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
January Focus

January Focus

David Jewell
British Journal of General Practice 2006; 56 (522): 2.
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

To start off the new year, we have a remarkable small cluster of papers dealing with palliative care. The history of research in this area has been marked by disappointment, with a number of studies running into problems of recruitment. Here there are three shedding some much needed light into that corner of primary care whose importance is emphasised by the editorial on page 3. If the existence of these papers is something of a surprise, the content will tend to confirm the gut feelings of many clinicians. On page 20, the study from the Netherlands identified four elements of good palliative care: availability; competence; continuity; and teamwork. As one of the participating doctors said: ‘For me, good terminal care is … good clinical care.’ The study on page 6 looks specifically at the need for good palliative care out-of-hours, and the dilemmas that patients and their carers have to deal with when availability and continuity can be elusive. The editorial underlines the importance of good care out-of-hours: failures can reduce the likelihood of patients dying at home. The practical business of good symptom control is under the microscope on page 27. When assessment of symptoms by patients and professionals was compared, there was more agreement for physical symptoms than mental ones, where the professionals rated the severity higher than the patients did. On a related theme, the debate over euthanasia has recently been reopened. At present it doesn't look very likely that the law in the UK will be changed, but the study on page 14 from Belgium (where it is already legal) illustrates the care that has to be taken over end-of-life decisions, and the sort of process that we should have to implement if it ever became legal here.

Ilora Finlay's editorial also raises another vital question. In a throwaway comment, she mentions rationing decisions. Rationing in the UK has become the elephant in the room, present but never discussed. The government never mentions it, while some commentators in the main opposition party bring it up to imply that it is a fault unique to the NHS. Those of us who have studied health care in other countries know that rationing exists in the medical systems of all western countries, and we long for the subject to be discussed openly and rationally. Anyone who doubts the universality of rationing need only turn to page 60, where the plight of poor Americans is graphically described — rationing by charging. Robust rationing decisions will require equally robust information on the economic merits of conflicting options, and the misuse of such data (in this instance to support the arguments for complementary medicine) is discussed on page 64. In the characteristic way they have of borrowing from other disciplines, medical researchers are beginning to use the technique of discrete choice experiments, mimicking the decisions we all have to make in real life, weighing up the costs and benefits of different options. The theory of the technique is discussed in the editorial on page 4, and an example, trying to assess which aspects of consultations are valued most by patients, is on page 35. The authors report that shared decision making rates lower than modern conventional wisdom would suggest, so we may have to think again about it, at least for a while.

The spirit of the festive season has infected the letters column this month (remember that the Focus column is written early each month, and this one belongs to the anticipation of early December rather than the gloom of early January). One letter from a prescription clerk, is a paean to her employer — perhaps a plea for a Christmas bonus? — and one is a rare, and wholly unsolicited, outburst of praise for the BJGP. Readers may think this is an unwarranted exhibition of self congratulation. Since any letter criticising the journal is almost guaranteed publication, we feel that the odd bit of flattery might be permitted.

  • © British Journal of General Practice, 2006.
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 56 (522)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 56, Issue 522
January 2006
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
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.
January 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
January Focus
David Jewell
British Journal of General Practice 2006; 56 (522): 2.

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
January Focus
David Jewell
British Journal of General Practice 2006; 56 (522): 2.
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

  • Population Medicine
  • January Focus
  • January Focus
Show more January 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