PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 18, 2026British Journal of General Practice1 citationsOpen Access

“One of the hardest things in medicine is challenging an initial diagnosis.” Interim Diagnoses and Missed Opportunities for Diagnosing Cancer in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study

LRLuke RoblesGAGary AbelGBGeorgia Black

Key Points

  • The study aims to understand healthcare professionals' views on interim non-cancer diagnoses and their influence on timely cancer diagnoses.
  • Conducted semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals including GPs and practice administrators.
  • Utilized framework analysis to interpret interview data.
  • Explored how interim diagnoses arise and their impact on subsequent cancer diagnoses.
  • Participants noted interim diagnoses often occur due to diagnostic uncertainty with common symptoms.
  • Remote consultations were seen as increasing the risk of interim diagnoses.
  • Clinicians recognized that interim diagnoses could lead to delays in cancer identification but were not always preventable.

Abstract

Background Patients later diagnosed with cancer may first be diagnosed with another ‘interim’ diagnosis based on their clinical presentation. In some cases, interim diagnoses may be missed opportunities to diagnose cancer. Aim To explore healthcare professionals’ perspectives of when interim non-cancer diagnoses occur, how they impact a cancer diagnosis, and what could trigger their prompt review. Design and setting Interviews were conducted between March and November 2024 with 35 General Practitioners (GPs), 3 other clinicians, and 3 practice administrators from 31 general practices in Southern England, UK. Method Semi-structured interviews via videocall. Interviews were analysed using Framework Analysis. Results Participants reported that interim diagnoses occurred in cases of diagnostic uncertainty, especially when non-specific symptoms were attributed to common differential diagnoses. Remote consultations were thought to increase the likelihood of interim diagnosis by limiting information gathering. Interim diagnoses were suggested to delay cancer diagnoses, although this was not always seen as avoidable. Clinicians hoped to facilitate opportunities to make a cancer diagnosis by using safety-netting to encourage reattendance, and an informal rule of “three strikes and you’re in”. Colleagues providing a “fresh pair of eyes”, discussing diagnostic uncertainty in the clinical team, and using past cases as learning opportunities were suggested approaches to facilitate prompt review of interim diagnoses. Conclusion Consistent safety-netting is required to ensure timely review of non-cancer ‘interim’ diagnoses when there is a possible underlying cancer diagnosis. The range of interim diagnoses and their impact on cancer diagnosis requires further quantification to inform interventions to mitigate their effect.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Robles et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69e31ff140886becb653f1e3https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp.2025.0688
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Patient perspectives on the impact of an initial non-cancer diagnosis prior to a subsequent cancer diagnosis: a secondary qualitative analysis2026
  2. 2How do primary care consultation dynamics affect the timeliness of cancer diagnosis in people with one or more long-term conditions? A qualitative study2025 · 1 citations
  3. 3Online triage and cancer diagnostic activity in general practice: a cross-sectional study2026
  4. 4A primary care intervention to expedite cancer diagnosis: protocol for the ThinkCancer! phase III trial2026
  5. 5Clinical assessment of recurrent cancer: a Danish cohort study in general practice2025