NHS Hot topics Flashcards
(77 cards)
Should doctors be able to strike?
Balanced argument – considering both sides
As a worker, they have a legal right to strike for they’re working conditions not being up to standard
However, striking may be different due to the nature of the profession, the direct impact it will have on life if these workers decide to strike
Consider the medical ethics pillars: beneficence - duty to do the best for patients and those around us, non-maleficence – both patients and staff
Need staff to fill in for the doctors striking – senior doctors will cover the junior doctor’s workload – excess strain – causing some hard to them in terms of workload
Conclude with a personal opinion and overall statement: any strike action that is taken should be kept to a minimum – still gives the doctors their right to strike but also keeps disruption to healthcare to a minimum
Who is the most important member of the multidisciplinary team?
State that no member is more important than another
State purpose of MDT: brings everyone together that is involved in the care of the patient
Give multiple professions that contribute e.g. radiology, surgeons, medics, nurses – they all carry out a shared decision-making process to achieve the most holistic outcome for the patient
Each role is there to give the patient the most optimum care and put them first - they all adhere to the 4 pillars of medical ethics.
Personal opinion: To say one member is more important is an incorrect thing to say
Should NHS install fines for missing appointments:
Advantages:
Reduced amount of appointments that are missed, frees up slots of patients who really need them – doctors will be able to see the patients that need them
We can help with funding the NHS – £100 billion was put into the NHS however it always seems to need more funding – good source of funding for treatments/new treatments
Disadvantages:
Not very ethical – may go against the pillar of justice: wealthy patients won’t mind booking several appointments in the hope they can make 1 of them
lower socioeconomic groups will struggle to find slots / get appointments – really evoke the non-maleficence of doing no harm – we are doing harm by not allowing certain groups of patients to get an appointment
other groups of patients – struggle with mobility, transport, memory – dementia Alzheimer’s – leads to massive bills/ fines to pay off – just a product of the disease, unfair
Life is unpredictable and its difficult to plan ahead - may deter them away from making appt they need
Personal opinion – we could explore this prospect, as long as its done careful/gradual we could find a way to reach an optimum middle ground – any negative effects are spotted early and can be rectified quickly
questions from patient’s as a medical student -
State position: as a medical student, not qualified to give firm medical advice related to medication.
Ask whether they’re happy for me to talk to a senior about it –if yes, then can discuss as a group or they can speak privately - therefore confidentiality is kept
Engage the patient in a shared decision-making process
If not happy to discuss, then think about:
beneficence: want to do best for the patient, there is research that the medicine is in their best interest.
Non-maleficence- suggests we shouldn’t do nothing
Most important: autonomy: goes against patients wishes – keep it in mind / confidential
Personal opinion: the general public seems to be level-headed and would likely be okay with it – only if it’s confidential to the medical team – if not, encouraged to speak to the medical team about it, but NO firm medical advice
What is the next big medical advancement across the horizon?
Personalised medicine: form of medicine that uses info about a person’s own genes or proteins to prevent/ diagnosis or treat diseases
Why is it useful? Treatments we give will be more tailored and more will work more of the time – however, it may be more expensive however, which means shorter hospital stays – can fit more people in
The current trend is to move away from secondary care and more towards primary and tertiary care—primary = first point, e.g., GP, dentist, and tertiary = specialized treatment, e.g., surgery.
Moving toward primary we can see more prevention of serious illness e.g. obesity/diabetes.
Moving toward tertiary care: we can see more advanced treatment that will be long-lasting – extra degree of specialisation from clinicians
Can you tell me about the charlie gard case?
The Charlie Gard case was a highly publicized legal and ethical dispute that took place in the UK in 2017. It centered around a baby named Charlie Gard, who was born with a rare and serious condition called mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (MDDS). This condition leads to progressive muscle weakness, brain damage, and organ failure, and is ultimately fatal. Doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital in London advised that there was no hope for recovery, and recommended that life support be withdrawn. They argued that continuing treatment would only prolong Charlie’s suffering.
However, Charlie’s parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, disagreed with this assessment. They wanted to take Charlie to the United States for an experimental treatment known as nucleoside therapy, which was unproven but had shown some promise in small-scale trials. The couple raised over £1.3 million through crowdfunding to fund the treatment. The case then went to court, where it became a legal and ethical battle over whether to continue life support or allow the parents to pursue experimental treatment.
