exploring their experiences with the training. RESULTS: The resulting program is a blended training with an online course and two training days. After attending the training program, GP residents reported significantly higher self-efficacy for communication with patients with MUS at four weeks follow up compared to baseline. Furthermore, GP residents experienced the training program as useful and valued the combination of the online course and training days. CONCLUSION AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: We developed an evidence-based communication training program for the management of patients with MUS in primary care. Future research should examine the effect of the training on GP residents' communication skills in MUS consultations in daily practice.

How to learn skilled communication in primary care MUS consultations: a focus group study.

BACKGROUND: Many general practitioners (GPs) experience communication problems in medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) consultations as they are insufficiently equipped with adequate communication skills or do not apply these in MUS consultations. OBJECTIVE: To define the most important learnable communication elements during MUS consultations according to MUS patients, GPs, MUS experts and teachers and to explore how these elements should be taught to GPs and GP trainees. METHODS: Five focus groups were conducted with homogeneous groups of MUS patients, GPs, MUS experts and teachers. MUS patients and GPs formulated a list of important communication elements. MUS experts identified from this list the most important communication elements. Teachers explored how these elements could be trained to GPs and GP trainees. Two researchers independently analysed the data applying the principles of constant comparative analysis. RESULTS: MUS patients and GPs identified a list of important communication elements. From this list, MUS experts selected five important communication elements: (1) thorough somatic and psychosocial exploration, (2) communication with empathy, (3) creating a shared understanding of the problem, (4) providing a tangible explanation and (5) taking control. Teachers described three teaching methods for these communication elements: (1) awareness and reflection of GPs about their feelings towards MUS patients, (2) assessment of GPs' individual needs and (3) training and supervision in daily practice. CONCLUSION: Teachers consider a focus on personal attitudes and needs, which should be guided by opportunities to practice and receive supervision, as the best method to teach GPs about communication in MUS consultations.KEY POINTSMany GPs experience difficulties in communication with patients with MUS.There is a need to equip GPs with communication skills to manage MUS consultations more adequately.Role-playing with simulation patients, reflection on video-consultations and joint consultations with the supervisor may increase the GPs' awareness of their attitude towards MUS patients and may help GPs to identify their individual learning-points.

Medically unexplained symptoms: time to and triggers for diagnosis in primary care consultations.

BACKGROUND: It is currently not known when in the consultation GPs label symptoms as medically unexplained and what triggers this. AIM: To establish the moment in primary care consultations when a GP labels symptoms as medically unexplained and to explore what triggers them to do so. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a qualitative study. Data were collected in the Netherlands in 2015. METHOD: GPs' consultations were video-recorded. GPs stated whether the consultation was about medically unexplained symptoms (MUS). The GP was asked to reflect on the video-recorded consultation and to indicate the moment when they labelled symptoms as MUS. Qualitative interviewing and analysis were performed to explore the triggers GPs perceived that caused them to label the symptoms as MUS. RESULTS: A total of 43 of the 393 video-recorded consultations (11%) were labelled as MUS. The mean time until GPs labelled symptoms as medically unexplained was about 4 minutes for newly presented symptoms and 2 minutes for symptoms for which the patients had already visited the GP before. GPs were triggered to label symptoms as MUS in the consultation by: the way patients presented their symptoms; the symptoms not fitting into a specific pattern; patients attributing the symptoms to a psychosocial context; and a discrepancy between symptom presentation and objective findings. CONCLUSION: Most GPs labelled the presented symptoms as medically unexplained soon after the start of the consultation. GPs are triggered to label symptoms as medically unexplained by patients' symptom presentation, symptom patterns, and symptom attribution. This suggests that non-analytical reasoning was a central component in their thought process.

Explanations for medically unexplained symptoms: a qualitative study on GPs in daily practice consultations.

BACKGROUND: General practice is the centre of care for patients with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS). Providing explanations for MUS, i.e. making sense of symptoms, is considered to be an important part of care for MUS patients. However, little is known how general practitioners (GPs) do this in daily practice. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore how GPs explain MUS to their patients during daily general practice consultations. METHODS: A thematic content analysis was performed of how GPs explained MUS to their patients based on 39 general practice consultations involving patients with MUS. RESULTS: GP provided explanations in nearly all consultations with MUS patients. Seven categories of explanation components emerged from the data: defining symptoms, stating causality, mentioning contributing factors, describing mechanisms, excluding explanations, discussing the severity of symptoms and normalizing symptoms. No pattern of how GPs constructed explanations with the various categories was observed. In general, explanations were communicated as a possibility and in a patient-specific way; however, they were not very detailed. CONCLUSION: Although explanations for MUS are provided in most MUS consultations, there seems room for improving the explanations given in these consultations. Further studies on the effectiveness of explanations and on the interaction between patients and GP in constructing these explanations are required in order to make MUS explanations more suitable in daily primary care practice.

