Monthly Archives: February 2017

BJGP Open: adapting primary care for migrants

Photo by shawn at Morguefile.com

The aim of this paper was to provide some insight into how primary care is managing to offer care to migrants. In particular they were interested in looking at the challenges and the ways in which practices and practitioners were adapting to meet this need.

The first phase was an online survey. During this they surveyed 70 primary care practitioners. They then used responses to select eight case studies for a further qualitative phase. They had a mix of mainstream GP practices as well as specialist services that offered tailored services to refugees, asylum seekers and other migrants. There was one group interview (with three GPs from the same city) and seven further in-depth interviews. The descriptive analysis was structured around the principles of equitable care that drew on the framework from Browne et al.

They found that practitioners tended to focus on working with community and external agencies and adapted their own processes in order to avoid care. This was particularly evident in areas such as screening, vaccination, and health checks. The biggest barrier was the lack of funding and this was cited in 73% of cases. The organisation and partnerships were regarded as particularly important to ensure there is an awareness of wider social determinants, the impacts of trauma and violence, and all this had to be wrapped up into culturally-competent care.

Opinion: There is a small section in this paper that caught my eye in relation to burnout. Just over one-third (34%) cited personal fatigue/burnout/capacity as a barrier to developing services. The additional workload ramped up the stress for some healthcare professionals and in one of the services they had introduced life coaching. In another they had adopted debriefings that are similar to those used in conflict areas.

“I think in terms of values, everyone sees the work that we do in serving vulnerable groups as a privilege.”

I’d put a positive spin on the burnout angle – it can be enormously re-invigorating to get involved with marginalised groups. As one ‘mainstream’ GP stated: “I think in terms of values, everyone sees the work that we do in serving vulnerable groups as a privilege.”

There are some fine examples in this paper on how primary care can be developed to give a more “equity-oriented service”. It showcases how, despite all the appalling strain on the system, there are still ways for primary care to innovate to reduce health inequalities. More than anything we should be driven by the principle that we need to reduce health inequalities to improve our societies. And sometimes we need to hunt these people down. Whether it is people with learning disabilities, or the mentally ill, or people who inject drugs, the homeless or as in this case migrants and refugees – these are the groups of people that need our attention.

ResearchBlogging.orgSuch, E., Walton, E., Delaney, B., Harris, J., & Salway, S. (2017). Adapting primary care for new migrants: a formative assessment BJGP Open DOI: 10.3399/bjgpopen17X100701

“Too big to talk about”: Organisational momentum and its paralytic wake

David Zigmond was a small practice GP in south London 1977-2016. You can
read Obituary for St James Church Surgery here.

Corporatism often enlarges and entrenches itself by increasing demands for compliance. Eventually though, unchecked, this will sicken any organisation. Such is now evidently ailing our NHS. A brief glimpse from a small conference provides a sample.

November 2016, London. A small conference of (mostly junior) doctors. The brief: to better survive the increasing stresses of their work. They are being mentored, guided, enabled and reassured by evidently concerned and sympathetic senior clinicians and cohort managers.

Supportive, ventilatory and distracting strategies are suggested: these may palliate, encourage and help endurance.

Discussion turns to appraisals: how tiring, gruelling, dispiriting and stressful they are.

Discussion turns to appraisals: how tiring, gruelling, dispiriting and stressful they are. An older patrician-clinician, Dr O, is able to reassure with statesmanlike knowledge and know-how. Yes, appraisals are an unpleasant, inordinate and major stress for many doctors, Dr O agrees. But he can personally help with this: he knows how the system operates, and who operates it: Dr X, for example. Dr X is very senior in the appraisal hierarchy and wants to be helpful to our many needlessly and haplessly struggling doctors. He can pass on many tricks, feints and shortcuts to neutralise the formidable administrative obstacles and find easier ways to demonstrate the compliance now essential for professional survival. Yes, Dr O continued, these are testing and perilous times but there are those – like Dr X – who will provide sanctuary, ‘a safe house’, help with ersatz documentation. The important thing is that we find ways to tender what we must: to survive.

