Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
July Focus

July Focus

David Jewell
British Journal of General Practice 2004; 54 (504): 489.
David Jewell
Roles: Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

‘What's a GP worth?’ asks Dougal Jefferies at the end of this month's BJGP (page 568). In passing, it's worth emphasising that, according to him, we can add New Zealand to the list of countries where the GPs don't appear to fare any better than they do here. Dougal could be a model for a Bateman cartoon: the GP who thought he was earning enough money, thank you very much. But the article also, and unwittingly, poses a riddle: if the pay and conditions are that good, why are we finding the vacant posts so difficult to fill?

The obvious answer is that it's not the pay but the work. As in the past, the research content this month reflects the range of primary care, how much we do already and how much more we might be asked to take on in the future. For ‘what we do already’ there are two surveys of the extent and disability associated with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), on pages 495 and 503. They are consistent, repeating that the condition is very common, causes a lot of misery, and is very often managed exclusively in primary care. The study from Scotland (page 503) also suggests that the patients being looked after exclusively in primary care have just as severe problems as those whose care is shared with hospital doctors. In the leader on page 490, Roger Jones holds out the promise of new drugs where the pharmacology is based on the latest neurophysiological research into IBS. Any readers who despair at learning the names of these strange sounding drugs should turn to Jeff Aronson on page 559, who shines a light on the naming of drugs, in this case monoclonal antibodies. With apologies to TS Eliot:

The naming of drugs is a difficult matter,

It isn't just one of your holiday games;

The problems around MMR vaccination rumble on. Two further papers on page 520 and page 526 confirm earlier findings that parents continue to struggle to weigh up the seriousness of the diseases, and the perceived benefits and risks of the vaccination. There is distrust of official science; parents draw on their own experience, and that of close friends. Doctors and health visitors are seen as trusted information sources, but their independence is felt to be compromised. We might wish that public information campaigns could solve the problem and relieve us of the task, but the editorial on page 493 explains why simple public messages are unlikely to succeed.

Once all of that is sorted out we can take on the new challenges. On page 531, primary care staff are asked whether they think they should take on the challenge of preventing type 2 diabetes by identifying and treating impaired glucose tolerance. On page 508 there is a similar study exploring the difficulties of taking on the chlamydia problem. They include knowing when to raise the problem and the skills of contact tracing. The need for such skills is emphasised by the survey of sex workers on page 515, who also saw their GPs as the main source of care. Of those who had consulted their own GPs, many had not disclosed the nature of their work. No surprises there, then, and they have no reason to feel they should make life easy for us. The needs of this vulnerable group are described on page 556, and in Leeds there is a project running to support and care for them. Sounds imaginative and inspired, but it won't, and isn't intended to, displace standard primary care. Jenny Wilson discusses the health and financial consequences of family breakdown on page 558. She is not advocating that we should be taking on responsibilities for dealing with all of this unhappiness, but she does point out how often it comes to meet us anyway.

It would help to be able to draw clear lines around our area of expertise and learn to say ‘no’ to all the ills that fall outside it. On page 557, Mike Fitzpatrick argues vehemently that we should not allow ourselves to be sucked into the agenda surrounding what he calls ‘the obesity propaganda’. I fear, however, that this is a doomed wish. Choosing to work in primary care amounts to an agreement to let others define the agenda.

  • © British Journal of General Practice, 2004.
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 54 (504)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 54, Issue 504
July 2004
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
July Focus
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
July Focus
David Jewell
British Journal of General Practice 2004; 54 (504): 489.

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
July Focus
David Jewell
British Journal of General Practice 2004; 54 (504): 489.
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Evidence and the Consultation
  • July Focus
  • July Focus
Show more July Focus

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2023 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242