The UK courts, including the High Court, Court of Appeal, and ultimately the European Court of Human Rights, sided with the medical professionals, ruling that the treatment would not benefit Charlie and that continuing life support would not be in his best interests. Despite this, the parents remained committed to their fight, but eventually, they accepted that Charlie would not survive and agreed to end life support. Tragically, Charlie passed away on July 24, 2017, just shy of his first birthday.
what were the legal and ethical implications of the charlie gard case?
Ethical and Legal Implications:
This case raised several important ethical and legal questions. On one hand, it highlighted the right of parents to make decisions about their child’s care and the importance of respecting parental autonomy. On the other hand, it brought into focus the role of medical expertise in determining what is in a patient’s best interests, particularly when it comes to very severe or terminal conditions.
The case also raised the issue of unproven treatments—whether resources should be allocated to experimental therapies and whether doctors should be required to offer such treatments if the parents request them, even if there is no scientific evidence to support them.
what is your opinion on the charlie gard case?
I believe that the ultimate goal in medical practice is always to act in the best interests of the patient, while also balancing the needs and wishes of the family. In this case, it was clear that the parents were motivated by a deep love for their child and a desire to offer him any chance, no matter how small. At the same time, it is also important to recognize the role of medical professionals in providing evidence-based care and ensuring that any treatment provided has a realistic chance of benefiting the patient.
While the legal system was involved in this case, I think it serves as a reminder of the need for clear communication between doctors and parents, and the importance of being compassionate and sensitive when delivering difficult news. The ethical dilemmas in this case—such as the right to try experimental treatments versus the potential harm to the child—are complex, and in situations like this, doctors need to be able to navigate difficult conversations and involve families in decision-making, while also considering the medical realities.
In conclusion, the Charlie Gard case was a tragic situation that brought attention to the emotional and ethical complexities involved in end-of-life care and the rights of parents versus medical professionals’ responsibilities. It also emphasized the importance of ethical frameworks in guiding medical decision-making, especially when dealing with rare, life-threatening conditions.
Can you tell me about the bawa garba case?
The Bawa-Garba case involved Dr. Hadiza Bawa-Garba, a junior doctor who was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter following the tragic death of Jack Adcock, a six-year-old boy with Down’s syndrome and a serious heart condition, who died in 2011 at Leicester Royal Infirmary. Dr. Bawa-Garba was working as a senior house officer (SHO) in paediatrics when Jack was admitted in a critical condition. Tragically, Jack’s death was due to a combination of factors, including delayed recognition of his deteriorating condition, poor communication between the medical team, and systemic failures within the hospital.
Timeline of Events:
Dr. Bawa-Garba, who was overworked and faced numerous challenges, was part of a team that failed to notice the critical signs of deterioration in Jack. At the time, she was managing multiple patients, and there were several significant errors, such as a failure to carry out proper investigations and to escalate Jack’s care appropriately.
She was found to have made several errors, including not ordering necessary blood tests and not acting on early warning signs of sepsis. However, there were also significant systemic issues contributing to these failures, such as understaffing, poor handovers, and inadequate senior supervision, which were not adequately taken into account during her trial.
In 2015, Dr. Bawa-Garba was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter after a criminal trial. However, this decision sparked significant debate, as many felt that institutional factors, such as excessive workloads, lack of senior support, and the pressures of working in an overstretched NHS, played a large role in the outcome.
what were the ethical and legal implications of the bawa garba case?
Accountability and Responsibility: The case highlights the tension between individual accountability and institutional responsibility. While Dr. Bawa-Garba made errors, many argue that the systemic factors—such as being overworked, understaffed, and the lack of senior support—contributed significantly to the mistakes. This raises the question of how to balance accountability between individuals and the healthcare system as a whole.
The Role of the Criminal Justice System: Should criminal charges be brought against doctors for errors made in the course of medical practice? The case brought into focus the issue of whether errors that occur in high-pressure clinical environments should lead to criminal convictions, especially when systemic failures play a role. It’s important to consider whether criminal law is the appropriate mechanism to address medical errors, or if it is better handled through medical regulation and professional oversight.