As I listen to these exchanges I recall heroic stories from World War II: of resistance movements stealthily sheltering, then smuggling to safety, downed allied airmen; of Oscar Schindler duplicitly providing false documentation and work to protect those otherwise doomed. Dr X seemed, to me, like Schindler and Dr O his discrete emissary.

All these efforts, albeit unintentionally, perpetuate a bad and destructive system.

I admired all these caring and protective seniors and the responsibility they showed for the welfare and survival of their juniors. Yet I was doubtful of the larger benefit that would come from these sincere and substantial efforts: to help these tired and craven doctors to pass muster, comply to regulations they experience as draconian, and then survive-by-adaptation with the mandatory documentation. All these efforts, albeit unintentionally, perpetuate a bad and destructive system. Adaptation via obedience can easily turn to collusion.

I attempted, with respectful diplomacy, to say this. I summarised briefly: “I really like the comforting care, support and healing that’s being offered between you. But something much bigger is being ignored: the unsustainable, toxic and oppressive environment we all have to work in. These forces overwhelm and fatally undertow all our attempts to mitigate or repair…”

I had wanted to offer a brief profile of the component-agents of our pathogenic healthcare culture: how the 4Cs – commercialisation, commodification, corporatisation and computerisation – are driving out the human and vocational heart of our work; how our erstwhile (mostly) humanly gratified professional ‘families’ are displaced by managerially driven and depersonalised systems of ‘factories’; how our health services’ administrative devices all drive the larger system that is so ailing and alienating us. The entire Internal Market, Commissioning and Inspection cultures, in their many guises, all contribute: autarkic NHS Trusts, financially-based competitive commissioning; burgeoning performance-related targets with their necessary machinery for monitoring, data, negotiation and penalties; the resulting, ever-increasing need for compliance, surveillance, policing, documentation and (to mop up any surviving outliers) strictly regulated professional appraisal and validation …

But the chairperson arrested the beginning of this flow. She judged it well beyond the scope of this meeting: how may clinicians now best survive?

***

During a short break a veteran manager approaches me. “I know what you want to say. Almost everyone here would agree with you. But there’s nothing we can do about these things: they are far too big for us to influence them”, she says with fraternal commiseration. “In any case, this is not the right forum”, she adds with cautioning advice.

“Well, there never is a ‘right forum’ for discussion of these crucial things now. This recurrent exclusion is not accidental. It is the tip of a systemic iceberg: it tells us much about the size and nature of our problems. Paradoxically, our lack of open discussion indicates why we must talk candidly. And if not now, when?”, I replied.

The manager seems attentive to this but says nothing. She meets my gaze and offers me a brief smile. To me this seemed unjoyfully complex: contrition, appeasement, fear, alliance, apology, irony and respectful pity. I smiled back, wondering what she saw.

She turned to join Dr O. They re-entered the conference room.

—–0—–

Interested? Many articles exploring similar themes are available via David Zigmond’s home page on www.marco-learningsystems.com

 

Saving the NHS – the struggle to manage increasing anxiety

Peter Aird

Peter Aird

Peter is a GP in Bridgwater, Somerset.
Peter Aird

Photo by hotblack at Morguefile.com

On the eve of the 1997 election, the year I became a GP partner, Tony Blair declared that the nation had ’24 hours to save the NHS.’ Twenty years on, like those who advised the emperor who paraded about town in his nonexistent new clothes, some politicians pretend they cannot see that the NHS is in the altogether perilous state of near collapse. One wonders if they have completed a DNAR form for the NHS without the agreement of those who love it most.

One wonders if they have completed a DNAR form for the NHS without the agreement of those who love it most.

Be that as it may, what is certainly true is that the NHS cannot do all that it is being increasingly asked of with each successive year. This is for at least two reasons. Firstly, as science advances, more things become theoretically possible. But as Isaac Asimov once said ‘The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom’. This is still true – not all that can be done should be done. The second reason, I think, is more fundamental. We live in an increasingly anxiety ridden society. Henry Thoreau wrote: “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation, and go to the grave with the song still in them.”

