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

We can all learn from resilient GPs

  • Print
  • Comments (4)
  • Rate
  • Save

Have you ever felt like a patient was asking you to prescribe them alternative housing or neighbours? I have.

Being asked to act as a social worker, and failing, left both me and my patient disappointed.

Feeling like you have let patients down is a major stress factors for GPs, and as covered recently, contributes to the huge wave of burnout that has inundated our profession.

Under the burnout ‘epidemic’, a new buzzword has emerged (thanks in part to the new grassroots GP group named after it).

‘Resilience’ could be defined as attitudes, behaviours and knowledge that help to prevent burnout and has three main aspects: promoting resilience in NHS systems, enabling doctors develop it themselves, and changing the way patients affect it.

Systems that seem opposed to promote resilience include tick-box exercises related to so-called patient care. Practices can try to ensure that their own systems, such as number of surgeries, sessions and administrative workload are tailored to their doctors.

Doctors have long been encouraged to develop their own resilience, through formal and informal mentorship and support or study groups.

But there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

Increasing resilience by changing patient behaviour is perhaps a new concept. But politicians, who don’t want to upset voters, will resist it - and so will doctors, for whom it is hardest to say ‘no’ to patients. After all, an ideal doctor is defined by virtue ethics as being kind, caring and non-judgemental.

Resilience, according to medical ethics, is a fair and just principles, as it ensures that GPs have a uniform way of dealing with unreasonable demands so that everyone is treated equally. And pandering to patient requests may not be any more healthy for them than it is for us. Patients are not customers and they are not always right. Sometime we have to practice non-maleficence (or, to use the layman’s terminology: protect patients from themselves).

Encouraging patients to develop their own resilience and coping mechanisms for conditions (which are, sometimes more social rather than medical) will eventually help and heal them.

If patients are encouraged to stop coming to the GP for unnecessary and unjustified demands, there would more opportunity to see patients with real medical needs - a greater benefit to the greater number (and a perfect example of utilitarianism).

Patient autonomy has probably been abused and overused as a concept, as many in power have encouraged patients to demand whatever they want. It tends to take precedence over other principles.

And now it is time to redress the balance. Ultimately, controlling unnecessary patient demand is not only justified, but essential to the resilience of general practice in the UK.

Dr Samir Dawlatly is a former secretary of the RCGP’s adolescent health group and a GP in Birmingham.

 

Rate this blog  (4.2 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 (4)

  • How it really works Samir and surely you must know by now,is that it is the Housing Officer who will ask the person, who is living in the sort of housing in which you wouldn't house a rat, to ask the GP for a letter which then adds points to their application for even halfway decent housing. Where of cocurse they will be degraded even more with articles about slobs, yobs, loungers, scroungers, GP heart sinks, the heart seems too often missing unfortunately, . Humiliating enough without piling on even more.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • British medicine is already too doctor-centred as compared to other countries, where patients can choose their own doctors and have a choice of treatments treatments. Now Samir advocates not just more of the same but a return to greater paternalism, condescension and doctor-centredness.

    Just what is it that makes Samir think that he knows best for all patients? And why does Samir think that he is the person to decide what is "unreasonable"?

    Consultations to suit the doctors' needs, clinics to suit the doctors' needs - just where does this egotism end? Is Samir unaware that he is paid to provide a service to others, not to attend to his own needs? Why doesn't he consider taking a pay cut and recruiting more staff if his service isn't meeting patient needs?

    How about more education around the SDH so that doctors gain some understanding of how housing and other social issues affect their patients' health? How about recruiting doctors from a wider social pool so that some of them might have some understanding of how patients actually live (ie. without privilege)? Why not train and recruit more doctors at lower levels of pay to better provide services (as they do in other countries)?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous: I look forward to delivering all your wishes for your £2.50 a week funding from the government.

    Pay the real world cost of healthcare first, then make demands.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The problem is with doctors who adopt a gushingly kind facade (perhaps because of their need for approval and to be liked) and then use this power to abuse patients autonomy. There is a current school of thought in education that some teachers may not have finished 'growing up' themselves. My observation is that this can apply to GPs too.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

  • Print
  • Comments (4)
  • Rate
  • Save