Skip to main content

New English Language Tests for Doctors

Responding to the publication of the General Medical Council’s consultation on introducing English language tests for doctors working in the UK from the European Economic Area, Dr Vivienne Nathanson, BMA Director of Professional Activities, has said:

"The BMA supports the introduction of English language checks for European doctors and new plans from the General Medical Council to set the bar higher for all overseas doctors having to take the tests.

"It is vital for patient safety that all doctors, whether from the European Economic Area or otherwise, have an acceptable command of English to communicate effectively to ensure the safety of their patients.

"Since 2002 the BMA has called for language skills to be made a pre-requisite for any doctors wanting to practice in another EU member state, and while we support freedom of movement it is important that patient safety is paramount at all times."

We all expect our GPs to have good enough English to communicate and understand what we say. A crucial part of a consultation is taking a history, but a history isn't simply a list of symptoms or episodes in a life. It is understanding the patient's narrative. The way people express their emotions or feelings will often be couched in nuances and cliché. Understanding is more than language.

Of course another way of saying this is that language is more than simply words. It is cultural.

Under current legislation, the GMC can assess overseas doctors applying to work in the UK, but not those from other countries within the European Union.

The changes will require doctors from other European countries to provide evidence of their English skills or undergo a language assessment, if the GMC has concerns about his or her ability to communicate effectively with their patients.

This has to be a good move. As Niall Dickson, GMC chief executive says 'these new measures to ensure doctors from other European countries can communicate in English, combined with the higher test score requirements, will help us strengthen protection for patients."






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

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods.  Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects?  A new report now provides some of the answers. New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism. Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases cau