Undoubtedly some of our patients are, indeed desperate. Lacking the fulfilment that they desire, but don’t quite know how to realise, they are desperately anxious not to miss out on whatever it is that would give them satisfaction. Idolising absolute health, anxiety rises as their desire for the elimination of every problem, big or small, real or imagined, cannot be met. The constant endeavouring to solve every problem is exhausting and counterproductive, for both those with the problem and those trying to do the solving. As Leonard Cohen sang: ‘There is a lullaby for suffering and a paradox to blame’. Facing our weaknesses and accepting our suffering can be, I believe, paradoxically, comforting.

However this is a difficult philosophy to convey and one that is harder still to convince people of. So anxiety persists, together with its lonely companion, its accomplished accomplice, depression. Anxiety in all its forms is now so pervasive that I think it easily represents the most common problem presented to me at work.

Put these all together and it seems that almost every consultation has an agenda, hidden or otherwise, driven by anxiety.

Firstly there are those patients who present with frank anxiety- by which I do not mean to suggest they have an irrational fear of Frank’s be that Sinatra, Zappa or D. Roosevelt. Rather I mean those patients that present with up front anxiety symptoms – panic attacks and the like. Then there are those patients who present with symptoms that they are anxious represent serious underlying disease. They are often hard to reassure, so twitched are they by the twitches that they experience. And then there are the patients whose symptoms generate anxiety in us – the doctors. We can be left concerned that we are missing something serious and fear what that might mean both for the patient and also for our own reputations – reputations that we cherish, perhaps, more highly than we ought. Put these all together and it seems that almost every consultation has an agenda, hidden or otherwise, driven by anxiety.

I wonder how much of this is tied up with the current postmodern notion of relative truth and its recent spawned offspring ‘alternative facts’. Many have remarked that 2016 was a particularly bad year and perhaps, with all the terrorist outrages, natural disasters and political upheaval the year brought, not to mention all those celebrity deaths, we do all have good reason to be uneasy. But also concerning, perhaps more so, is the fact that the Oxford English Dictionary made ‘post-truth’ its word of the year – a decision that reflects that public policy is being decided based on appeals to personal emotions rather than objective facts. Paul Weller and ‘The Jam’ sang, ‘The public gets what the public wants’ and it seems today the public is at least sometimes promised what it feels it wants, independently of what it needs, because it is politically expedient so to do. I am left wondering if all the anxiety we see, and feel, stems from the fact that, with the throwing out of the still clean, clear bathwater of objective truth, we have thrown out the baby of any sense of assurance.

If nothing is certain, how can our patients be anything but anxious about everything? How can they be reassured that their symptoms are not concerning when the opinion we hold can never be more than what we feel to be true? Our feeling, that their symptoms are not worrying, can never counter their feeling that they are, since their feelings are no less valid than ours. I was surprised once when my assurances, that a lesion on a patient’s scalp was a harmless seborrheic wart, were not accepted by the patient because her hairdresser had felt it was a skin cancer. But then, if truth is relative, an expert’s opinion (and I use the term lightly) has no more authority over that of a non specialist.

Another patient once challenged a consultant cardiologist’s opinion that her ECG was normal as she felt her symptoms were consistent with what she had read of Wolf-Parkinson-White syndrome. The objectively normal ECG, and the expert opinion of the consultant on that ECG, was contrary to the patients feelings. And so a second opinion was requested and, when this was declined, the patient chose to write directly to the consultant expressing her belief that her concerns were being ignored.

This notion extends to the anxieties we experience as doctors. If truth is relative, how can we have any confidence in what we feel to be true, and, if the patient feels differently to us, how can we say that we are right and they are wrong? I am aware, of course, that there are, inevitably, times when a diagnosis is in doubt, when the truth is uncertain, but it sometimes seems we are no longer confident that we know anything for sure. In a society suspicious of intellectualism, the learned are themselves suspicious of their learning. Too concerned that our patients be happy with our opinion, our clinical diagnoses have to be malleable, tempered to acknowledge the validity of the patients’ opinion regardless of how lacking in objectivity that opinion might be.

