To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
A diagnostic label can have harms and benefits, particularly when provided following routine health screening tests. Whether these are discussed in clinical encounters is unknown.
Aims
To investigate whether potential impacts of diagnostic labelling are discussed before routine screening for non-cancer health conditions and explore the perceived value of such discussions by general practitioners (GPs) and healthcare consumers.
Method
Eleven semi-structured interviews with GPs and two focus groups with eight consumers were conducted. Interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis methods based on framework analysis.
Results
Prior to routine screening, most GPs did not discuss the potential consequences of diagnostic labelling, and no consumer recalled discussions of this nature. In contrast, many GPs provided information regarding the screening procedure and possible test limitations. Both GPs and consumers identified that it would be valuable to discuss the potential impacts of a diagnostic label; however, preferences varied as to the content and timing (i.e. before or after screening) of this discussion. Six themes that examine the utility of discussing the consequences of diagnostic labelling were identified: patient empowerment, patient variability, condition-specific information, GP and patient interactions and relationship, GP role and responsibilities, and characteristics of screening.
Conclusions
The practice and perceived value of discussing diagnostic labelling consequences were recognised as important by both GPs and consumers. However, preferences regarding the content of discussions and whether these occurred in clinical encounters before or after screening varied.
Objective: Delirium is a common problem, but often misdiagnosed and unidentified. Apart from the manifold clinical picture variable durations can also be an obstacle for its diagnosis.
Methods: We present a case of protracted delirium that has developed after severe somatic illness in association with previously undiagnosed Sheehan's syndrome.
Results: The variety of psychiatric symptoms with initial psychotic disorder and the long run of the disease delayed the diagnosis of delirium and meantime gave reason to assume personality change.
Conclusion: This case report calls attention to the possibility of protracted delirium in patients with neuropsychiatric deficit symptoms that persist subsequent to somatic illness.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.