Making doctors better
BMJ 2018; 363 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k4147 (Published 03 October 2018) Cite this as: BMJ 2018;363:k4147All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
The editorial 'Making doctors better' (1) raises some very important points; doctors are subject to many pressures as outlined in the article, the results are evidenced by the increased morbidity and widespread recognition across the profession.
Systemic solutions are very important; if the working environment, procedures & processes are causing illness, it is crucially important to change & adjust them as it is the only reasonable solution which will actually reduce the onset of illness. It is also important to provide effective timely support systems in the workplace for doctors and other health professionals, so that they can have actions put in place to help them improve their health, attendance and productivity at work. These actions can be for the individual, the organisation or both.
However, the article completely ignores a significant concern which is the behaviour of doctors when they are ill. Doctors are subject to the same illnesses as the rest of the population and there are very effective treatment services availabile within the NHS. The difficulty is caused by the unfortunate way doctors develop & evolve certain beliefs when they become ill which impacts on their behaviour as cited in the editorial. In particular, doctors often ignore illness, seek different pathways of advice and treatment because the medical culture can encourage consciously or unconsciously that illness needs to be hidden. The availability of a 'special doctor only service' such as the Practitioner Health Programme, is counterproductive because it can actually reinforce the beliefs that illness is something to be inherently ashamed and embarrassed about, especially if the service undertakes an advocacy and 'protective' only role.
If the fundamental issues of changing doctors' beliefs, and the recognition of the importance collaboration and coordination with employer services and educational support services are not addressed, the other measures outlined in the editorial may make temporary improvement but doctors will continue to have dysfunctional health related behaviour that may impact on patient care and have the possibility of further relapses.
All doctors should understand that there is nothing wrong with being ill but it is unprofessional to be unwell and take no action to address it.
Dr Ian Aston
Dr Harj Kaul
(1) BMJ 2018:363:k4147
Competing interests: No competing interests
Gerada and colleagues rightly stressed that maintaining the wellbeing of clinicians is essential for quality of care.(1) However, the targets they highlighted and their call for changing the system deserves scrutiny.
Who nurtures “unrealistic public expectations”(1) and sciensationalism, sensationalism in science?(2)
Could the industrialisation of medicine be the problem?(1) It is far from being a new issue (3) and there is no evidence it is responsible for poorer care. In contrast, industrialisation is about quality insurance program, 6 Sigma, root cause analysis, cost-effectiveness … Did doctors began to implement these methods soon enough and, are these methods presently well implemented? England has been a beacon for monitoring clinical performance.(4) As early as 2001, Dr Foster published its first Hospital Guide in the Sunday Times including mortality data using the Hospital Standardised Mortality Ratio for every hospital. However, no evidence yet that P4P programs have been achieving improvement in patient outcomes.(5) Worse, in the general practice setting P4P potential unintended consequences cannot be overlooked.(6) However, this state of affairs persists.
Last but not least, how many doctors are pledging for recertification to maintain competence?(7) I’m afraid it is harder to keep a bus driver licence than to be recertified in the very few countries where such a policy is implemented.
1 Gerada C, Chatfield C, Rimmer A, Godlee F. Making doctors better. BMJ 2018;363:k4147.
2 Braillon A. Sciensationalism. Am J Med 2011;124:e13.
3 Greenhills S. Industrialisation its challenge to medicine. Lancet 1961;1:1181-3.
4 Aylin P, Bottle A, Majeed A. Use of administrative data or clinical databases as predictors of risk of death in hospital: comparison of models. BMJ 2007;334:1044.
5 Figueroa JF, Tsugawa Y, Zheng J, Orav EJ, Jha AK. Association between the Value-Based Purchasing pay for performance program and patient mortality in US hospitals: observational study. BMJ 2016;353:i2214.
6 Roland M, Olesen F. Can pay for performance improve the quality of primary care? BMJ 2016;354:i4058
7 Bashook PG, Parboosingh J. Recertification and the maintenance of competence. BMJ 1998;316:545-8.
Competing interests: No competing interests
While there is no doubt resilience is needed among healthcare professionals I agree that this can only be a piece of the puzzle. It seems to put the onus on the doctor and if you are not “resilient” it is yet another piece of evidence you are failing, probably at a time you’re already at your lowest ebb.
The recent stats on female doctors having a x4 suicide rate compared to baseline is appalling and should focus minds. But whole system change is a long and slow process and we can only try and chip away slowly. Recent negligence manslaughter cases, etc, seem to have set things back, but I am hopeful we can slowly get back on track with better institutional compassion for healthcare workers rather than the current environment which is still a long way from being optimal.
