Skip to main content

Doctors under stress

A recent survey conducted by Pulse magazine found that four in 10 GPs have taken or expect to take time off from work as a result of increased workloads. 12 per cent had taken time off in the past 12 months, with 29 per cent reporting that they thought they would probably need time off in the next 12 months. 

Today the General Medical Council publishes a report on Doctors who commit suicide while under GMC fitness to practice investigations. 

Responding to today’s [Friday] report from the General Medical Council (GMC), BMA council chair, Dr Mark Porter, said:

“Doctors’ first priority is their patients' care, but we must not forget that they can face the same physical and mental health issues as everyone else, and it is vital that vulnerable doctors undergoing fitness for practice investigations are fully supported."

Previous GMC research revealed doctors’ views of the investigation process and it is clear that more needs to be done to understand the wider implications on doctors’ mental health, and the care they feel able to deliver.

Many doctors are already facing high levels of stress, with one survey of GPs showing that four in 10 are facing burnout, and a recent BMA survey highlighted how morale is plummeting at a time when workloads are becoming increasingly unmanageable. None of this is good news for patients or the NHS in general. The BMA has warned of the NHS at breaking point. 

As Dr Mark Porter says

“It is in the interests of both doctors and patients that, where appropriate, concerns can be raised and that these are thoroughly investigated. But this process must be fair and offer adequate protection to ensure the system itself does not cause harm.

“The BMA provides counselling and support services for all doctors but believes more must be done to help vulnerable doctors who find themselves going through what can be a prolonged and arduous process.

“We are pleased that the GMC has acknowledged this and is putting in place measures to provide the right support.”

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

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha