Cookie policy notice

By continuing to use this site you agree to our cookies policy below:
Since 26 May 2011, the law now states that cookies on websites can ony be used with your specific consent. Cookies allow us to ensure that you enjoy the best browsing experience.

This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Have we swapped Balint groups for Facebook rants?

  • Print
  • Comments (19)
  • Rate
  • Save

I knew my blog criticising zero tolerance wouldn’t be popular. But as Churchill said: ‘You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.’

For me there is a bigger issue at stake here than how we treat abusive patients, and that is the therapeutic relationship between doctor and patient - something I would stand up for again and again.

Too often I hear patients being denigrated, blamed, laughed at and generally moaned about. The more stress we are under, the more commonplace it seems to be. I don’t think it does our profession any credit. Patients are not the enemy, they are the reason why we get up in the morning and go to work.

However, there’s no doubting that patients can be difficult - some are even hateful. I use the word very deliberately, because there are times when we can actually come to hate certain patients - to resent them, dread seeing them, despise them even. When that happens, what should we do?

In 1978 James E Groves wrote an excellent article titled ‘Taking care of the hateful patient.¹ He doesn’t mince his words and talks in detail about the feelings of anger and frustration that certain patients will invoke in the doctor - and the usefulness of recognising, expressing and naming such feelings.

And I agree with him. What I am not arguing is that GPs should ignore these feelings and just try to be more cuddly so that difficult patients can walk all over us.

Groves talks about the ‘entitled demander’ (most of our abusive patients will come from this group). He notes the natural desire in the doctor to counterattack such patients, but also how such an approach can make the doctor more vulnerable since this sort of patient will hit back, and does have the power to really hurt us.

In fact, he says: ‘The most helpful therapeutic strategy with the entitled demander is to support the entitlement, but to rechannel it in the (right) direction.’

GPs have always had to deal with the negative emotions inherent to our role, and it’s not just abusive patients that can be challenging - there are issues of dependency, manipulation, self-rejection and more. We need to have a constructive way of dealing with these emotions, for our own sake, as well as for our patients.

The influential psychologist Carl Rogers described the therapeutic value of holding patients in ‘unconditional positive regard’, and if it were always easy for doctors to do then he would not have had to stress its importance.

It’s for the challenging patients that positive regard is so vital, so difficult, and yet so valuable both for the doctor and patient. As we listen to their story and try to understand, we find a way of dealing with our negative emotions, as well as helping the patient to develop more positive behaviours.

Rogers stresses the contrast with the potentially destructive ‘conditional positive regard’ - there are echoes here of the modern right wing concept of the deserving and undeserving poor.

In the past we had Balint groups to help us gain insight, find new approaches and generally keep ourselves going. Such groups could be demanding, and time-consuming, but then again complex problems can take time to solve.

But has the modern-day equivalent of a Balint group now become an online forum where we just moan about our patients? I sincerely hope not.

Let’s try to be more positive than that. To quote Rogers: ‘When I look at the world I’m pessimistic, but when I look at people I am optimistic.’

Dr Martin Brunet is a GP in Guildford. You can tweet him @DocMartin68.

Reference

1 Groves, J. E. Taking Care of the Hateful Patient. NEnglJMed 298, 883–887 (1978).

Rate this blog  (3.15 average user rating)

Click to rate

  • 1 star out of 5
  • 2 stars out of 5
  • 3 stars out of 5
  • 4 stars out of 5
  • 5 stars out of 5

0 out of 5 stars

Readers' comments (19)

  • Brilliant!
    What a fantastic trainer you must be- we need to rid ourselves of this awful negativism which is so harmful to all our working lives and which this magazine seems to be the respository for all our colleages who are stuck in an awful hole- hope some of them read this and respond positively..

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The stakes are much higher than they were in 1978. Doctors are now in a ridiculous situation of septuple jeopardy with potential to be attacked by the GMC, the Ombudsman, the LAT, , the QQC, heathwatch, the police, law-courts and various others.

    Somehow we have allowed ourselves to become victims of very large scale human rights abuse that is being covered up so that the medical regulation industry can turn a profit. It's now quite easy for a vindictive complaint to utterly destroy you and your family so yes, a small number of people are the enemy.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • He should photoshop his halo onto his profile !!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Denigrating GPs coping strategies as 'rants' grossly underestimates just how serious the situation has become. There is now so much money in the medico-legal system that a certain company has moved in with the bankers at Canary Wharf. If doctors cannot join forces on the internet how else are we supposed to fight back against an industry is growing a business model based on fear?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Excellent piece thanks.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Martin,
    Thank you for the timely reminder in these difficult times

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Kumbaya my lord, Kumbaya

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Great article Martin - it's about time someone stood up to the pervasive negative culture of patient-bashing so favoured on Pulse and the Facebook forums.

    I wonder if you would consider whether it would be preferable to label the behaviour rather than the person?

    Why not instead consider the patients to be displaying behaviour that you perceive to be "abusive" or that you perceive to be "hateful"?

    It may be that patients who behave in ways that you find challenging are actually feeling incredibly vulnerable, frightened and scared. Thus to label them as "hateful" and "abusive" people doesn't really grapple with the underlying issues and may serve to negatively impact on their future care.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Enabling Dr Brunet, really suggest you read up about it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @12:43

    "Why not instead consider the patients to be displaying behaviour that you perceive to be "hateful"?"

    I think that waters down the strength of Martin's message - which is to acknowledge that we can indeed find ourselves "hating" particular people; and when that happens we need to explore why it is happening and decide how to deal with it.

    If you've never hated a person, only a behaviour, then you're better - and rather less human - than me!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page

Have your say

  • Print
  • Comments (19)
  • Rate
  • Save