Posts Tagged ‘MDU’

Tips on cutting medical jargon and improving communication

By Dr Emma Cuzner, MDU medico-legal adviser - 17th August 2009 11:24 am

Doctors and the NHS were criticised recently for using “inaccessible language” by the Plain English Campaign.

The growth in management-speak in the NHS - with such phrases as “service users” and “disinvestments” - has the potential to confuse patients. A spokesperson for the campaign suggested that some doctors might also need to address the way they communicate with patients.

Most doctors recognise that the success of their relationship with patients is largely determined by their ability to communicate clearly and effectively. Doctors generally try to avoid using complicated medical terminology to describe medical conditions and treatments, but it is easy to forget that medical terminology may seem alien and off-putting to a layperson.

They may not understand what you are saying and failures in communication can translate into medico-legal problems. For example, patients who say they were not clearly warned about possible complications of a particular procedure are a common theme in complaints and claims notified to the MDU. 

The GMC devotes a section of Good Medical Practice to communicating effectively with patients. It says that doctors must listen to patients’ views and respond to their concerns; explain to patients their condition and the treatment options in a way they can understand; respond to questions and keep patients informed; and ensure patients are informed about how information is shared among the healthcare team. It also says that doctors should ensure, “where practical that arrangements are made to meet patients’ language and communication needs”.

The following tips will help doctors avoid communication problems:

1. Try to explain your diagnosis, proposed treatment and any relevant risks to patients in a way they can understand and give them a chance to ask questions. If you wish to examine the patient, you must seek permission and will need to explain why it is necessary and what you intend to do during the examination.

2. While you talk, watch for appropriate acknowledgements and/or signs of any confusion. Remember, you understand medical terms that may mean nothing to many patients, such as anti-emetic or hypertension.

3. Try to resist the urge to interrupt but regularly acknowledge what patients are saying. To check that you understand what a patient has told you, repeat it back to them.

4. If a complaint is made, listen carefully. Before responding, make sure you understand the nature of the patient’s concerns. When providing a written response to a patient’s complaint it is important to use clear language to explain the treatment that was provided and the doctor’s clinical decision making in an attempt to resolve any misunderstandings that the patient may have.

6. If something has gone wrong, explain to the patient as soon as possible what happened, why it happened and what steps you have taken to prevent it happening again. Be ready to apologise, if appropriate.

7. The use of abbreviations should be avoided wherever possible, both for the purposes of clarity and ensuring patient safety when the records are used by other clinicians caring for the patient, and for the avoidance of doubt if these records are required later for medico-legal purposes.

The MDU has also launched Communication Skills for Doctors workshops to explore alternative and practical ways of thinking about communication with patients and colleagues.

Warning of doctors becoming over-regulated

By Mike Broad - 10:13 am

The medical profession is in danger of becoming over-regulated, the MDU has warned in its annual report.

The MDU is concerned over proposals to introduce GMC affiliates, responsible officers and recorded concerns as part of the revalidation reforms.

Dr Christopher Evans, the MDU chairman, said in the insurer’s annual report that the changes are unnecessary and unwelcome and have not been properly considered.

Responsible officers will make recommendations on the relicensing of doctors, and have local responsibility for handling complaints relating to the conduct and performance of individual doctors and their referral to the GMC.

GMC affiliates are medical and lay individuals, working at a regional level, who would ‘help’ bridge gap between national and local regulation and improve the resolution of complaints.

And recorded concerns are voluntarily accepted sanctions offered by responsible officers for concerns not serious enough to call into question a doctor’s fitness to practise but which can be viewed by the general public.

The MDU disagreed with these changes when they were first proposed by the CMO in 2006, saying that they were not necessary and it wasn’t in the public interest to subject doctors to further regulation.

It fears that recorded concerns could be made available to the public, damaging a doctor’s reputation, without be properly investigated or giving a doctor the right to respond.

The MDU’s Evans said: “We are still faced with the possible prospect of GMC affiliates, responsible officers and recorded concerns (now being piloted as ‘agreed statements of concern’) that have been devised to meet a supposed need that we do not think has been satisfactorily demonstrated to exist.

“They have the potential, at best, to involve countless hours extra work for very many members and, at worst, to increase members’ exposure to yet more regulatory procedures that we believe are unnecessary, for what we fear will be no appreciable improvement in standards of patient care and safety.”

The proposals are part of the government white paper Trust Assurance and Safety: The Regulation of Healthcare Professionals in the 21st Century, launched in 2007, and are due to be rolled out nationwide.

Year long pilots into the changes were launched in London and West Yorkshire in autumn 2008. KPMG have been appointed by Department of Health to provide an evaluation of the pilot studies, and will produce a final report after the pilots have concluded in November 2009.

Evans said: “It was always our view that in the interests of patient safety, better and more constructive use should be made of existing procedures and of other mechanisms that exist for measuring and assessing doctors’ performance and conduct, with the aim of taking remedial action before serious concerns arise. We still believe that such a system would be more effective than adding new and different regulatory layers which have the potential to cost millions. We suggested in 2006 that the Department of Health prepared comparative costings but have seen no evidence that this was done.”

Read more on revalidation.