Blood tests in primary care: A qualitative study of communication and decision‐making between doctors and patients. (19th July 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Watson, Jessica; Whiting, Penny F.; Salisbury, Chris; Hamilton, William T.; Banks, Jonathan
• Is Part Of: Health expectations. Volume 25:Number 5(2022)
• Page Start: 2453
• Page End: 2461
• Publication Date: 2022-07-19
• Subjects: blood tests -- doctor–patient relationship -- paternalism -- patient engagement -- primary health care -- qualitative research -- shared decision‐making; Medical policy -- Periodicals; Public health -- Periodicals; Health planning -- Periodicals; 362.105
• DOI: 10.1111/hex.13564
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1369-6513

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: Blood tests are commonly used in primary care as a tool to aid diagnosis, and to offer reassurance and validation for patients. If doctors and patients do not have a shared understanding of the reasons for testing and the meaning of results, these aims may not be fulfilled. Shared decision‐making is widely advocated; yet, most research focusses on treatment decisions rather than diagnostic decisions. The aim of this study was to explore communication and decision‐making around diagnostic blood tests in primary care. Methods: Qualitative interviews were undertaken with patients and clinicians in UK primary care. Patients were interviewed at the time of blood testing, with a follow‐up interview after they received test results. Interviews with clinicians who requested the tests provided paired data to compare clinicians' and patients' expectations, experiences and understandings of tests. Interviews were analysed thematically using inductive and deductive coding. Results: A total of 80 interviews with 28 patients and 19 doctors were completed. We identified a mismatch in expectations and understanding of tests, which led to downstream consequences including frustration, anxiety and uncertainty for patients. There was no evidence of shared decision‐making in consultations preceding the decision to test. Doctors adopted a paternalistic approach, believing that they were protecting patients from anxiety. Conclusion: Patients were not able to develop informed preferences and did not perceive that choice is possible in decisions about testing, because they did not have sufficient information and a shared understanding of tests. A lack of shared understanding at the point of decision‐making led to downstream consequences when test results did not fulfil patients' expectations. Although shared decision‐making is recommended as best practice, it does not reflect the reality of doctors' and patients' accounts of testing; a broader model of shared understanding seems to be more relevant to the complexity of primary care diagnosis. Patient or Public Contribution: A patient and public involvement group comprising five participants with lived experience of blood testing in primary care met regularly during the study. They contributed to the development of the research objectives, planning recruitment methods, reviewing patient information leaflets and topic guides and also contributed to discussion of emerging themes at an early stage in the analysis process.