Professionalism and Learning from Mistakes: Dr. Bawa-Garba’s case also raises questions about how the medical profession should respond to mistakes. Errors in healthcare should ideally lead to a culture of learning and improvement, not fear of criminal prosecution. The case prompted a national discussion about whether the fear of legal repercussions could undermine efforts to foster a culture of openness and transparency in healthcare, which is essential for improving patient safety.
Impact on Medical Practice: The case has raised concern about the pressures junior doctors face and how these pressures might affect patient care. With increasing workloads, long shifts, and high patient-to-doctor ratios, doctors often face overwhelming challenges. It’s crucial to reflect on how working conditions and support structures can be improved to prevent such tragedies in the future.
what is your opinion of the bawa garba case?
The Bawa-Garba case is complex, and it’s important to approach it with sensitivity and a recognition of the broader context. Doctors work under immense pressure and often face difficult circumstances, but the ultimate goal must always be patient safety. This case has taught me that medical errors should be viewed not only through the lens of individual responsibility but also within the context of the system in which they occur. There must be a balance between holding individuals accountable for their actions while also addressing the underlying systemic issues that contribute to errors.
I believe that it is crucial to advocate for better working conditions, particularly for junior doctors, and to support efforts that foster a culture of learning from mistakes rather than one of blame. In this case, while Dr. Bawa-Garba made errors that contributed to a tragic outcome, the wider institutional failings should not be overlooked. We need a healthcare system that is equipped to support doctors in their roles, especially when they are under pressure.
Can you tell me about the harold shipman case?
The Harold Shipman case is a tragic and highly significant event in the history of medicine in the UK. Dr. Harold Shipman was a general practitioner (GP) who was convicted in 2000 of the murders of 15 patients, although it is believed that the actual number of victims may have been over 200. Shipman was found guilty of intentionally administering lethal doses of diamorphine (a powerful opioid) to his elderly patients, killing them in their homes. He often falsified medical records to cover up his actions, making it appear as though these patients had died of natural causes.
Shipman had a long career as a GP, and for many years, he was well-regarded by his patients and colleagues. His actions were only uncovered after a suspicious pattern of deaths was noticed by a local undertaker, followed by a subsequent investigation. In 2000, he was arrested, tried, and convicted of murder, sentenced to life imprisonment, where he died in 2004. The case raised profound questions about the integrity of the medical profession, the trust placed in doctors, and the adequacy of regulatory systems to prevent such abuse of power.
what were the ethical and legal implications of harold shipman case
Ethical and Legal Implications:
Patient Trust and Doctor-Patient Relationship: The Shipman case highlights the fundamental trust that patients place in their doctors. When patients seek medical care, they trust that doctors will act in their best interests, uphold their dignity, and protect their health. Shipman violated this trust in the most profound way by deliberately causing harm and ending lives. Ethically, this is a severe breach of the physician’s role as a healer and protector. It demonstrates the importance of honesty, transparency, and empathy in the doctor-patient relationship.
Professionalism and Accountability: Shipman’s case raises significant questions about the standards of professionalism in medicine. While he was able to operate largely undetected for many years, there were also signs that should have raised suspicion earlier, such as an unusual number of deaths in his practice. Ethically, it is critical that medical professionals are accountable not only to their patients but also to their peers, regulatory bodies, and the public. The case underscores the need for a culture of vigilance and peer oversight within the medical profession, ensuring that doctors who deviate from professional conduct are identified and held accountable early.
Regulation and Oversight: One of the key ethical and legal implications of the Shipman case was the failure of the regulatory systems to detect his actions before they escalated. At the time, the General Medical Council (GMC) and other oversight bodies were criticized for not having mechanisms in place to adequately scrutinize doctors’ practices and investigate suspicious patterns of behavior. In response to Shipman’s actions, there were reforms introduced to the medical regulatory systems, including the introduction of statutory medical reviews and more rigorous checks on prescribing practices. The case exposed the weaknesses in medical oversight and highlighted the importance of a robust regulatory framework to prevent malpractice.
Legal Consequences: Shipman’s actions had significant legal consequences. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The legal system played a critical role in bringing justice to the victims and their families, though the case raised questions about the adequacy of the laws in detecting and preventing such crimes. For instance, overdose deaths in an elderly population are often attributed to natural causes, and Shipman was able to exploit this by forging records and falsifying death certificates. This has since led to improvements in death certification procedures and closer scrutiny of prescribing patterns, which are key safeguards against similar incidents in the future.
