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.
Yang Chen is right to raise the importance of empathy. Empathy is fundamental to good communication. Medical Protection’s experiences consistently show that patient dissatisfaction with their doctor’s way of communicating fuels the majority of complaints. A 2017 YouGov survey [1] we commissioned of over 2,000 British adults, found that:
• 82% would be unlikely to complain if their GP communicated openly and with empathy
• 76% would be unlikely to complain if their GP explained the reasons why they could not meet their expectations
• 3 of the top 5 reasons for having made a complaint about a GP, relate to poor communication and behaviour
Analysis of claims tends to revolve around the precipitating clinical factors, such as a delay in diagnosis, incorrect surgical technique or medication error. But other research also shows that the risk of complaint and litigation appears to have much more to do with predisposing factors such as communication skills, sensitivity to patient needs and management of expectations. [2][3][4][5][6]
In modern medical practice, patients are seeking not only clinical competence but also communication competence. A patient will often use the quality of a doctor’s bedside manners as a proxy marker for the quality of care. Effective communication will build trust, increase patient satisfaction, and help ensure that patients receive the care that they both want and need. Patients want to know that doctors care. [7]
While doctors are continuously perfecting their clinical expertise in their specialty, perfecting their communication and empathy skills is essential to improve patient outcomes. With that in mind many of our risk prevention programmes focus heavily on communication skills - covering interactions with both patients and colleagues.
1. YouGov Survey: Communication a key trigger of GP complaints https://www.medicalprotection.org/uk/articles/yougov-survey-communicatio...
2. Cydulka R et al, Association of Patient Satisfaction with Complaints and Risk Management among Emergency Physicians, J Emerg Med, In Press, Corrected Proof (2011)
3. Reid R et al, Associations Between Physician Characteristics and Quality of Care, Arch Intern Med 170(16):1442–1449 (2010)
4. Beckman, HB, Markakis KM, Suchman, AL & Frankel, RM ‘The doctor-patient relationship and malpractice: Lessons from plaintiff epositions’. Arch Int Med154:1365-1370 (1994)
5. Stephen F et al, A Study of Medical Negligence Claiming in Scotland, Scottish Government (2012)
6. Studdert D et al, Claims, errors, and compensation payments in medical malpractice litigation, NEJM 354(19):2024–2033 (2006)
7. Stephen F et al, A Study of Medical Negligence Claiming in Scotland, Scottish Government (2012)
Good communication reduces risk of a complaint or claim
Yang Chen is right to raise the importance of empathy. Empathy is fundamental to good communication. Medical Protection’s experiences consistently show that patient dissatisfaction with their doctor’s way of communicating fuels the majority of complaints. A 2017 YouGov survey [1] we commissioned of over 2,000 British adults, found that:
• 82% would be unlikely to complain if their GP communicated openly and with empathy
• 76% would be unlikely to complain if their GP explained the reasons why they could not meet their expectations
• 3 of the top 5 reasons for having made a complaint about a GP, relate to poor communication and behaviour
Analysis of claims tends to revolve around the precipitating clinical factors, such as a delay in diagnosis, incorrect surgical technique or medication error. But other research also shows that the risk of complaint and litigation appears to have much more to do with predisposing factors such as communication skills, sensitivity to patient needs and management of expectations. [2][3][4][5][6]
In modern medical practice, patients are seeking not only clinical competence but also communication competence. A patient will often use the quality of a doctor’s bedside manners as a proxy marker for the quality of care. Effective communication will build trust, increase patient satisfaction, and help ensure that patients receive the care that they both want and need. Patients want to know that doctors care. [7]
While doctors are continuously perfecting their clinical expertise in their specialty, perfecting their communication and empathy skills is essential to improve patient outcomes. With that in mind many of our risk prevention programmes focus heavily on communication skills - covering interactions with both patients and colleagues.
For more information, please visit https://www.medicalprotection.org/uk/hub/workshops-masterclasses
1. YouGov Survey: Communication a key trigger of GP complaints https://www.medicalprotection.org/uk/articles/yougov-survey-communicatio...
2. Cydulka R et al, Association of Patient Satisfaction with Complaints and Risk Management among Emergency Physicians, J Emerg Med, In Press, Corrected Proof (2011)
3. Reid R et al, Associations Between Physician Characteristics and Quality of Care, Arch Intern Med 170(16):1442–1449 (2010)
4. Beckman, HB, Markakis KM, Suchman, AL & Frankel, RM ‘The doctor-patient relationship and malpractice: Lessons from plaintiff epositions’. Arch Int Med154:1365-1370 (1994)
5. Stephen F et al, A Study of Medical Negligence Claiming in Scotland, Scottish Government (2012)
6. Studdert D et al, Claims, errors, and compensation payments in medical malpractice litigation, NEJM 354(19):2024–2033 (2006)
7. Stephen F et al, A Study of Medical Negligence Claiming in Scotland, Scottish Government (2012)
Competing interests: No competing interests