Which difficulties do GPs experience in consultations with patients with unexplained symptoms: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Many general practitioners (GPs) struggle with the communication with patients with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS). This study aims to identify GPs' difficulties in communication during MUS consultations. METHODS: We video-recorded consultations and asked GPs immediately after the consultation whether MUS were presented. GPs and patients were then asked to reflect separately on the consultation in a semi-structured interview while watching the consultation. We selected the comments where GPs experienced difficulties or indicated they should have done something else and analysed these qualitatively according to the principles of constant comparative analysis. Next, we selected those video-recorded transcripts in which the patient also experienced difficulties; we analysed these to identify problems in the physician-patient communication. RESULTS: Twenty GPs participated, of whom two did not identify any MUS consultations. Eighteen GPs commented on 39 MUS consultations. In 11 consultations, GPs did not experience any difficulties. In the remaining 28 consultations, GPs provided 84 comments on 60 fragments where they experienced difficulties. We identified three issues for improvement in the GPs' communication: psychosocial exploration, structure of the consultation (more attention to summaries, shared agenda setting) and person-centredness (more attention to the reason for the appointment, the patient's story, the quality of the contact and sharing decisions). Analysis of the patients' views on the fragments where the GP experienced difficulties showed that in the majority of these fragments (n = 42) the patients' comments were positive. The video-recorded transcripts (n = 9) where the patient experienced problems too were characterised by the absence of a dialogue (the GP being engaged in exploring his/her own concepts, asking closed questions and interrupting the patient). CONCLUSION: GPs were aware of the importance of good communication. According to them, they could improve their communication further by paying more attention to psychosocial exploration, the structure of the consultation and communicating in a more person-centred way. The transcripts where the patient experienced problems too, were characterised by an absence of dialogue (focussing on his/her own concept, asking closed questions and frequently interrupting the patient).

[Complex care: what works in practice? Person-centred care and multidisciplinary cooperation]. / Complexe zorg: wat werkt in de praktijk? Persoonsgerichte zorg en multidisciplinaire samenwerking.

Care complexity is determined by patient-related factors and factors related to the care process, such as the number of caregivers involved with the patient. To be effective, care should be tailored to the context of the patient, and her or his possibilities and situation. Person-centred care focuses explicitly on this context and leads to better health, cheaper healthcare and more job satisfaction for the physician. This article provides tips for putting person-centred care and multidisciplinary cooperation into practice: for talking about the context, understandable communication, picking up contextual cues, creating an individual care plan and organising multidisciplinary consultation. When physicians listen even more closely to the patient's story, discuss treatment options in an understandable way and coordinate care with other health care providers, complex care becomes less complicated.

Quantifying implicit uncertainty in primary care consultations: A systematic comparison of communication about medically explained versus unexplained symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: General practitioners (GPs) disclose more uncertainty (e.g. "I don't know") in consultations with patients presenting medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) versus medically explained symptoms (MES), which could negatively affect patient outcomes. This study assessed if this pattern also holds for more subtle, implicit uncertainty expressions (e.g. "maybe", "might") during different consultation phases, and assessed their relation to patient pre-post consultation anxiety. METHODS: We quantified implicit markers of uncertainty of 18 GPs in 82 consultations about MUS or MES during different consultation phases. Relative frequencies of implicit uncertainty per consultation were regressed on differences in momentary anxiety pre and post consultation. RESULTS: We coded 2590  GP utterances. Uncertainty expressions were more frequent in MUS versus MES consultations (OR = 1.54, p = .004), especially during diagnosis and treatment recommendations compared to physical examinations (OR =0 .45, p = .001). Implicit uncertainty was not related to patients' changes in anxiety (b = -0.11, p = .817). CONCLUSIONS: GPs express more uncertainty during MUS (versus MES) consultations, especially during the diagnostic phase and treatment recommendations. This does not necessarily affect patient anxiety. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Implicit uncertainty expressions reflect the mere complexity of communicating a medically unexplained diagnosis, which does not affect patient anxiety.

