Skip to main content

Patient safety put at risk by long hours for Junior Doctors

Many junior doctors are still working excessive hours, due to increasing pressures and staff shortages, and are worried this is putting patient safety at risk, a IPSOS Mori report for the BMA has shown.

Ahead of potential negotiations with NHS Employers on a new contract for doctors and dentists in training, the BMA analysed feedback from over 1,600 junior doctors and final years medical students on the employment and training issues most important to them.

Despite the European Working Time Directive bringing in an average 48-hour working week, the reality is that some junior doctors are working up to 100 hours a week to meet demand, with many worrying for their own and their patients’ safety as tiredness impacts on their ability to work and make decisions safely. 

This comes amidst increasing concerns about patient safety in the NHS. Comments by the doctors in training reveal the problem:

“My average working week may have complied [with the ETWD] but on occasion, especially on nights, I would have worked over 100 hours in one week which was not safe by the end.” (Junior Doctor, Scotland)

“Current hours are bad enough, especially since we have to stay late unpaid most days to finish ward work due to poor staffing. We need the same hours but more staff, not less staff more hours. (Junior Doctor, Wales)

Serious levels of understaffing are also resulting in junior doctors working unrecorded and unpaid extra hours in order to meet patient demand and to ensure extra work is not dumped onto colleagues.

“The fact is we feel obligated to stay to finish our jobs so that patient care doesn’t suffer and we also don’t want to ‘dump’ jobs onto our colleagues working the evening and night shifts.” (Junior Doctor, England)

A large number of junior doctors have also expressed concern at the impact of long hours or long stretches of consecutive shifts on their home lives, with the unpredictability of training rotations, lack of flexible leave and insufficient time to recuperate following unsociable hours all affecting morale.

“I should not have to work 12 day stretches, or 12 hour shifts; it’s not safe and means no quality of life outside work.” (Junior Doctor, England)

Commenting on the feedback, Dr Ben Molyneux, Chair of the BMA’s Junior Doctors Committee said:

“It is of great concern that junior doctors are being forced to work excessive hours and are often under intolerable pressure in order to ensure patient safety. There have been radical changes to the way we work since the current junior doctors contract was introduced 13 years ago. The feedback highlights that despite working time regulations, juniors are still working long shifts night after night as well as extra, unrecorded hours.

“We also need to address quality-of-life issues, such as getting decent notice of where and when we will be working and the use of fixed leave. Two weeks before the annual August changeover of jobs, thousands of junior doctors still don’t know basic details such as what they will be working or how much they will be paid. Some don’t even know where they will be working in a fortnight.

“The Keogh Review highlighted that despite the lack of support and value placed on junior doctors, they remain the best champions for their patients and this must not be lost to the growing sense of frustration they feel.

“We will now work towards negotiating with NHS Employers for terms and conditions that address junior doctors’ concerns and recognise the vital role they play in the NHS.”

It seems absurd that we can put tachographs into lorries to ensure drivers don't drive beyond legal specifications, and yet we can't regulate the hours worked by junior doctors. Staff shortages and lack of funding are taking their toll on patient safety. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba...

Ethical considerations of a National DNA database.

Plans for a national DNA database   will be revealed by the Prime Minister this week. This is the same proposal the Tories and Liberal Democrats opposed when presented by the Blair government because they argued it posed  a threat to civil liberties. This time it is expected to offer an 'opt-out' clause for those who do not wish their data to be stored; exactly how this would operate isn't yet clear. But does it matter and does it really pose a threat to civil liberties? When it comes to biology and ethics we tend to have a distorted view of DNA and genetics. This is for two reasons. The first is that it is thought that our genome somehow represents the individual as a code that then gets translated. This is biologically speaking wrong. DNA is a template and part of the machinery for making proteins. It isn't a code in anything like the sense of being a 'blueprint' or 'book of life'.  Although these metaphors are used often they are just that, metapho...

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to...