Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Editor’s Briefing

After Achilles

Roger Jones
British Journal of General Practice 2016; 66 (644): 115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp16X683869
Roger Jones
Roles: Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Almost 45 years ago John Howie, one of the heroes of academic general practice and Richard Scott’s successor to the world’s first chair in general practice in Edinburgh, published a article in the Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners entitled Diagnosis — the Achilles heel? 1 Howie argued that the decision by a GP to prescribe for a set of symptoms frequently preceded the allocation of a diagnostic label to those symptoms. A patient with a cough and sputum might get an antibiotic, and someone with a vague feeling of unease without any obvious cause might receive a benzodiazepine. The diagnosis followed the prescription. Although in many regards these observations reflected the more general state of medicine in the early 1970s, general practice has still not really shaken off its struggle with accurate diagnosis. Notwithstanding the need to ‘marginalise danger’, in other words to identify those patients likely to have more serious disease mandating more intensive assessment and investigation, diagnostic decision making in general practice has floundered among unhelpful phrases such as ‘tolerating uncertainty’, ‘using time as a diagnostic tool’ and ‘letting the diagnosis emerge’, which have sadly passed into our lexicon. At worst, this approach to diagnosis is sloppy and idle, and seems to lie at the other end of the spectrum from the need to make early, accurate diagnoses in patients presenting with even the most vague symptom complexes.

It is time for a real paradigm shift in the approach to diagnosis in general practice. It is time to emerge from the shadows of guesswork, reluctance to investigate and willingness to take chances, and to use evidence, risk assessment tools combined with clinical judgement, and technology to cone down on an accurate diagnosis and, where the evidence is inconclusive, to seek better evidence for diagnostic decisions. Our understanding of the natural history of minor and major illness in general practice, of the significance of so-called ‘alarm symptoms’, of the predictive value of individual and multiple symptoms for specific diagnoses, and the ways in which computerised decision support has the potential to improve diagnostic decision-making, have moved on immeasurably over the past 40 years, and it is high time that they formed part of every diagnostic decision in every consultation.This is particularly important in the field of early cancer diagnosis, where primary care research really has led the way in identifying symptoms and symptom complexes requiring early investigation or intervention, and also highly relevant in the diagnosis of serious, non-malignant disease, including infective, vascular, and inflammatory disorders.

Prompt recognition of sepsis, particularly in children, is a current matter of concern, and Claire Gilham’s timely editorial highlights the scale of the problem and the place of primary care in dealing with it. In counterpoint, Treadwell and McCartney highlight the dangers involved in overdiagnosis and overtreatment. The article by Looijmans-van den Akke and colleagues, from the Netherlands, provides a good clinical example (in this case, asthma) where overdiagnosis, often without using available diagnostic facilities, may be a problem. Hamilton and colleagues article on the symptoms of adult chronic and acute leukaemia before diagnosis emphasises the value of large primary care database analysis in identifying key diagnostic features, while a qualitative study by Horwood and colleagues teases out some of the difficulties faced by primary care clinicians in making diagnoses and prescribing decisions in children with respiratory tract symptoms. Renzi and colleagues look at the unintended consequences of giving an ‘all-clear’ diagnosis in patients with potential cancer symptoms — essential reading and of great importance in understanding the need for ‘safety netting’ — while the difficulties of choosing the right test at the right time are highlighted in Watson and colleagues’ study on the use of inflammatory marker testing in primary care. Finally, Lyratzopoulos and colleagues describe an important study on patient-reported consultations before an eventual diagnosis of a rare cancer; emphasising both the difficulties of making an early diagnosis of a rare disease, and also the importance of pursuing symptoms in order to nail down a plausible explanation.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2016

REFERENCE

  1. 1.↵
    1. Howie JG
    (1972) Diagnosis — the Achilles heel? J R Coll Gen Pract 22(118):310–315.
    OpenUrlPubMed
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 66 (644)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 66, Issue 644
March 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
After Achilles
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
After Achilles
Roger Jones
British Journal of General Practice 2016; 66 (644): 115. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp16X683869

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
After Achilles
Roger Jones
British Journal of General Practice 2016; 66 (644): 115. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp16X683869
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • REFERENCE
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • John Diamond Did Not Battle Cancer Bravely
  • Complex Systems Harm People with Complex Needs
  • Seeing red with the NICE traffic lights
Show more Editor’s Briefing

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2022 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242