How can I say no?
BMJ 2024; 386 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q1711 (Published 02 September 2024) Cite this as: BMJ 2024;386:q1711
All 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.
Dear Editor
The reason for medicine becoming a service industry is lack of time and potential extra workload and fear of complaint of declining requests from increasingly busy, stressed and over expectant patients. There just isn’t time to fully discuss request declines - medical certificates are the worst, along with medications of dependence - really hard to decline completely for many reasons; and antibiotics; patients often say they’ know their own body’ and’ know’ when they need antibiotics which is hard to argue against; turning scripts into back pocket script requests may be the best we can do sometimes unless patients are very health literate.
There just isn’t time to fully discuss the depth of knowledge and full explanations we have in these issues with patients who want it now or may complain, especially if you don’t know them, which is increasingly common. Also getting a complaint is so time consuming to deal with and stressful. Many colleagues will hold their noses and acquiesce.
I’m pretty intransigent re inappropriate requests but even I compromise and meet patients somewhere on the request scale in order to get home in time and see my dogs and preserve my mental health. Patients could be better educated on the reasons and issues above pertaining to declining requests to avoid conflict.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Editor
In the context of medical profession, the title “How can I say no?” [1], seems to devalue the fundamental importance of doctor-patient relationship. Nowadays, perhaps, doctors are least concerned about the Hippocratic Oath, “I will use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgement; I will abstain from harming or wronging any man by it” [2] when refusing to grant patients’ wishes. As succinctly put by Parachikov [3], an open question (‘why’?) could suggest an absence of dismissiveness and genuine desire to explore a patient’s wishes rather than an attempt to close down, albeit respectfully. ‘No’, should generally be the last resort and it should come with very clear alternative options including the entitlement to second opinions in line with now well known, ‘Martha’s rule’. There may be time-sensitive occasions (eg.mental capacity issues, end of life decisions) when doctors should not hesitate to direct patients to obtain urgent independent legal advice, although it can be a very uncomfortable experience for the doctor concerned. Needless to say, defensible documentation could save a lot of trouble in these situations.
As if ‘No’ is the only answer or outcome, Tiplady says, “You will have to say no at some point” [1]. Of course, following further consideration and wider consultation including second or even third, entirely independent opinion, “at some point”, the answer may not necessarily have to be ‘No’. We know, no one is always right. Tiplady adds, “You are not there to please, you are not your patient’s parent, rescuer, or friend” [1]; saying, “not your patient’s parent” or “friend” is a clear overstatement and arguably, it would have been sensible to avoid such words. A considerable part of the doctor-patient relationship involves advising and supporting patients with pure advocacy at times; hence, would it be unreasonable for patients to expect that doctors would attempt to “please” them during therapeutic relationships with their trusted doctors? As for the view, not your patient’s “rescuer” [1], if one takes it literally, it would be unnecessary to expand on the wide range of situations when doctors act as rescuers of patients from birth to death; so similarly, why not first attempt to ‘rescue’ patients who make requests which doctors perceive unjust or unreasonable?
When doctors are increasingly embroiled in gatekeeping roles (sometimes with financial interests, thereto), there is an additional risk, their judgement could be clouded by conflicts of interests and subconscious ego-driven desires. This is another factor which doctors in such roles should consciously be aware of when not giving in to patients’ wishes and requests. Despite the overstretched NHS resources, except in grossly unjust and unreasonable circumstances, let’s hope, conscientious doctors would keep ‘No’ as the last answer, only when all other reasonable options are properly considered collaboratively. Such an approach could potentially minimise the NHS’ spiralling litigation costs too, due to doctor-patient conflicts which are likely to continue.
References
[1] https://www.bmj.com/content/386/bmj.q1711
[2] Ip S. Medical doctors have to sign up to a ‘Hippocratic Oath.’ Should scientists do something similar? Long essay. UCL.
[3] https://www.bmj.com/content/386/bmj.q1711/rapid-responses
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Editor
Rimmer suggests methods to tackle the many difficulties doctors face in wanting to fully satisfy their patients’ needs and desires(1). However, what if sometimes the answer is not to say ‘no’ but instead ‘why’?. Throughout our medical education, it has always been ingrained in us in the medical profession to explore patients’ ideas, concerns and expectations.
Perhaps a patient’s request for a treatment or test could be looked at as a concern for the unknown? Fear of the unknown has been shown to lead to conflict and irrational behaviour (2).
