Erik Stolper

'Gut feelings' are frequently used by general practitioners in the clinical decision-making process, especially in situations of uncertainty. The Gut Feelings Questionnaire (GFQ) has been developed in the Netherlands and is now available in English, French, German, Polish, Spanish, and Catalan, enabling cross-border studies on the subject. However, a Turkish version of the GFQ is lacking. A Turkish version of the GFQ. A linguistic validation procedure was conducted, which took place in six phases: forward translation (step 1), backward translation (step 2), first consensus (step 3), cultural validation (step 4), second consensus (step 5), and final version (step 6). The absence of literal equivalent of the term 'gut feelings' in Turkish was determined. The word 'intuition' was chosen as the Turkish literal equivalent of 'gut feelings'. There were also some challenges in finding the exact meanings of words and expressions in Turkish literature. However, we succeeded in finding adequate and responsible solutions. A Turkish version of the GFQ is available now. With these validated GFQs, Turkish GPs can facilitate studies of the role of 'gut feelings' in clinical reasoning.

Background: GPs consider their gut feelings a valuable tool in clinical reasoning. Research suggests patients’ gut feelings may be a useful contribution to that process. Describing these feelings more precisely could improve primary care professionals’ (PCPs) recognition of patients’ gut feelings and insight into the underlying reasons. These descriptions would also enable a thorough examination of the validity of patients’ gut feelings and their contribution to professionals’ clinical reasoning.Aim: To gather the words and phrases that patients or their relatives use to share their gut feelings with primary care professionals and what they convey and imply.Design and setting: Qualitative study of Dutch and Belgian patients visiting an out-of-hours GP service or a GP’s office.Method: Face-to-face semi-structured interviews were carried out with 47 patients. Interviews were coded using a descriptive content analysis in an iterative process until data sufficiency.Results: Patients or their relatives expressed their gut feelings by using words relating to trusting or not trusting the situation, or to changes in normal patterns. Their gut feelings are most often felt as a sense of alarm. In general, patients experiencing a sense of alarm, particularly mothers of sick children, were convinced that something was wrong and had often learned to trust their gut feeling. A gut feeling was the main reason to contact a PCP. Patients generally felt that their gut feelings were taken seriously.Conclusion: The findings of this study provide an insight into how patients and relatives may express their gut feelings about their own or their relative’s health and how they share these feelings with healthcare professionals. This may help clinicians improve their recognition of patients’ gut feelings, being particularly alert to a patient or relative using phrases that relate to feelings of not trusting a situation, things seeming wrong or different from normal, and experiencing a sense of alarm. Further research should be carried out into the validity of patients’ gut feelings.

Background: Family physicians’ diagnostic gut feelings have proved to be valuable. But what about patients’ gut feelings? Research has shown that patients’ gut feelings may contribute to their physicians’ clinical reasoning. Dutch medical tribunals consider patients’ worry useful for doctors’ diagnostic process. However, how general practitioners and other primary care professionals recognize gut feelings of patients and deal with them in their decision making is yet unclear. We aim to explore how primary care professionals perceive patients’ gut feelings and use this information in their decision-making. Methods: We interviewed 30 Dutch and Belgian primary care professionals, exploring how they recognize and value patients’ gut feelings. We coded all interviews using a descriptive content analysis in an iterative process. Data sufficiency was achieved. Results: Primary care professionals acknowledged gut feelings in their patients, and most participants found them a useful source of information. Patients’ gut feelings might alert them to possible hidden problems and might provide quicker insight into patients’ perceptions. Primary care professionals listed a whole series of wordings relating to trusting or distrusting the situation or to any changes in normal patterns. A patient’s gut feeling was often a reason for the professionals to explore patients’ worries and to reconsider their own clinical reasoning. Conclusions: Primary care professionals regularly considered patients’ gut feelings useful, as they might contribute to their clinical reasoning and to a deeper understanding of the patient’s problem. The next step could be to ask patients themselves about their gut feelings and explore their diagnostic value.