Symptom management for medically unexplained symptoms in primary care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: GPs have a central position in the care of patients with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS), but GPs find their care challenging. Currently, little is known about symptom management by GPs in daily practice for patients with MUS. AIM: This study aimed to describe management strategies used by GPs when confronted with patients with MUS in daily practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study in which videos and transcripts of 39 general practice consultations involving patients with MUS in the region of Nijmegen in the Netherlands in 2015 were analysed. METHOD: A thematic analysis of management strategies for MUS used by GPs in real-life consultations was performed. RESULTS: The study revealed 105 management strategies in 39 consultations. Nearly half concerned symptom management; the remainder included medication, referrals, additional tests, follow-up consultations, and watchful waiting. Six themes of symptom management strategies emerged from the data: cognitions and emotions, interaction with health professionals, body focus, symptom knowledge, activity level, and external conditions. Advice on symptom management was often non-specific in terms of content, and ambiguous in terms of communication. CONCLUSION: Symptom management is a considerable part of the care of MUS in general practice. GPs might benefit from support in how to promote symptom management to patients with MUS in specific and unambiguous terms.

The association between patients' expectations and experiences of task-, affect- and therapy-oriented communication and their anxiety in medically unexplained symptoms consultations.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether patients with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) differ from patients with medically explained symptoms (MES) regarding their expectations and experiences on task-oriented communication (ie, communication in which the primary focus is on exchanging medical content), affect-oriented communication (ie, communication in which the primary focus is on the emotional aspects of the interaction) and therapy-oriented communication (ie, communication in which the primary focus is on therapeutic aspects) of the consultation and the extent to which GPs meet their expectations. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore (a) differences in patients' expectations and experiences in consultations with MUS patients and patients with MES and (b) the influence of patients' experiences in these consultations on their post-visit anxiety level. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort. SETTING: Eleven Dutch general practices. MEASUREMENTS: Patients completed the QUOTE-COMM (Quality Of communication Through the patients' Eyes) questionnaire before and after the consultation to assess their expectations and experiences and these were related to changes in patients' state anxiety (abbreviated State-Trait Anxiety Inventory; STAI). RESULTS: Expectations did not differ between patients with MUS and MES. Patients presenting with either MUS or MES rated their experiences for task-related and affect-oriented communication of their GP higher than their expectations. GPs met patients' expectations less often on task-oriented communication in MUS patients compared to MES patients (70.2% vs 80.9%; P = Ë‚0.001). Affect-oriented communication seems to be most important in reducing the anxiety level of MUS patients (ß -0.63, 95% Cl = -1.07 to -0.19). DISCUSSION: Although the expectations of MUS patients are less often met compared to those of MES patients, GPs often communicate according to patients' expectations. Experiencing affect-oriented communication is associated with a stronger reduction in anxiety in patients with MUS than in those with MES. CONCLUSION: GPs communicate according to patients' expectations. However, GPs met patients' expectations on task-oriented communication less often in patients with MUS compared to patients with MES. Experiencing affect-oriented communication had a stronger association with the post-consultation anxiety for patients with MUS than MES.

Quantifying positive communication: Doctor's language and patient anxiety in primary care consultations.

OBJECTIVE: Positive communication is advocated for physicians during consultations with patients presenting medically unexplained symptoms (MUS), but studies generally focus on what is said rather than how it is said. This study quantified language use differences of general practitioners (GPs), and assessed their relation to patient anxiety. METHODS: Language use of 18 Dutch GPs during 82 consultations was compared for patients with MUS versus medically explained symptoms (MES). Message content (positive or negative) was differentiated from its directness (direct or indirect), and related to changes in patient's state anxiety (abbreviated State Trait Anxiety Inventory; STAI). RESULTS: In total, 2590 clauses were identified. GPs approached patients with MES with relatively more direct (vs. indirect) positive and indirect (vs. direct) negative messages (OR 1.91, 95% CI 1.42-2.59). Anxiety of both patient groups increased when GPs used more direct (vs. indirect) negative messages (b = 0.67, 95% CI 0.07-1.27) CONCLUSIONS: GPs use different language depending on the content of messages for patients with MES, but not MUS. Direct negative messages relate to an increase in patient anxiety. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: GPs could manage patient's state anxiety by expressing negative messages in an indirect rather than direct manner.

