Heroes of Health Care?: Replacing the Medical Profession in the Policy Process in the UK

Author(s):  
Celia Davies
2020 ◽  
Vol 61 (4) ◽  
pp. 363-390
Author(s):  
Dallal Stevens

In recent years, the issue of access to health care by asylum seekers has raised serious questions for government, the courts and the medical profession. Who has the right to medical treatment in the United Kingdom is a political, humanitarian and human rights matter. For the government – often facing public hostility towards asylum seekers and migrants, fearful of health tourism or “pull factors” to the UK, and confronting burgeoning financial constraints – access to treatment is often regarded as a concession rather than a right. For the courts, any decision to grant treatment to non-nationals, particularly those with no right to remain, is seen as having political implications far beyond the needs of the individual. The medical profession, by contrast, prefers in the main to focus on the patient, without regard for immigration status, and is uncomfortable with a dual role. Where the balance should lie is currently being assessed by government as it considers responses to a consultation paper on Review of Access to the NHS by Foreign Nationals. At this timely point, this article offers a multidisciplinary approach to the question of access to health care by asylum seekers, by examining not only the legal position but also government policy, its impact on the individual, and, significantly, the ethical and philosophical arguments pro or contra treatment. It is contended that only through this comprehensive analysis can an appropriate legislative approach be adopted at a time when this critical social right is gaining ascendance.


2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1279.1-1279
Author(s):  
Z. Rutter-Locher ◽  
J. Galloway ◽  
H. Lempp

Background:Rheumatological diseases are common in Sub-Saharan Africa [1] but specialist healthcare is limited and there are less than 150 rheumatologists currently serving 1 billion people in Sub-Saharan Africa [2]. Rheumatologists practising in the UK NHS are likely to be exposed to migrant patients. There is therefore, an unmet need for health care providers to understand the differences in rheumatology healthcare provision between Sub-Saharan Africa and the UK and the barriers which migrants face in their transition of rheumatology care.Objectives:To gain an understanding of the experiences of patients with rheumatological conditions, about their past healthcare in Sub-Saharan Africa and their transition of care to the UK.Methods:A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews was conducted. Participants were recruited from two rheumatology outpatient clinics in London. Thematic analysis was applied to identify key themes.Results:Seven participants were recruited. Five had rheumatoid arthritis, one had ankylosing spondylitis and one had undifferentiated inflammatory arthritis. Participants described the significant impact their rheumatological conditions had on their physical and emotional wellbeing, including their social and financial implications. Compared to the UK, rheumatology healthcare in Sub-Saharan Africa was characterised by higher costs, limited access to specialists, lack of investigations and treatments, the use of traditional medicines and poor communication by clinicians. Barriers to transition of rheumatology care to the UK were: poor understanding of rheumatological conditions by the public and primary care providers, lack of understanding of NHS entitlements by migrants, fear of data sharing with immigration services and delayed referral to specialist care. Patient, doctor and public education were identified by participants as important ways to improve access to healthcare.Conclusion:This study has described, for the first time, patients’ perspectives of rheumatology health care in Sub-Saharan Africa and the transition of their care to the UK. These initial findings allow healthcare providers in the UK to tailor management for this migrant population and suggests that migrants need more information about their NHS entitlements and specific explanations on what non-clinical data will be shared with immigration services. To increase access to appropriate care, a concerted effort by clinicians and public health authorities is necessary to raise awareness and provide better education to patients and migrant populations about rheumatological conditions.References:[1]G. Mody, “Rheumatology in Africa-challenges and opportunities,” Arthritis Res. Ther., vol. 19, no. 1, p. 49, 2017.[2]M. A. M. Elagib et al., “Sudan and Sweden Active Rheumatoid Arthritis in Central Africa: A Comparative Study Between,” J. Rheumatol. J. Rheumatol. January, vol. 43, no. 10, pp. 1777–1786, 2016.Acknowledgments:We are grateful to the patients involved in this study for their time and involvement.Disclosure of Interests:None declared


Author(s):  
Kathy McKay ◽  
Sarah Wayland ◽  
David Ferguson ◽  
Jane Petty ◽  
Eilis Kennedy

In the UK, tweets around COVID-19 and health care have primarily focused on the NHS. Recent research has identified that the psychological well-being of NHS staff has been adversely impacted as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to investigate narratives relating to the NHS and COVID-19 during the first lockdown (26 March–4 July 2020). A total of 123,880 tweets were collated and downloaded bound to the time period of the first lockdown in order to analyse the real-time discourse around COVID-19 and the NHS. Content analysis was undertaken and tweets were coded to positive and negative sentiments. Five main themes were identified: (1) the dichotomies of ‘clap for carers’; (2) problems with PPE and testing; (3) peaks of anger; (4) issues around hero worship; and (5) hints of a normality. Further research exploring and documenting social media narratives around COVID-19 and the NHS, in this and subsequent lockdowns, should help in tailoring suitable support for staff in the future and acknowledging the profound impact that the pandemic has had.


