GP/patient conversation

  • Research type

    Research Study

  • Full title

    Using qualitative methods to understand the GP/patient conversation

  • IRAS ID

    220868

  • Contact name

    Katriina L Whitaker

  • Contact email

    k.whitaker@surrey.ac.uk

  • Sponsor organisation

    University of Surrey

  • Duration of Study in the UK

    1 years, 6 months, 1 days

  • Research summary

    One in two people in the UK will get cancer in their lifetime and national strategies highlight the importance of diagnosing cancer early. This is so the most effective treatments are available, and people get the highest quality care from the moment cancer is suspected.

    Most cancers (85%) are diagnosed as a result of a person going to their primary care doctor with symptoms, but diagnosing cancer is not straightforward. Symptoms can be vague (e.g. feeling tired) and even symptoms labelled ‘alarm’ symptoms (e.g. blood in poo) rarely result in a diagnosis of cancer. Recently the importance of open and honest conversations between patients and GPs during the consultation has been highlighted in updated recommendations from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).

    However there has been limited research exploring the conversation between patients and doctors, particularly in terms of how patients declare ‘new’ symptoms and how doctors draw out further information. This project explores how communication influences doctors’ decisions about what action, if any, to take in response to symptoms. We will build on our previous work to look at things that may influence the conversation, such as knowledge and expectation/biases, as well as patient factors such as patient age, and GP factors such as GP practice location.

    Our project will video consultations in GP practices in England over a six month period. The project will focus on GP visits by men and women aged 50 and over. We will invite up to 30 patients who consent to observation to come for a follow-up interview about their experience. We will also invite the patient’s doctor to take part in an interview to discuss their decision-making in more detail (n~10). We will use the video observations, patient interviews and GP interviews.

  • REC name

    London - Chelsea Research Ethics Committee

  • REC reference

    17/LO/0270

  • Date of REC Opinion

    17 Mar 2017

  • REC opinion

    Further Information Favourable Opinion