Is it only me who, knelt at a patients feet and examining their sylph like ankles, has reluctantly murmured; “They are a little swollen I suppose”?

Is it only me who, knelt at a patients feet and examining their sylph like ankles, has reluctantly murmured: “They are a little swollen I suppose”. Of course it is no wonder we sometimes behave like this since we have had it driven into us that we be ‘patient centred’ when all along we really should have been urged to be ‘truth centred’. But it’s arrogant to claim to be right about anything these days – facts prove nothing. In a consumer society, the customer is always right. Is it any wonder then that, as medicine was opened up to market forces, the result would be that the patient is always right too?

And if feelings are what are important, then what others feel about me are every bit as much an indicator of who I am as what I feel about myself. After all, a satisfactory satisfaction survey is sacrosanct – I’m OK, if you’re OK with me. But if everybody’s feelings are different, how can I be OK, since how can I be OK with everyone? How can I make everybody feel positively toward me when they all have different criteria for what it is that would cause them to feel in such a way?

Anxiety is, I think, largely, a fear of unhappiness in the future which leads inevitably to us being unhappy in the here and now. That’s why anxiety and depression are such common bedfellows. With, to a great extent, the loss of religious belief, and with it the hope of a better time and place to come, society no longer is prepared to accept that we must sometimes wait for happiness. In an age when everything is instant, waiting is not an option – we must be happy now. But in a materialistic, consumerist society, which daily advertises to us our discontentment by displaying what it insists we need, but do not have, to be happy, it is no surprise that we are anxious that life is passing us by, that we are missing out on being fulfilled today.

And so the National Health Service has become the National Health Slave.

And of course it’s not just material goods that our society consumes. We consume health – it is the ‘must have’ we assume and insist upon. No suffering, however small, ought to be tolerated. We must have health and we must have it now – not next month, nor next week, not even tomorrow. The doctor will see me now – be it Tuesday morning or Sunday afternoon. And so the National Health Service has become the National Health Slave even as the NHS itself, colluding with society that it can meet its greatest needs if it would just do as it was told, slavishly insists patients behave in ways current medical opinion deems appropriate. Don’t smoke, don’t drink, don’t fail to exercise, don’t eat just four of your five a day, and whatever you do, don’t forget your Vitamin D. Don’t, don’t, don’t, don’t, don’t – and you might just live forever.

And so it seems to me that what this all ultimately boils down to the existential question of death. It is the one thing certain about life but we, increasingly perhaps, try to pretend that this too is uncertain as we pursue, and push, eternal life through medicine, lifestyle adaptations and sentimental and fanciful notions of how those who undeniably have died, somehow live on. In a world where nothing is certain, the certainty of death is above all to be doubted.

But we need to face facts, and so must our patients. Despite how much money is pumped into the  NHS to fund all that medicine increasingly can do, despite how long GP surgeries are open or how short waiting times in A&E departments become, and despite how much we heed medical advice and adjust our lifestyles accordingly, we, and our patients, will all one day die. Regardless of what we may or may not believe about life after death, if we are to find any happiness in this life, we need to stop pretending otherwise. We must stop believing that our interventions could ever prevent the inevitable. Rather than doing more for longer, if we want a population that is healthy in the fullest sense of the word, we need to do less. Yes the NHS must be funded adequately but it must be funded adequately to do what a long hard look determines is objectively thought to be important rather than subjectively felt to be urgent.

We must stop pandering to those who are intolerant to even the slightest inconvenience or hardship.

We must stop pandering to those who are intolerant to even the slightest inconvenience or hardship and we must stop suggesting to our patients that life is all about attending to our cholesterol, BP and vitamin D levels so that future suffering is prevented. Why? Because a good life is not solely determined by the absence of suffering – now or in the future. Unrealistic attempts to deny the inevitability of death all too often serves only as an expensive and time consuming distraction that compels us to look down at the temporary and trivial and leaves us neglecting to look up at the significant and satisfying.

We and our patients need to learn to ignore the mundane and consider instead the transcendent. Only then will we, and they, instead of enduring an existence weighed down with anxiety and depression, enjoy a life buoyed by contentment and joy.