Author(s):  
Nadia Liber Salloum ◽  
Phillip Correia Copley ◽  
Marco Mancuso-Marcello ◽  
John Emelifeonwu ◽  
Chandrasekaran Kaliaperumal

Abstract Introduction Burnout is becoming an increasingly recognised phenomenon within the medical profession. This study aims to investigate the presence of burnout amongst neurosurgical trainees in the UK and Ireland as well as investigating potential exacerbating and protective factors. Method An online survey was sent to all neurosurgical trainees in the UK and Ireland via the British Neurosurgical Trainees’ Association (BNTA) mailing list. Responding participants anonymously completed the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) and answered questions about known risk factors for burnout including workplace environment, workplace bullying, time spent on leisure activities and sleep and reported likelihood of leaving neurosurgery. We also collated data on responders’ demographics. We compared CBI scores for participants with and without risk factors to determine correlation with CBI. Results There were 75 respondents (response rate 42%) from a range of ages and all training grades, 72% of whom were male. The median CBI score was 38.85 (IQR 17.76). Participants showed a higher degree of personal and workplace burnout (median CBIs of 47.02, IQR 25.00; and 49.14, IQR 19.64, respectively) compared with patient-related burnout (median CBI 18.67, IQR 25.00). Participants with the following self-reported risk factors were significantly more likely to have higher CBIs: workplace bullying (p = 0.01), getting on less well with colleagues (p < 0.05), working longer hours (p < 0.05) and insufficient sleep, exercise and leisure time (all p < 0.01). Those with higher CBI scores were more likely to consider leaving neurosurgical training (p = 0.01). Conclusion We identified a high burnout incidence in a cohort representative of UK neurosurgical trainees, although our results may have been skewed somewhat by selection bias. We determined potential risk factors for burnout related to specific workplace stressors and time for non-work activities. In the future, changes to training curricula should address these issues, aiming to improve training, enhance patient care and reduce attrition rates.


2015 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARK EXWORTHY ◽  
PAULA HYDE ◽  
PAMELA MCDONALD-KUHNE

AbstractWe elaborate Le Grand's thesis of ‘knights and knaves’ in terms of clinical excellence awards (CEAs), the ‘financial bonuses’ which are paid to over half of all English hospital specialists and which can be as much as £75,000 (€92,000) per year in addition to an NHS (National Health Service) salary. Knights are ‘individuals who are motivated to help others for no private reward’ while knaves are ‘self-interested individuals who are motivated to help others only if by doing so they will serve their private interests.’ Doctors (individually and collectively) exhibit both traits but the work of explanation of the inter-relationship between them has remained neglected. Through a textual analysis of written responses to a recent review of CEAs, we examine the ‘knightly’ and ‘knavish’ arguments used by medical professional stakeholders in defending these CEAs. While doctors promote their knightly claims, they are also knavish in shaping the preferences of, and options for, policy-makers. Policy-makers continue to support CEAs but have introduced revised criteria for CEAs, putting pressure on the medical profession to accept reforms. CEAs illustrate the enduring and flexible power of the medical profession in the UK in colonising reforms to their pay, and also the subtle inter-relationship between knights and knaves in health policy.


2006 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 375-385 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bob Matthews ◽  
Yoonsoon Jung

This paper discusses and compares the origin and development of the health care systems of South Korea and the UK from the end of WW2 and endeavours to compare outcomes. The paper emphasises the importance of war as a stimulus to the development of national health services in both countries and argues that there is convergence between the UK's nationalised NHS and South Korea's US-modelled capitalist system. Overall, we conclude that there is a possibility not only that the financing and nature of the Korean and UK health care delivery systems may show convergence, but it is not impossible that they will ‘change places’ with the UK system dominated by private provision and South Korea's by public provision.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document