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
Advertisement
  • 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
May Focus

May Focus

David Jewell
British Journal of General Practice 2009; 59 (562): 314. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp09X420536
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

There is some serious heart-searching in this month's BJGP. Managing general practice by the performance indicators in the QOF comes under attack in the piece by Jonathan Richards on page 376. Helen Lester, who remains overall in favour of the process, has some concerns over the long-term effect of the formula on the way that general practice will be seen by future generations of medical graduates (page 376). But it's difficult to predict what general practice will look like at all in the next generation. Edin Lakasing on page 380 is worried about the direction that employment patterns have taken, and the effect it will have on patient care: ‘… what gain is there in fretting over the quality of out-of-hours services, or advancing the cause of easy patient access to their health records when we cannot guarantee reasonable daytime continuity of care? The risk to general practice is that patients may indeed conclude that their care lies elsewhere, and the Darzi plan will succeed by default.’ It's all part of the process of the ‘… Industrialisation of Family Medicine’ reviewed on page 384, where Dougal Jeffries sets out the dilemma for al of us. One drawback is that the model of industrialisation we are presented with is itself rather out of date. A more adventurous model, where decision making is pushed from the centre to the periphery is outlined on page 361. Faced with this challenge one group of authors set out to define the essence of general practice, and describe the process on page 356. They conclude that ‘The consultation — and how and where it is provided — must be informed by research and evidence, guided by wisdom, and underpinned by values. The current tendency to reject the need for a broadly humanistic approach in favour of a narrow biomedical one needs to be chalenged by both the academic and the working GP community …’ Not new of course, as Iona Heath's accompanying editorial on page 316 points out, but important to restate in what she describes as ‘the hostile intellectual environment.’

The research this month is a mixed bag, but some points to ways in which we might be able to make progress by using evidence consistently with core values. For instance, the paper on page 322 comparing two different methods to assess guidelines, and using depression as the example, found significant limitations to their use for general practice, and that we should be working to make them more relevant. In the editorial on page 317, two of Europe's most consistent champions of guideline use present a balanced view, with evidence that overall guidelines have improved the quality of clinical decisions in general practice. However, they also agree that guidelines need to be more relevant to both practitioners and patients, and see better collaboration between the different stakeholders as the way to achieve this. Then there is a persuasive discussion paper on page 364, arguing for an approach towards older patients assessing frailty, which can take us ‘from organ- and disease-based medical approaches towards a health-based integrative one, and therefore, fits the biopsychosocial model of generalism very well.’ Without completely understanding how the concept works, it seemed to me that using the score in order to improve health would require us first to take the holistic view, but then to disentangle it to analyse which elements need to be addressed. If that's right, it really does become a model of good general practice, where we manage to be simultaneously both holistic practitioners and good biomechanics.

Good biomechanics will be keen to incorporate new technologies into their clinical practice. The two linked papers on page 329 and page 336 present the results of a trial giving GPs open access to hysterosalpingography. The intervention didn't have any effect on the primary outcome. The problem here was the familiar one of generalists being cautious at using ‘new’ tests, particularly for a clinical problem that is only encountered a few times each year. For the few patients whose GPs used open access there was reduced waiting time to treatment, and everyone who had used it valued open access enough to want it to remain in place. Bonnie Sibbald's leader on page 318 draws on a review of access to diagnostic services and is reassuring that (as we would al have predicted) GPs do not, on the whole, use such services inappropriately.

Finally, there is a surprise, and a pointer to the future in the paper on page 344 describing 5 years of data on poor performance. There were few instances of poor performance, but the authors report 26 instances of whistleblowing by GPs about their colleagues. Would that have happened a few years ago?

  • © British Journal of General Practice, 2009.
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 59 (562)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 59, Issue 562
May 2009
  • 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.
May 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
May Focus
David Jewell
British Journal of General Practice 2009; 59 (562): 314. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp09X420536

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
May Focus
David Jewell
British Journal of General Practice 2009; 59 (562): 314. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp09X420536
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

  • Questions for the GP Curriculum
  • May Focus
Show more May 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