Doctor-patient communication about blood tests: Qualitative interview study in general practice

Context: Shared decision making is widely advocated, however most research focuses on treatment decisions. Evidence for shared decision-making in relation to diagnostic testing is limited to specific tests such as prostate specific antigen, screening and genetic tests. There is a lack of evidence regarding the relevance of shared decision-making to routine blood tests, despite increasing rates of laboratory testing in primary care.

Objectives: To explore shared decision making and communication around routine blood tests in primary care.

Study design: Qualitative interview study

Setting: UK primary care

Population studied: Qualitative interviews were undertaken with patients at two time points: (a) at or soon after their blood test and (b) after they had received their test results. We also undertook interviews with the patients’ GPs who requested the tests. This gave us paired data which enabled to us to examine areas of congruence and dissonance between GPs’ and patients’ expectations, experience and understanding of testing. A total of 80 interviews with 28 patients and 19 doctors were completed, reflecting a range of socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis using a mixture of inductive and deductive coding and constant comparison.

Results: There were no examples of shared decision making identified in any of the interviews, indeed patients were frequently unaware of which blood tests had been done and why. Barriers to a shared understanding of blood testing were identified including the complexity and technical nature of information, a lack of resources for information sharing and a perception that blood tests were low priority for information sharing. Doctors perceived that a paternalistic approach to testing could be justified to protect patients from anxiety. Misunderstanding and a lack of communication around testing and test results led to uncertainty, anxiety and frustration for patients.

Conclusions: The results have implications, not just for models of shared decision making, but more fundamentally, informed consent. Shared decision-making for diagnostic testing differs from treatment decisions. Promoting a shared understanding and shared decision-making could help rationalize testing, potentially reducing unnecessary investigations and improving patient-centered care.