• Marie Barais, Nathalie Morio, Amélie Cuzon Breton, Pierre Barraine, Amélie Calvez, Erik Stolper, Paul Van Royen, and Claire Liétard.
• Université de Bretagne Occidentale, Faculté de Médecine et des Sciences de la Santé de Brest, Département Universitaire de Médecine Générale, Brest, France.
• Plos One. 2014 Jan 1; 9 (5): e98112.

BackgroundBefore using any prediction rule oriented towards pulmonary embolism (PE), family physicians (FPs) should have some suspicion of this diagnosis. The diagnostic reasoning process leading to the suspicion of PE is not well described in primary care.Objectiveto explore the diagnostic reasoning of FPs when pulmonary embolism is suspected.MethodSemi-structured qualitative interviews with 28 FPs. The regional hospital supplied data of all their cases of pulmonary embolism from June to November 2011. The patient's FP was identified where he/she had been the physician who had sent the patient to the emergency unit. The first consecutive 14 FPs who agreed to participate made up the first group. A second group was chosen using a purposeful sampling method. The topic guide focused on the circumstances leading to the suspicion of PE. A thematic analysis was performed, by three researchers, using a grounded theory coding paradigm.ResultsIn the FPs' experience, the suspicion of pulmonary embolism arose out of four considerations: the absence of indicative clinical signs for diagnoses other than PE, a sudden change in the condition of the patient, a gut feeling that something was seriously wrong and an earlier failure to diagnose PE. The FPs interviewed did not use rules in their diagnostic process.ConclusionThis study illustrated the diagnostic role of gut feelings in the specific context of suspected pulmonary embolism in primary care. The FPs used the sense of alarm as a tool to prevent the diagnostic error of missing a PE. The diagnostic accuracy of gut feelings has yet to be evaluated.

16 keywords...

hide…