Search

Background. Patients whose symptoms are 'unexplained by disease ' often have a poor symptomatic outcome after specialist consultation, but we know little about which patient factors predict this. We therefore aimed to determine predictors of poor subjective outcome for new neurology out-patients with symptoms unexplained by disease 1 year after the initial consultation. Method. The Scottish Neurological Symptom Study was a 1-year prospective cohort study of patients referred to secondary care National Health Service neurology clinics in Scotland (UK). Patients were included if the neurologist rated their symptoms as ' not at all ' or only 'somewhat explained ' by organic disease. Patient-rated change in health was rated on a five-point Clinical Global Improvement (CGI) scale ('much better ' to 'much worse') 1 year later. Results. The 12-month outcome data were available on 716 of 1144 patients (63 %). Poor outcome on the CGI ('unchanged', 'worse' or 'much worse') was reported by 482 (67%) out of 716 patients. The only strong independent baseline predictors were patients' beliefs [expectation of non-recovery (odds ratio [OR] 2.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.40-2.96), non-attribution of symptoms to psychological factors (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.51-3.26)] and the receipt of illness-related financial benefits (OR 2.30, 95% CI 1.37-3.86). Together, these factors predicted 13% of the variance in outcome. Conclusions. Of the patients, two-thirds had a poor outcome at 1 year. Illness beliefs and financial benefits are more useful in predicting poor outcome than the number of symptoms, disability and distress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It has been previously reported that a substantial proportion of newly referred neurology out-patients have symptoms that are considered by the assessing neurologist as unexplained by ‘organic disease’. There has however been much controversy about how often such patients subsequently develop a disease diagnosis that, with hindsight, would have explained the symptoms. We aimed to determine in a large sample of new neurology out-patients: (i) what proportion are assessed as having symptoms unexplained by disease and the diagnoses given to them; and (ii) how often a neurological disorder emerged which, with hindsight, explained the original symptoms. We carried out a prospective cohort study of patients referred from primary care to National Health Service neurology clinics in Scotland, UK. Measures were: (i) the proportion of patients with symptoms rated by the assessing neurologist as ‘not at all’ or only ‘somewhat explained’ by ‘organic disease’ and the neurological diagnoses recorded at initial assessment; and (ii) the frequency of unexpected new diagnoses made over the following 18 months (according to the primary-care physician). One thousand four hundred and forty-four patients (30% of all new patients) were rated as having symptoms ‘not at all’ or only ‘somewhat explained’ by ‘organic disease’. The most common categories of diagnosis were: (i) organic neurological disease but with symptoms unexplained by it (26%); (ii) headache disorders (26%); and (iii) conversion symptoms (motor, sensory or non-epileptic attacks) (18%). At follow-up only 4 out of 1030 patients (0.4%) had acquired an organic disease diagnosis that was unexpected at initial assessment and plausibly the cause of the patients’ original symptoms. Eight patients had died at follow-up; five of whom had initial diagnoses of non-epileptic attacks. Seven other types of diagnostic change with very different implications to a ‘missed diagnosis’ were found and a new classification of diagnostic revision is presented. One-third of new neurology out-patients are assessed as having symptoms ‘unexplained by organic disease’. A new diagnosis, which with hindsight explained the original symptoms, rarely became apparent to the patient's primary care doctor in the 18 months following the initial hospital consultation. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]