Perhaps our education focused on evidence-based fact can make us professionals ignorant to the complexity, and simultaneously the importance, of medicine to our average patient. It can be easy and understandable to view the perspective of an experienced doctor as that of higher intellectual value. We must not forget, however, that both parties provide invaluable perspectives towards treatments. Furthermore, no other being is more knowledgable of their own wants and desires as the patient themselves. Providing optimal care and well-being is not possible without considering the goals of the individual.
Therefore, patients must be treated as equals in the doctor-patient relationship. Disagreement amongst equals is of constant debate in epistemology, a philosophical branch which aims to deconstruct the origins of disagreement(3). A medical professional remains an eternal scholar, learning not only from research and new technological advancements, but from the patients themselves. Perhaps an obese patient requesting the trendy new weight-loss drug is in reality not ‘lazy’, but unable to afford healthy food and is working too many hours to exercise effectively. Listening to this hypothetical patient, viewing their treatment as a journey rather than a service provided by an expert following a clinical guideline, may significantly alter clinical decisions and ultimately lead to more favourable outcomes.
With this in mind, one may would argue the best way of saying ‘no’ is simply through compassion and understanding.Through treating patients as part of our multidisciplinary team, as equals, showing empathy for their fears and guiding them on their path to treatment, optimal patient care should not involve a yes and a no. It should involve a collective decision, optimised both through medical expertise and patient priorities. Both medical professionals and patients want the overall most positive outcome for the patient and both perspectives are equally invaluable in reaching optimal patient treatment.
References
Rimmer A. How can I say no? BMJ. 2024 Sep 2;386:q1711. doi: 10.1136/bmj.q1711. PMID: 39222975.
Carleton RN. Fear of the unknown: One fear to rule them all? J Anxiety Disord. 2016 Jun;41:5-21. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2016.03.011. Epub 2016 Mar 29. PMID: 27067453.
Alexander, J., Betz, D., Gonnerman, C. et al. Framing how we think about disagreement.Philos Stud 175, 2539–2566 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-017-0971-9
Competing interests: No competing interests
Creating workplace boundaries: a strategy to reduce burnout
Dear Editor
I agree with Rimmer that creating workplace boundaries can be extremely challenging [1]. Not only do most of us go into the profession as we want to help others, but also throughout training we are often rewarded when we overextend ourselves [2]. This can make it incredibly difficult to ‘say no’ without feeling guilty or feeling that you are letting patients and colleagues down. The pressure to say ‘yes’ to additional tasks can be overwhelming, particularly due to a chronically under resourced NHS meaning constant staff shortages, increased waiting times, and higher clinical acuity.
In 2022, the GMC reported 70% of doctors worked beyond their rostered hours on a weekly basis and a quarter of doctors surveyed were categorised as being at ‘high risk of burnout’ [3]. While systematic changes to the NHS are necessary to address these issues, such changes will require significant time and resources. Therefore, it is crucial that we implement quicker, individual strategies.
When managing burnout there is often an emphasis on self-care activities, including sports, mindfulness and other hobbies [4]. While these strategies can be beneficial, they may not address the root causes of burnout. I believe there needs to be more of a focus on teaching clinicians how to create and maintain boundaries with their workload. A recent study has developed a ‘framework’ aimed at improving clinician competence in setting and maintaining these boundaries. This framework includes practical tools and strategies that can be integrated into daily practice, helping clinicians to manage their time more effectively and reduce the risk of burnout [2]. Formal training on creating healthy workplace boundaries could be a valuable tool in reducing burnout, as it empowers clinicians to prioritise their well-being.
By equipping clinicians with the skills they need to ‘say no,’ we could ultimately create a healthier workforce.
References
1. Rimmer A. How can I say no? BMJ 2024; 386:q1711 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q1711
2. Herbst R, Sump C, Riddle S. Staying in bounds: A framework for setting workplace boundaries to promote physician wellness. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2023; Apr 10 doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.13102
3. General Medical Council. The state of medical education and practice in the UK Workplace experiences 2023. https://www.gmc-uk.org/-/media/documents/somep-workplace-experiences-202...
4. Edwards K, Goussios A. Who is responsible for compassion satisfaction? Shifting ethical responsibility for compassion fatigue from the individual to the ecological. Ethics Soc Welf. 2021; 15(3): 246-262 doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/17496535.2021.1888141
Competing interests: No competing interests