Skip to main content

Main menu

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

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

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

December Focus

David Jewell
British Journal of General Practice 2004; 54 (509): 889.
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

IT is increasingly hard to work out what passes for thinking in the Department of Health. Last month it announced the intention of opening walk-in centres (WICs) in mainline and underground train stations. Implicitly acknowledging that WICs are limited in what they can do when staffed by nurses alone, it also announced that doctors would be available at certain times, thereby ensuring that dealing with existing shortages of primary care doctors in our major cities will be accorded lower priority than staffing glitzy WICs. Whatever else is known, the current research is clear that WICs are not addressing the problem of social inequality and access. Encouraging people to squeeze in a consultation between getting off a train and reaching the office trivialises any notion of health. Besides, what is the Department thinking of when it plans a major investment to address the health needs of people who have already decided they are well enough to go to work?

On page 891 Iona Heath lambasts the Department over the plan to introduce ‘medical care practitioners’, accusing it of debasing both the language and its own historic role. She fears that this amounts to a tacit admission of its failure to provide proper medical care to the most needy, deprived communities. The existing failure is clearly set out in the paper on page 894, showing how the uneven distribution of doctors across England and Wales has not improved in the last few years. In contrast, the distribution of informal care that people provide freely to their families, friends, and neighbours is shown on page 899 to be strongly and positively associated with need. Julian Tudor Hart's leader on page 890 is a tirade against the idea that market solutions can be an answer to such problems, rather than the major cause. The same opinion is reflected in the review on page 967 of Allyson Pollock's book.

The lay public proved vital to the success of the study on page 914 working on a method to identify unmet needs in older people. In the discussion, the authors state that ‘unmet needs are fewer than expected …’, which should both relieve general practitioners of some guilt and encourage them to take on the task. Older people also may use the services more rationally than we sometimes think: the best predictor of consulting was a measure of physical ill-health (page 928). Then on page 932, we are reminded of the limitations of some of the labels we use to characterise patients' problems. Where knee problems are concerned, the symptoms may be much better predictors of disability than the apparently objective measures of disease severity — but then we have known for many years that using labels can be a tricky affair.

A careful longitudinal study of the records of patients in the Netherlands diagnosed with functional somatic symptoms showed how such patients tended to have higher rates of consultations with symptoms in different body systems for some time before the diagnosis was made. ‘The condition may … reflect a greater propensity to complain; however … patients with chronic functional somatic symptoms also have more reason to complain.’ Labelling also seems to be one of the problems underlying the difficulties of providing terminal care to patients who are dying of cardiorespiratory disease (page 909). Compared with patients dying of malignant disease they received less palliative medication, but were less likely to have a terminal phase of illness identified. The editorial on page 892 explores the reasons for this difficulty, but also suggests ways to improve the care we provide for such patients and their carers, starting with a more open attitude when discussing prognosis (see page 904).

The opening of this column revealed once again the regrettable preoccupation with matters in the United Kingdom (UK). However, we are not the only country in the world to illustrate such insular attitudes. On page 966 John Frey offers a useful guide to non-US citizens who are both perplexed and dismayed by last month's re-election of George Bush as president of the US, but offers few crumbs of comfort. Finally, although many doctors in the UK will welcome the demise of night work, a few, like Emyr Gravell (and myself), will regret its passing (page 976).

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

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 54 (509)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 54, Issue 509
December 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.
December 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
December Focus
David Jewell
British Journal of General Practice 2004; 54 (509): 889.

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
December Focus
David Jewell
British Journal of General Practice 2004; 54 (509): 889.
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

  • Looking Back, Looking Forward
  • December Focus
  • December Focus
Show more December Focus

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

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
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

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 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

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