In the Netherlands, child abuse affects about 100.000 children resulting in at least 17 child fatalities a year. General practitioners' (GPs) health care position is of vital importance for recognising and managing child abuse. In this Clinical Lesson, using three illustrating cases, we discuss how GPs' suspicion of child abuse may arise including the role of gut feelings, and what the mandatory national guideline on child abuse means for the follow-up. We also clarify the role of the Dutch Child Abuse Counselling and Reporting Centre (CACRC) in the process. A first lesson is that any doubts about child abuse should lead to action because diagnostic failure has serious consequences for vulnerable children. A second lesson is that asking CACRC for anonymous advice how to deal with a situation may certainly have added value. Finally, we advise CACRC to invest in building a relationship of trust with the collaborating partners.

Clinical reasoning in general practice is increasingly challenging because of the rise in the number of patients with multimorbidity. This creates uncertainty because of unpredictable interactions between the symptoms from multiple medical problems and the patient's personality, psychosocial context and life history. Case analysis may then be more appropriately managed by systems thinking than by hypothetic‐deductive reasoning, the predominant paradigm in the current teaching of clinical reasoning. Application of “systems thinking” tools such as causal loop diagrams allows the patient's problems to be viewed holistically and facilitates understanding of the complex interactions. We will show how complexity levels can be graded in clinical reasoning and demonstrate where and how systems thinking can have added value by means of a case history.

Aim: We examined how gut feelings of child health care physicians’ (CHCPs) contribute to the development of a suspicion of child abuse, how they act upon this suspicion and what barriers they experience in their management. To gain insight into the youth health care chain, we compared the diagnostic reasoning and management regarding this issue by CHCPs and family physicians (FPs).Methods: Three focus groups, 20 CHCPs, thematic content analysis.Results: A gut feeling acted as an early alert to look for the triggering cue(s), by observing more closely and asking relevant questions. CHCPs struggled to distinguish whether the situation involved child abuse or a lack of parenting skills, and how to communicate their concerns with parents. They tried to motivate parents to improve the situation, avoiding the term child abuse and considered involving the Child Abuse Counselling and Reporting Centre (CACRC) a measure of last resort only.Conclusion: As with FPs, gut feelings support CHCPs in becoming attentive to child abuse and to situations which can lead to child abuse. The next step, discussing their suspicion with the parents, is a difficult one, and the CACRC might actually help to make this step easier.

Dutch medical disciplinary boards consider physicians' gut feelings an element of the professional standards. Some indications can be found in the international literature suggesting intuitive feelings of unease of patients or their relatives can also contribute to adequate diagnostics. What is the view of disciplinary boards on this? A search in the disciplinary boards' database (2010-2017) found 55 rulings where the search term 'ongerust' (worried) was related to a patient, family member or partner and 51 rulings where the term 'bezorgd' (concerned) was related to a patient, family member or partner. The disciplinary boards expect that doctors are prepared to discuss worry and concern with their patients. Additionally, they consider patients' worry and concern to be a useful part of the doctors' diagnostics, which may possibly result in reviewing the diagnosis. This is consistent with the international literature.

Background: Child abuse is widespread, occurs in all cultures and communities, remains undiscovered in 90% of cases and has serious long-term effects. Physicians generally underidentify and underreport child abuse. To understand this low reporting rate and how the suspicion of child abuse arises, we examined GPs’ experiences. Research questions: How does the suspicion of child abuse arise in GPs’ diagnostic reasoning? How do they act upon their suspicion and which barriers do they encounter in their management? Methods: Twenty-six GPs participated in four focus groups. We used purposive sampling to include GPs with different levels of experience. We performed a thematic content analysis. Results: Suspicion of child abuse arose from common triggers and a gut feeling that ‘something is wrong here’. GPs acted upon their suspicion by gathering more data, through history taking and physical examination. They often found it difficult to decide whether a child was abused, because parents, despite good intentions, may simply lack parenting skills and have different values. Clear signs of sexual abuse and physical violence were institutionally reported by GPs, whereas in less clear-cut cases they followed them up and built a supporting network of professionals around the family. Conclusions: A low child abuse reporting rate by GPs to CACRC does not mean a low detection rate. In trying to improve a child’s situation, GPs make use of patients’ trust in their doctor by involving other professionals. Awareness of the role of gut feelings in developing a suspicion may increase early detection and preventive actions.