Patient's response to the research
BMJ 2003; 326 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7402.1319 (Published 12 June 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;326:1319All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Patients always goes to see a doctor because they are not well.
Patients approaches a doctor because there is something wrong with
them and they obviously need help. If the patient has money they can pay
for their medical need instantly without any obstacles, whereas, the NHS
patient who is being seen in primary care by a GP is not given enough
attention or time that they might require.
What makes a patient always right is that they are seeking help, and
the way that help is provided by the NHS nowadays is questionable.
Misbehaviour does not necessarily involve being abusive without
cause. The patient might be in extreme pain sychiatric problems, a drug
abuser or an alcoholic, it is the staff in the front-line who need to be
trained to deal with such things, bad behaviour in the extreme should not
be tolerated, but should be seen as a cry for help and the approach should
be psychological. This comes under staff training which is lacking
desperately all over the country. People working in sensitive areas such
as healthcare should be sensitive to others needs. It should be the
responsibility of the GP and the health authority to see that staff are
adequately trained and prepared to receive all kinds of patients.No matter
what the treatment
must not be denied or remove patient from hospitals or GP surgery one must
find the reason and solution/treatment
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
I understand and sympathise with Rafat Saeeds concern with regards
the difficulty he has had in finding a GP.
I do not however agree with his assertion that "the patient is always
right". A doctor-patient relationship is a two way thing, and just as a
patient has the right to be treat with courtesy and respect, so does a
doctor.
I am not a GP, but I work on an acute medical admissions unit. It is not
infrequent for me to be spoken to by patients and relatives with rudeness,
aggression and open hostility. I am expected to tolerate this behaviour,
as being part of my job.
I have no problem with assertive patients who want to be fully involved in
their care. I do have a problem with people who think that shouting,
swearing and demanding behaviour is an appropriate way to treat people who
ultimately are doing their best to help..
I would be very interested to see the "other half" of this study - the GPs
perspective of why these patients were removed. I wonder how many of these
blacklisted patients were "right".
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Family health services authorities no longer exist
Rafat Saeed suggests that it would be very easy for a doctor to
blacklist a patient through the Family Health Services Authority.
Actually, the doctor would find this very difficult to do as family health
services authorities disappeared in 1994 when they were merged with health
authorities. Local health authorities have now also been abolished and
primary care trusts are now the bodies that currently administer general
practitioners’ contracts.
Rafat Saeed also found it ‘appalling and shocking’ that there was no
local GP in his area. It has long been government policy to encourage
doctors to work in larger practices, as stated by the Prime Minister in
Parliament last year. One consequence of this policy is that patients will
have to travel further to visit their general practitioner. If Saeed is
appalled and shocked by this, then this is something that should be taken
up with his local primary care trust and MP, rather than blame being
heaped upon doctors.
Finally, I found it ironic that in an edition of the BMJ all about
patient empowerment, Saeed expected some one else to take the lead in
sorting out the problems he complains about, rather than expecting the
patients themselves to do this. Perhaps this goes to show that despite all
the talk of patient empowerment, most patients will ultimately always rely
on their doctors to resolve their problems for them?
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests