What would primary care practitioners do differently after a delayed cancer diagnosis? Learning lessons from their experiences

Figures & data

Table 1. Characteristics of the primary care physicians that participated in the survey, N (%).

Total participants		158 (100)
Gender	Women	89 (56.3)
	Men	68 (43.0)
	Prefer not to say	1 (0.6)
Work experience	<4 years	15 (9.5)
	4–15 years	46 (29.1)
	>15 years	97 (61.4)
Training status	Established PCP	121 (76.6)
	GP trainee	37 (23.4)
Area of work	Town or city	99 (62.7)
	Rural	33 (20.9)
	Island or remote	5 (3.2)
	Mixed	20 (12.6)
	Prefer not to say	1 (0.6)
Country	Bulgaria	10 (6.3)
	Croatia	8 (5.1)
	England	7 (4.4)
	Estonia	6 (3.8)
	Finland	5 (3.2)
	Germany	5 (3.2)
	Greece	8 (5.1)
	Ireland	10 (6.3)
	Israel	4 (2.5)
	Italy	10 (6.3)
	Latvia	10 (6.3)
	Lithuania	6 (3.8)
	Netherlands	3 (1.9)
	Norway	7 (4.4)
	Poland	7 (4.4)
	Romania	8 (5.1)
	Scotland	5 (3.2)
	Slovenia	6 (3.8)
	Spain	14 (8.9)
	Sweden	8 (5.1)
	Switzerland	3 (1.9)
	Turkey	6 (3.8)
	Ukraine	2 (1.3)

Table 2. Themes and sub-themes.

Theme	Subtheme
Think broadly	‘Think cancer’ – always have cancer as a possible differential diagnosis. Respect your ‘gut feelings’. Think about the patient’s risk factors. Don’t rely on previous negative results or specialist opinions.
Improve communication with the patient	Listen to the patient carefully. Share your concerns, actions and potential outcomes with the patient. Be assertive with a patient if you suspect cancer.  Be persistent with your message to the patient and provide detailed information
Improve clinical management	Check information about the patient carefully.  Re-assess the patient if he/she doesn’t improve or if symptoms change.  Do your clinical examination more carefully. Follow the patient actively.  Practice continuity of care.  If you suspect cancer, don’t watch and wait.
Use other available resources	Follow the clinical guidelines. Improve supportive diagnostic tools.
I would not do anything differently

Data sharing

To avoid the risk of identification of individual participants or patients, the datasets generated and analysed during the current study are not publicly available. However, they are available (with any identifying information redacted) from the corresponding author on reasonable request.