Patient Safeguards and Vulnerable Populations: The fact that many of Shipman’s victims were elderly and vulnerable raises ethical concerns about how we care for and protect the most vulnerable members of society. As a healthcare professional, ensuring that elderly patients and those in vulnerable conditions receive appropriate care and protection from harm is a fundamental ethical responsibility. Shipman’s case has led to further discussions on improving safeguards for vulnerable populations and ensuring that medical professionals are held to the highest ethical standards, especially when working with individuals who may be less able to advocate for themselves.
Learning from Mistakes: A key takeaway from the Shipman case is the importance of creating a healthcare system where mistakes are reported and lessons are learned. In the aftermath of the Shipman case, several recommendations were made, including improving training on ethical practice, better monitoring of death certification, and encouraging whistleblowing when doctors suspect misconduct. Ethically, we should be creating an environment where doctors are encouraged to report concerns without fear of retribution and where patient safety is always the top priority.
what was your opinion on the harold shipman case
The Harold Shipman case was a catastrophic failure in the medical system, and it serves as a powerful reminder of the immense responsibility that comes with being a doctor. As a future doctor, this case strengthens my commitment to maintaining high ethical standards and emphasizes the need for continuous reflection on patient welfare. It also reinforces the importance of vigilance and accountability within the medical profession, both in terms of individual behavior and systemic safeguards.
I believe that one of the key lessons from this case is the importance of a zero-tolerance approach to medical misconduct. Doctors must uphold the highest standards of professionalism, not just in their interactions with patients but in their responsibility to identify and report unethical behavior within their profession. The tragic deaths caused by Shipman highlight the need for systemic improvements, such as enhanced peer review, better monitoring of medical practice, and stronger patient safeguards.
Finally, this case teaches us that patient safety is paramount, and as doctors, we must always prioritize the well-being and trust of our patients. Empathy, integrity, and professionalism are not just ethical principles; they are fundamental to preventing harm and ensuring the safety and welfare of those under our care.
Can you tell me about the andrew wakefield case?
- published a paper - suggested measles mumps and rubella vaccine may affect autism
study invovled 12 kids
claims caused a significant decline in vaccination rates - parents became fearful - this caused outbreaks in measles, mumps
investigations led to deep flaws in wakefield study:
small sample size
lack of control group
data manipulation
financial conflict of interest between lawyers
he was stripped of his medical license and GMC concluded he acted dishonestly
what as learnt about the andrew wakefield case
Importance of Scientific Integrity:
The case highlighted the need for rigorous peer review, transparency, and ethical conduct in scientific research. It showed how fraudulent or misleading studies can have far-reaching and dangerous effects on public health.
Misinformation and Public Trust:
Wakefield’s fraudulent study fueled vaccine misinformation, illustrating the power of false claims in eroding public trust in science and medicine. This case underlined how a single influential but dishonest individual could cause widespread harm.
Vaccination Advocacy:
The aftermath of the case spurred greater efforts from the medical and public health communities to educate the public on the safety and importance of vaccines. It reinforced the critical role of vaccines in preventing the spread of infectious diseases.
The Role of Media:
The media played a significant role in amplifying Wakefield’s claims, even after they had been discredited. This highlighted the importance of responsible journalism in conveying scientific evidence and the potential dangers of sensationalized health reporting.
Can you tell me about the shorpshire maternity scandal
2000-2019
involved poor care in the maternity unit - leading to preventable deaths of babies and mothers
high rate of still birth and neonatal
inadequate response to compaints
injuries of mothers - severe hemorrhaging - emotional trauma
found many systemic failures - training communication and leadership
transparency and accountability in healthcare settings
effective oversight and promote investigations are crucial for identifyign patterns
Can you tell me about the mid staffordshire failings?
trust was under financial challeneges and staff shortages
patient neglect, poor hygine, mis treatment
high mortality rates
staff were stretched too thin which leaded to patient mistreatment
dehumanising care, unrepotred harm, complaints ignored by management
patient safety is a must and so is compassionate care - they focused too much on the finacial
Can you tell me about the martha’s rule?
tell me how brexit may have affected the NHS?
