Terence Blacker: Why are doctors so oddly thin-skinned?
Friday, 25 July 2008
There will be more grumpiness than usual this week in doctors' surgeries across the country. GPs, already wearied by the demands of anxious, needy members of the public, have another reason for discontent. They are not, as a profession, trusted quite as much as they feel they should be. Under a new scheme, they are to be appraised, of all humiliating things, once a year. Worse still, there will be tests once every five years designed to "revalidate" them. "I feel very upset," Dr Satyajit Dasgupta told the BBC. To be asked, after 32 years' in general practice, to take an examination to prove his worth was "insulting".
Some might think that, if airline pilots are tested as a matter of routine, a profession which handles the health of a million people a day might accept occasional scrutiny but, as I discovered last year, the medical profession are extremely sensitive about such matters.
After it had been revealed that the average GP's annual salary was now around £115,000, and that some make up to £250,000, I wrote a column in which I recounted my experience with a friend, later found to have a brain tumour, whose initial treatment at the hands of two doctors had revealed a shocking degree of idleness and incompetence. It was time, I suggested, that there was some way of holding hopeless doctors to account.
The reaction to my article was startling. A few readers and one doctor expressed similar concerns about the system, but the vast majority of emails were from angry GPs. One told me that, since my friend was going to die anyway, the way local doctors behaved was irrelevant. Another said that I must have invented the whole thing. A third, apparently from a non-medical member of the public, was so weirdly abusive that I Googled the sender's rather distinctive name. He, too, was a GP. A couple of days later, on a website by NHS Blog Doctor, readers were told that what I had written was "outrageous ... one of the most unpleasant, nasty articles I have read about British doctors".
The extraordinary intemperance of these reactions confirmed, it seemed to me, a real temperamental problem within the medical establishment. Most GPs offer a good service, often under difficult circumstances, but a few, it appears, are affected by day after day seeing vulnerable, fearful members of the public, often having to make life-changing decisions. They go slightly bonkers and lose any sense of proportion. The most innocent of suggestions – that doctors should not be above criticism, for example – is seen as a foul, ungrateful slur on a noble profession.
This problem, caused by the extraordinary amount of real and psychological power wielded by doctors is that, for most people, personal health is such a fraught subject that they are simply afraid of complaining. In most communities, a GP has more direct power over the lives of individuals than any other authority figure.
Appraisals and revalidations will be useful, but in truth only doctors themselves can change their own attitudes. They have told us often enough that patients need to learn how to use the National Health System correctly. Equally important, it turns out, is a process of re-education, of learned humility, within the medical profession.
GPs occupy a respected and privileged position in society, and are justly well paid for what they do. But that does not mean that any criticism is outrageous or that a system of assessment is an insult. It is time for the doctors to be less easily affronted, more grown-up.
Here's one I nicked earlier
The news that the singer-songwriter Paul Simon is suing a clock company for stealing one of his songs will be greeted with hollow laughter in some quarters. Down the years, complaints of this kind have normally flowed the other way.
During the 1960s, Simon's version of "Scarborough Fair", based on a medieval tune, was copyrighted to him and Art Garfunkel, upsetting the singer who had taught him the tune, Martin Carthy. The melody for another song, "American Tune", was lifted, as he later confessed, from Bach's St Matthew Passion. There were mutterings from African musicians about songwriting credits after the album Graceland was a global hit. Music can be a collaborative business.
* It was somehow inevitable that the grim, grinding culture of tests, targets and league tables would eventually reach what is virtually the last group not to be affected by it – children under five. The children's minister, Beverley Hughes, has decreed that there is not nearly enough testing in the nursery. There will now be a statutory toddler's curriculum, known as the Early Years Foundation Stage, which will establish a range of "development milestones" for children before they reach primary school.
Among the milestones will be a requirement to write simple sentences with punctuation and to solve problems using basic mathematics. Doubtless, Ms Hughes sees this miserable, sinister scheme as a great step forward for the nation's children. The fact that many of them will, even before they go to school, have become habituated to failure, will be deemed irrelevant.
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited





Comments
25 Comments
i am a junior doctor and i get assessed all the time. i don't see why doctors who have completed their training should not continue to be assessed: by patients and colleagues--both junior and senior--and why the result of this assessment should not be requisite for revalidation.
Posted by r | 25.07.08, 23:01 GMT
I find UK GPs are quite unscientific compared with their overseas equivalents. Therefore it's hardly surprising that I can think of several cases where UK GPs have mis-diagnosed or failed to correctly diagnose ailments with friends & family. Some of these errors have been potentially serious.
Then we have dirty disgusting hospitals in the state sector & a complete lack of customer focus from many doctors.
The time has come to give people the choice of receiving healthcare tax rebates which will allow people to choose who provided their healthcare. Competition always improves customer service & quality.