Improving GP communication in consultations on medically unexplained symptoms: a qualitative interview study with patients in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Many GPs find the care of patients with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) challenging. Patients themselves are often not satisfied with the care they receive. AIM: To explore the problems patients with MUS experience in communication during consultations, with the aim of improving such consultations DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews. METHOD: GP consultations were videorecorded and the GPs were asked immediately afterwards whether MUS were presented. Patients in these MUS consultations were asked to reflect on the consultation in a semi-structured interview while watching a recording of their own consultation. RESULTS: Of the 393 videorecorded consultations, 43 contained MUS. Patients who did identified six categories of problems. First, they reported a mismatch between the GP's and their own agenda. Second, patients indicated that the GP evoked an uncomfortable feeling in them during the consultation. Third, they found that GPs did not provide a specific management plan for their symptoms. Fourth, patients indicated that the GP was not well prepared for the consultation. Fifth, they perceived prejudices in the GP during the consultation. Finally, one patient found that the GP did not acknowledge a limited understanding of the origin of the symptoms. CONCLUSION: According to patients, GPs can improve their consultations on MUS by making genuine contact with their patients, by paying more attention to the patient's agenda, and by avoiding evoking uncomfortable feelings and displaying prejudices. They should prepare their consultations and focus on the issues that matter to patients, for example, symptom management. GPs should be honest to patients when they do not understand the origin of symptoms.

Medically unexplained symptoms: the person, the symptoms and the dialogue.

Background: Many general practitioners (GPs) find the care for patients with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) challenging. The patients themselves are often not satisfied with the care they receive. Objectives: The aim of this study is to explore what patients with MUS expect from their GP by looking at relevant communication elements in consultations as identified by patients. Methods: We video-recorded everyday consultations with GPs and asked the GPs immediately after the consultation whether MUS were presented. The patients in these MUS consultations were asked to reflect on the consultation during a semi-structured interview while watching a recording of their own MUS consultation. The interviews were analysed qualitatively according to the principles of constant comparative analysis. Results: Of the 393 video-recorded consultations, 43 concerned MUS. All MUS patients said that they wanted to be taken seriously. According to the patients, their feeling of being taken seriously is enhanced when the GP: (i) pays empathic attention to them as individuals, meaning that the GP knows their personal circumstances and has an open and empathic approach, (ii) ensures a good conversation by treating the patient as an equal partner and (iii) is attentive to their symptoms by exploring these symptoms in depth and by acting on them. Conclusion: Like chronic patients, patients with MUS value a personalised approach in which GPs pay attention to patients' personal circumstances, to proper somatic management of their symptoms and to a proper conversation in which they are treated as equal partners. Use of these basic consultation skills may greatly improve care of MUS patients.

Efficacy of percutaneous needle aspiration and open biopsy for sperm retrieval in men with non-obstructive azoospermia.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of the two most common sperm retrieval procedures, testicular sperm aspiration (TESA) and testicular sperm extraction (TESE) as part of the diagnostic work-up in men with non-obstructive azoospermia. Design. Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Center for Reproductive Medicine, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden. SAMPLE: Three hundred fifty men who underwent diagnostic surgical sperm recovery between January 1997 and December 2006. METHODS: A diagnostic TESA was initially performed in 281 men with testes of >12 mm(3). If no spermatozoa or an insufficient number of spermatozoa was found, most of the men underwent a diagnostic TESE. Diagnostic TESE was performed as the only surgical procedure in 69 men who had at least one testis < or =12 mm(3). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Success rates of diagnostic TESA and diagnostic TESE. RESULTS: Spermatozoa were found in 129 (45.9%) of the 281 men who underwent TESA. However, in 29 of these men too few spermatozoa were identified for the men to be accepted for IVF/ICSI. The subsequent TESE resulted in 26 additional men being accepted for IVF/ICSI. In men with testes < or =12 mm(3) a sufficient number of spermatozoa were found in 27 out of 69 men following TESE. CONCLUSIONS: The study shows that in 52% of the men with non-obstructive azoospermia spermatozoa useful for ICSI can be identified. For at least one-third of the men with testes >12 mm(3) TESA is a sufficient procedure. Sperm retrieval rate is further increased following a subsequent TESE.