COVID 19
Problems within the NHS specifically bed and staff shortages
Tell me about a contemporary medical issue which you’ve recently read about in the news.
A contemporary medical issue I’ve recently read about is topical steroid withdrawal (TSW), which has been gaining increasing attention in the media and dermatology circles. TSW refers to a syndrome that occurs when individuals who have been using topical steroids for extended periods suddenly stop or reduce their use. While topical steroids are commonly prescribed for conditions like eczema, psoriasis, and other inflammatory skin disorders, prolonged or excessive use can lead to a phenomenon where the skin reacts negatively after discontinuation.
Key Issues:
Topical steroids work by reducing inflammation, but when used over long periods, especially in high-potency formulations, they can lead to a dependence on the medication. When patients attempt to stop using steroids, they may experience severe reactions, such as intense itching, redness, and even skin peeling. This can be distressing and lead to psychological as well as physical challenges for the patients.
What makes this issue particularly complex is the lack of awareness surrounding TSW among both patients and healthcare providers. For many years, medical professionals have been less aware of TSW as a distinct condition, which has led to delays in diagnosis and treatment. This is further compounded by a lack of robust guidelines on how to manage steroid withdrawal effectively.
Ethical and Clinical Implications:
Patient Education and Informed Consent: One of the key ethical challenges with TSW is ensuring that patients are fully informed about the potential risks of long-term steroid use, including the possibility of withdrawal symptoms. In an ideal situation, doctors should discuss these risks with patients at the time of prescribing steroids, ensuring that they understand the potential consequences of prolonged use. Informed consent is crucial, and patients should be educated about the benefits and risks of steroid therapy, including the need for regular reviews and alternative treatment options.
Patient Care and Support: TSW also raises concerns about the level of support available to patients experiencing withdrawal. Given the severity of symptoms, it’s important for healthcare providers to ensure appropriate support systems are in place. This includes gradual tapering of steroids (where appropriate), regular follow-up appointments, and providing emotional support as patients navigate the challenges of recovery.
Diagnosis and Recognition: TSW highlights the need for increased awareness and research into the long-term effects of topical steroid use. It’s important that healthcare providers recognize the signs and symptoms of TSW and differentiate them from other skin conditions, which may present with similar symptoms. There is also a need for greater understanding of how topical steroids interact with skin biology over time and what long-term alternatives may exist for treating chronic skin conditions.
Social and Systemic Implications:
Access to Treatment: One broader issue that has surfaced in discussions about TSW is the access to alternative treatments for chronic skin conditions. As more attention is given to TSW, there is a push for developing safer and more effective long-term treatment options that don’t carry the same risk of withdrawal effects. This could involve better use of emollients, immunomodulators, or phototherapy for certain conditions.
Patient Advocacy and Public Awareness: TSW has sparked a growing movement of patient advocacy, with online forums and social media platforms being used to raise awareness about the condition. It’s important for the medical community to engage with patients, listen to their concerns, and support their advocacy efforts. By raising awareness of TSW, healthcare professionals can help patients make more informed decisions about their treatment and encourage safer prescribing practices.
Reflection:
From my perspective, TSW is an important issue because it highlights the need for balance in medical treatment. While topical steroids are effective in managing inflammatory skin conditions, their long-term use can carry significant risks, which need to be better understood and communicated to patients. It also underscores the importance of holistic patient care, where both physical and psychological aspects are addressed, particularly when patients experience side effects or withdrawal symptoms. As a future doctor, this case makes me more aware of the need for careful patient education, informed consent, and the importance of developing safer and more effective treatment options for chronic conditions.
Where do you get your medical news from and how do you know if a medical news source is reliable or not?
I make a conscious effort to stay informed about medical news from a range of reliable and evidence-based sources. I typically rely on peer-reviewed journals, reputable medical websites, and established medical institutions to ensure the information I’m accessing is accurate and trustworthy. Some of the primary sources I use include:
pubmed and google scholar: peer reviewed research, high quality articles from reputable journals
NHS and government websites - UK specific news - trust the NHS - provide up to date guidance based on evidence and treatment protocols
knowing its reliable: check the authorship and credentials.
- relate it back to referencing for all assignemnts - we are only allowed to use peer reviewed work so it’s become natural for me to check the authorship.