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
Out of Hours

High blood pressure? You bet!

Saul Miller
British Journal of General Practice 2016; 66 (644): 155. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp16X684169
Saul Miller
Wooler, Northumberland.
Roles: GP
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading
Figure1

Apparently, some people have high blood pressure as they are being dressed in an indiscreet gown and wheeled through the operating theatre doors.

Reassuringly therefore, new national guidelines attempt to significantly reduce the nearly 1% of last-minute cancelled operations in the NHS amounting to about 100 each day.1

The good idea is to set standards about the blood pressure information GPs send to surgeons. The implication is that a large measure of the problem is down to GPs referring patients with dodgy blood pressure. Are we simply ignorant of our patients’ vital signs under these circumstances or are we knowingly sending them on a fool’s errand? Whichever it is, this initiative is clearly meant to encourage us to be less neglectful.

Anyway, this is classic systems theory thinking where a problem is traced back to its source with a view to working on resolving it there. Preventing it from occurring downstream within the system makes intuitive sense. But there is a hitch in the NHS context.

All problems that patients experience can, more or less, be traced back to their primary care source. So, unless anyone tries following a different strategy in their systems thinking, it seems we are endlessly committed to the same basic outcome: GPs being required to up their game yet further.

Maybe the real issue is that the most obvious alternative approach is also obviously more difficult still than simply pressuring GPs a tad more. This solution would be to integrate the parts better so that the river metaphor ceases to apply. GPs’ and surgeons’ records being more accessible to each other might enable this. But that would require an integrated IT solution that has already had billions of pounds thrown at it with little effect.2 A shame then that this latest guideline, like most of its kin, does not come paired with any resource at all.

Never mind. Research suggests that ‘will fatigue’3 is better predicted by our prior expectations than any other variable, so perhaps GPs just need some resilience training to modify our mental expectations.3

Don’t get me wrong: the principle of following problems upstream and trying to resolve them or prevent them there, before they are capable of having a big effect, remains a good one.

Sure Start children’s centres are a case in point, a recent report on which concluding that they are a rare example of an approach that saves money and reduces inequality.4 The same document notes however that, now their financing is no longer ring-fenced, local authorities are eroding the service they provide or closing them altogether. Here too, as with the idea of requiring GPs to do more work with a view to solving a secondary care problem, systems theory is being applied to a problem but not consistently matched with the necessary resources for the solution to work.

It is refreshing to hear news such as that from Uganda where sterilised pieces of mosquito net have been found to work just as effectively as the massively more expensive medical mesh for hernia repairs.5 Sadly though, efficiencies in complex systems are rarely so simply made.

The truth is this: good ideas and funding to support them are as inconsistently related as ever they were.

If anyone cared about my blood pressure they’d do something about that.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2016

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Mayor S
    (2016) Only patients with BP below 160/100 should be referred for surgery to avoid cancellations, guidelines say. BMJ 352:i296.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Syal R
    (Sep 18, 2013) Guardian, Abandoned NHS IT system has cost £10bn so far. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/18/nhs-records-system-10bn (accessed 2 Feb 2016).
  3. 3.↵
    1. Mischel W
    (2014) The marshmallow test: understanding self-control and how to master it (Bantam Press, London) Chapter 17.
  4. 4.↵
    1. Torjesen I
    (2016) Austerity cuts are eroding benefits of Sure Start children’s centres. BMJ 352:i335.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Mayor S
    (2016) Low cost mesh for hernia repair is as good as commercial mesh, trial finds. BMJ 352:i168.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 66 (644)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 66, Issue 644
March 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Download PowerPoint
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.
High blood pressure? You bet!
(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
High blood pressure? You bet!
Saul Miller
British Journal of General Practice 2016; 66 (644): 155. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp16X684169

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
High blood pressure? You bet!
Saul Miller
British Journal of General Practice 2016; 66 (644): 155. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp16X684169
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
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

Out of Hours

  • Yonder: Physician assistants, timewasting, nursing homes, and social media
  • The chronotherapy of hypertension: or the benefit of taking blood pressure tablets at bedtime
  • Every home should have one: the critical role of the research librarian
Show more Out of Hours

Saul Miller

  • Fakery and science
  • Prospects
Show more Saul Miller

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