A relative of mine is a therapist. He had mandatory one year of psychotherapy as part of his requirement to qualify and ongoing supervision by a senior colleague, primarily for his wellbeing.
Annual appraisal for GPs can have some features addressing practitioner wellbeing but feels primarily an exercise in checking up that we are safe and up to date. That’s fine, and sensible, but we can’t pretend it is supervision to support our wellbeing.
I agree that we need more protection to say “enough is enough” as the article puts it, but in general practice there is no contractual protection from incoming workload, and with a shrinking GP workforce and growing consultation rate it’s difficult to see how time can be set aside for self-care as part of the working week. I think practices can help create a supportive work place, but only if those in a position of leadership are themselves coping.
I do notice one paradox, however, which is that many GPs opt for locum work, etc, to protect themselves from stress (see recent Nigel Watson partnership review interim report) but actually a great source of my own support comes from patients I’ve developed a relationship with by being a list holding partner and having continuity of care.
I think the changes required are generational but will come as mindset shifts, individual by individual. “The system” however still feels institutionally hostile due to multiple incremental changes, legally, societally, culturally, etc, etc, etc.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Everything that Gerada, Chatfield, Rimmer and Godlee write in their excellent Editorial is correct. What is disappointing, perhaps, is that only this year we have read very similar observations in articles, editorials, and letters not just here in the BMJ, but in other medical and non-medical publications, and other media. But has anything changed? Are those who can bring about change and therefore help make doctors better, and keep their patients safer, actually listening?
The proposals for a cure (and prevention is always better we know), is going to take time and proper investment. Should we not also, as a matter of urgency, be calling for the provision of high quality occupational health services and support not just for doctors but all healthcare professionals experiencing organisational stress or burnout? And let's give up using the term Resilience, which would seem to suggest that the problem, even fault, lies with the individual who is suffering.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Undeniably the life of doctors has become increasingly complex and complicated. Ways and means and methods to improve and modify the 'system (s) ' favourably are at work the world over. If 'death' tends to be surrounded by allegation of mistreatment and negligence too often , it denies the doctors of fairness ; doctors dutifully do the best under the circumstances and rarely claim credit , unlike some other professions. But there are few facts that doctors too need to consider. a) though doctoring is considered a 24 hour affair , too many of them may not realise that sound relations with parents , spouse and progeny constitute a stabilising force and a positive effect on general well being . b) being a doctor need not be an exclusive and unending exercise for promotions , enhanced qualifications, fellowships, honours and the like if one finds difficult coping up. Nurturing and asserting ego in every situation may not go well with mental well being. c) Becoming professional and rational may come easy but maturity , poise, balance, optimism takes years as time passes by ; the chosen may turn philosophical and even 'spiritual' at the sunset of life particularly when society considers that doctors never 'retire'. In short , personal life and attitudes do contribute to total well being of doctors as well . Dr Murar E Yeolekar. ( former Director , M E & R /Dean ) Mumbai.
Competing interests: No competing interests
From the Neanderthal to the Newly-minted
==================================
'Making doctors better' is a timely thought.
All life is subject to disease and death. In this process, the role
of the physician is unique. It is a dual role. To the newly-minted
novice or the bygone neanderthal, self preservation parallels the
healing profession. In the evolution of this dual role, multiple
inevitabilities are defaults, deficiencies, diversions, disputes,
deviations, etc..
We need to appreciate the millennia old preservation of quality
of performance.
The heritage of the profession shall continue!
Competing interests: No competing interests
Physicians who reflexively blame themselves or their patients for poor clinical outcomes are overlooking other possibilities. While it is true that some physicians make mistakes and that some patients don’t cooperate, it is equally true that healthcare is imperfect, and that some modalities simply don’t work. This is why physicians don’t enjoy better health than their patients. So disappointed or disaffected physicians and patients should learn to question the underlying assumptions and science of healthcare.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Making doctors better
I am afraid to say that making doctors better is an impossible mission; as the population gets older and the population increases, in contrast, the old clumsy NHS—with fewer resources and fewer doctors and allied professionals—tries to meet the targets on paper with lots of unnecessary employed managers. There are unrealistic targets. In the pre-Brexit ordeal, the wound would seem to be converted to an incurable one. Implementing Artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare would be helpful in reducing the pressure on doctors.
Competing interests: No competing interests