Literature DB >> 10848365

Duties of a doctor: UK doctors and good medical practice.

I C McManus1, D Gordon, B C Winder.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the responses of UK doctors to the General Medical Council's (GMC) Good Medical Practice and the Duties of a Doctor, and to the GMC's performance procedures for which they provide the professional underpinning.
DESIGN: Questionnaire study of a representative sample of UK doctors.
SUBJECTS: 794 UK doctors, stratified by year of qualification, sex, place of qualification (UK v non-UK), and type of practice (hospital v general practice) of whom 591/759 (78%) replied to the questionnaire (35 undelivered). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A specially written questionnaire asking about awareness of Good Medical Practice, agreement with Duties of a Doctor, amount heard about the performance procedures, changes in own practice, awareness of cases perhaps requiring performance procedures, and attitudes to the performance procedures. Background measures of stress (General Health Questionnaire, GHQ-12), burnout, responses to uncertainty, and social desirability.
RESULTS: Most doctors were aware of Good Medical Practice, had heard the performance procedures being discussed or had received information about them, and agreed with the stated duties of a doctor, although some items to do with doctor-patient communication and attitudes were more controversial. Nearly half of the doctors had made or were contemplating some change in their practice because of the performance procedures; a third of doctors had come across a case in the previous two years in their own professional practice that they thought might merit the performance procedures. Attitudes towards the performance procedures were variable. On the positive side, 60% or more of doctors saw them as reassuring the general public, making it necessary for doctors to report deficient performance in their colleagues, did not think they would impair morale, were not principally window dressing, and were not only appropriate for problems of technical competence. On the negative side, 60% or more of doctors thought the performance procedures were not well understood by most doctors, were a reason for more defensive practice, and could not be used for problems of attitude. Few differences were found among older and younger doctors, hospital doctors, or general practitioners, or UK and non-UK graduates, although some differences were present.
CONCLUSIONS: Most doctors working in the UK are aware of Good Medical Practice and the performance procedures, and are in broad sympathy with Duties of a Doctor. Many attitudes expressed by doctors are not positive, however, and provide areas where the GMC in particular may wish to encourage further discussion and awareness. The present results provide a good baseline for assessing changes as the performance procedures become active and cases come before the GMC over the next few years.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10848365      PMCID: PMC1743494     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Health Care        ISSN: 0963-8172


  9 in total

1.  Doctors, the General Medical Council, and Bristol.

Authors:  R Horton
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1998-05-23       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  Physicians' reactions to uncertainty in patient care. A new measure and new insights.

Authors:  M S Gerrity; R F DeVellis; J A Earp
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1990-08       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 3.  Maintaining standards in British and Canadian medicine: the developing role of the regulatory body.

Authors:  L Southgate; D Dauphinee
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-02-28

Review 4.  The performance of doctors. I: Professionalism and self regulation in a changing world.

Authors:  D Irvine
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1997-05-24

Review 5.  The performance of doctors. II: Maintaining good practice, protecting patients from poor performance.

Authors:  D Irvine
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1997-05-31

6.  Mental health of hospital consultants: the effects of stress and satisfaction at work.

Authors:  A J Ramirez; J Graham; M A Richards; A Cull; W M Gregory
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1996-03-16       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  The validity of two versions of the GHQ in the WHO study of mental illness in general health care.

Authors:  D P Goldberg; R Gater; N Sartorius; T B Ustun; M Piccinelli; O Gureje; C Rutter
Journal:  Psychol Med       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 7.723

8.  Measuring social desirability among senior medical students.

Authors:  J M Merrill; L F Laux; R J Lorimor; J I Thornby; C Vallbona
Journal:  Psychol Rep       Date:  1995-12

9.  Burnout and psychiatric disorder among cancer clinicians.

Authors:  A J Ramirez; J Graham; M A Richards; A Cull; W M Gregory; M S Leaning; D C Snashall; A R Timothy
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 7.640

  9 in total
  6 in total

1.  Attitudes to peer review as a competence assurance structure--results of a survey of Irish physicians.

Authors:  A C Moss; T Dugal; B Silke
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2005 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 1.568

2.  An Empirical National Assessment of the Learning Environment and Factors Associated With Program Culture.

Authors:  Ryan J Ellis; D Brock Hewitt; Yue-Yung Hu; Julie K Johnson; Ryan P Merkow; Anthony D Yang; John R Potts; David B Hoyt; Jo Buyske; Karl Y Bilimoria
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 12.969

3.  A cross-sectional audit of the risk of burnout among senior medical staff in a UK district general hospital.

Authors:  Anna Baverstock; James Coulston; Mark Dayer
Journal:  Clin Med (Lond)       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 2.659

4.  Vocation and avocation: leisure activities correlate with professional engagement, but not burnout, in a cross-sectional survey of UK doctors.

Authors:  I C McManus; Hallgeir Jonvik; Peter Richards; Elisabeth Paice
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2011-08-30       Impact factor: 8.775

5.  Evaluating the Association of Multiple Burnout Definitions and Thresholds With Prevalence and Outcomes.

Authors:  D Brock Hewitt; Ryan J Ellis; Yue-Yung Hu; Elaine O Cheung; Judith T Moskowitz; Gaurava Agarwal; Karl Y Bilimoria
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2020-11-01       Impact factor: 14.766

Review 6.  Are reports of psychological stress higher in occupational studies? A systematic review across occupational and population based studies.

Authors:  Laura Goodwin; Ilan Ben-Zion; Nicola T Fear; Matthew Hotopf; Stephen A Stansfeld; Simon Wessely
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-11-04       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.