Search

Abstract Background Prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing is widely used, but guidelines on follow-up are unclear. Methods We performed a systematic review of the literature to determine follow-up policy after PSA testing by general practitioners (GPs) and non-urologic hospitalists, the use of a cut-off value for this policy, the reasons for repeating a PSA test after an initial normal result, the existence of a general cut-off value below which a PSA result is considered normal, and the time frame for repeating a test. Data sources. MEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo and the Cochrane library from January 1950 until May 2011. Study eligibility criteria. Studies describing follow-up policy by GPs or non-urologic hospitalists after a primary PSA test, excluding urologists and patients with prostate cancer. Studies written in Dutch, English, French, German, Italian or Spanish were included. Excluded were studies describing follow-up policy by urologists and follow-up of patients with prostate cancer. The quality of each study was structurally assessed. Results Fifteen articles met the inclusion criteria. Three studies were of high quality. Follow-up differed greatly both after a normal and an abnormal PSA test result. Only one study described the reasons for not performing follow-up after an abnormal PSA result. Conclusions Based on the available literature, we cannot adequately assess physicians’ follow-up policy after a primary PSA test. Follow-up after a normal or raised PSA test by GPs and non-urologic hospitalists seems to a large extent not in accordance with the guidelines.

Abstract Background Little is known about pressure from patients or relatives on physician’s decision making of continuous palliative sedation. We aim to describe experienced pressure by general practitioners (GPs) in cases of continuous sedation after the introduction of the Dutch practice guideline, using a questionnaire survey. Methods A sample of 918 Dutch GPs were invited to fill out a questionnaire about their last patient under continuous sedation. Cases in which GPs experienced pressure from the patient, relatives or other persons were compared to those without pressure. Results 399 of 918 invite GPs (43%) returned the questionnaire and 250 provided detailed information about their most recent case of continuous sedation. Forty-one GPs (16%) indicated to have experienced pressure from the patient, relatives or colleagues. In GPs younger than 50, guideline knowledge was not related to experienced pressure, whereas in older GPs, 15% with and 36% without guideline knowledge reported pressure. GPs experienced pressure more often when patients had psychological symptoms (compared to physical symptoms only) and when patients had a longer estimated life expectancy. A euthanasia request of the patient coincided with a higher prevalence of pressure for GPs without, but not for GPs with previous experience with euthanasia. GPs who experienced pressure had consulted a palliative consultation team more often than GPs who did not experience pressure. Conclusion One in six GPs felt pressure from patients or relatives to start sedation. This pressure was related to guideline knowledge, especially in older GPs, longer life expectancy and the presence of a euthanasia request, especially for GPs without previous experience of euthanasia.