Posted by jeff | 25.07.08, 22:54 GMT
while we're at it, if you don't like your GP JUST GO AND REGISTER SOMEWHERE ELSE. talk to people you trust about their doctors, figure out who has the sort of personality and behaviour you like then go to their surgery and fill in the registration forms. it's not really that difficult.
Posted by stray | 25.07.08, 22:30 GMT
SomeBlokeOrOther-i've not argued that doctors should not be assessed. what i want to make clear is that the assessment will not mean what people think it means.
nor am I against rigorous testing. i'm just not sure we have the tools to do it.
i think the outcome of the whole process will be a waste of time, effort, money and will not produce anything meaningful at the end of it
Posted by stray | 25.07.08, 22:20 GMT
Stray - your argument is one against any assessment for anyone. Fine. So let's not assess anyone, ever. That would be very cheap.
But doctors should not be a special case in a world where every professional is assessed (that's expensive too) - not to mention children and students (that's also expensive). True, nothing is 100% - but doctors should live with us all in the real world, and the truly awful should be sacked. This happens in other fields. Why do you think you're so special? Doctors should be treate just like any other professional worker - no special perks at all should be enjoyed by doctors. Why make so many excuses? Why not just accept that you have to accept you are no longer god-like figures and should never be again.
Posted by SomeBlokeOrOther | 25.07.08, 17:34 GMT
i'm a GP so you can judge for yourselves where i stand on this but I agree with "Posted by sheila | 25.07.08, 06:34 GMT" that appraisal will divert a huge amount of effort with potentially very little gain. the opportunity cost is huge. and if you want a truly rigorous assessment it's going to be bigger yet. and i'm scared that the public will believe any form of assessment guarantees competence whereas I don't agree. you can get to "beyond reasonable doubt" but that's about 99% certainty. [i clearly agree with popper's analysis of science that you can prove something false but cannot prove something true].
comparing us to airline pilots is farcical. do any of you remember the documentaries last year showing drunk pilots flying jumbos? testing under ideal conditions does not reflect practice under actual conditions and that's what you want to know, but i don't think anyone really has the tools to give an accurate answer to the question "who is competent?". develop, test then implement
Posted by stray | 25.07.08, 17:18 GMT
GPs seem to live in the past where they think they are above everyone and everything else and that they are all so noble. I've worked for 2 medical support charities and regularly hear members of the public tell me how useless their GP is, I've had the same experience.
The fact they think they should be completely left alone to do as they please is unbelieveable. They have the most important role, it needs to be ensured they do it properly.
Posted by iamyourface | 25.07.08, 17:00 GMT
Kimberley Lam - no i didn't fail to get into med school you twerp! I said I could have become a doctor if i had wanted to - I had straight A grades and speak 5 languages and have been a published writer since the age of 20 - but did not want to. Perhaps if I'd been more average and conventional and had a mummy and daddy pushing me to be 'doctor' a la goodness gracious me I would be yet another careerist doctor who's only doing it for the cash and the automatic respect. Like you eh?
As someone said, everyone else has to be assessed regularly; everyone else works longer tha their paid hours; everyone else has massive competition for jobs. Why should doctors just do a few exams, get into a gravy train and trundle off into the lucrative sunset for decades being rained on by public cash without ever being inspected or assessed? I think of doctors who have misdiagnosed me (stomach medicine for tomsilitis anyone?) and who were clearly useless/dangerous/alcoholic. 15% should be sacked now.
Posted by DrLove | 25.07.08, 16:50 GMT
Over a period of 25 years I was employed both in Australia and UK by the medical profession. I Australia I worked in the private sector for a prestigeous group of anaesthetists and in UK as PA to numerous consultants both in the NHS and in private practice. Unlike some of your previous correspondents, I have never come across any incompetence and found practioners in both counties to be equally competent. Of course doctors are human and as such are capable of human error and lay people should remember this when being free with criticism. It has to be applauded that GPs are now offer extended working hours to accommodate members of the workforce who are unable to attend during normal surgery hours. Considering the length of their training and the rigours of hospital hours I think the majority should be applauded for their work ethic. Come on you lot. Don't judge all by the few bad apples in the barrel.
Liz from Guildford
Posted by Liz Gibson | 25.07.08, 16:11 GMT
It seems a reasonable and responsible thing to do, to regularly check doctors. No one is above criticism and everyone can learn something new. I don't see what their objection is.
I've had family and friends who have been misdiagnosed and treated in an insensitive manner. One friend (now passed away) was told by her consultant that she had about another three months to live as her remission had come to an end. At the end of the consultation, as she left, he waved cheerily and said: see you in three to four months(!)
Good doctors (and there are many) have nothing to fear from having their competence checked. And as for the others, the sooner they are rooted out the better.
Posted by Andrea | 25.07.08, 15:03 GMT
25 Comments