Using read codes to identify patients with irritable bowel syndrome in general practice: a database study

Elaine F Harkness,Carolyn A Chew-Graham,David G Thompson,Sarah J O’Brien,Laura Grant

doi:10.1186/1471-2296-14-183

Elaine F Harkness, Carolyn A Chew-Graham + Show 3 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-14-183

Copy DOI

Abstract

BackgroundEstimates of the prevalence of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) vary widely, and a large proportion of patients report having consulted their general practitioner (GP). In patients with new onset gastrointestinal symptoms in primary care it might be possible to predict those at risk of persistent symptoms. However, one of the difficulties is identifying patients within primary care. GPs use a variety of Read Codes to describe patients presenting with IBS. Furthermore, in a qualitative study, exploring GPs’ attitudes and approaches to defining patients with IBS, GPs appeared reluctant to add the IBS Read Code to the patient record until more serious conditions were ruled out. Consequently, symptom codes such as 'abdominal pain’, 'diarrhoea’ or 'constipation’ are used. The aim of the current study was to investigate the prevalence of recorded consultations for IBS and to explore the symptom profile of patients with IBS using data from the Salford Integrated Record (SIR).MethodsThis was a database study using the SIR, a local patient sharing record system integrating primary, community and secondary care information. Records were obtained for a cohort of patients with gastrointestinal disorders from January 2002 to December 2011. Prevalence rates, symptom recording, medication prescribing and referral patterns were compared for three patient groups (IBS, abdominal pain (AP) and Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD)).ResultsThe prevalence of IBS (age standardised rate: 616 per year per 100,000 population) was much lower than expected compared with that reported in the literature. The majority of patients (69%) had no gastrointestinal symptoms recorded in the year prior to their IBS. However a proportion of these (22%) were likely to have been prescribed NICE guideline recommended medications for IBS in that year. The findings for AP and IBD were similar.ConclusionsUsing Read Codes to identify patients with IBS may lead to a large underestimate of the community prevalence. The IBS diagnostic Read Code was rarely applied in practice. There are similarities with many other medically unexplained symptoms which are typically difficult to diagnose in clinical practice.

Highlights

Estimates of the prevalence of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) vary widely, and a large proportion of patients report having consulted their general practitioner (GP)
In a qualitative study to explore GPs attitudes and approaches to defining, diagnosing and managing patients with IBS in primary care we found that, despite recent guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) [4], IBS is still regarded as a diagnosis of exclusion, and GPs are reluctant to add the IBS Read Code to the patient record until more serious conditions are ruled out [6]
In our qualitative study to investigate how GPs defined, diagnosed and managed patients with IBS, we found that whilst most GPs were aware of the NICE guideline [4] for IBS, few used it to help them make a diagnosis of IBS and add a Read Code to the patient record [6]

Summary

Introduction

Estimates of the prevalence of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) vary widely, and a large proportion of patients report having consulted their general practitioner (GP). In a qualitative study, exploring GPs’ attitudes and approaches to defining patients with IBS, GPs appeared reluctant to add the IBS Read Code to the patient record until more serious conditions were ruled out. Symptom codes such as ‘abdominal pain’, ‘diarrhoea’ or ‘constipation’ are used. In the UK, a community survey estimated the prevalence of IBS to be 10.5% with over half of patients having consulted their general practitioner (GP) within the past six months [3]. For patients with symptoms resistant to conventional medical therapy, current guidelines recommend referral for psychological intervention to cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) or hypnotherapy [4]

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion