Skip to main content

Why the NHS needs to put the joy back into being a doctor

 A complaint I often hear from colleagues is that “the NHS has taken the joy out of medicine”. Modern healthcare delivery is increasingly seen by NHS staff and by patients as an industrial-type activity with strict performance targets. This has resulted in many healthcare professionals feeling that they have lost the much of the flexibility and autonomy that was once a defining characteristic of their professions.

This feeling can also concern patients, as they may feel that they may not be receiving the personalised care and attention that they feel they need. The focus on targets, metrics and finances can create an environment where patients feel they are being treated as numbers rather than as individuals with unique needs and circumstances.

It is important for politicians, NHS managers and clinicians to acknowledge these concerns and work to address them. While performance targets, metrics and financial monitoring are important tools for measuring the effectiveness of healthcare delivery, they should not be the only focus of the NHS. Healthcare professionals must be given the freedom and flexibility to exercise their judgement and provide personalised care to their patients.

The NHS should also work to ensure that patients are seen as individuals with unique needs and circumstances, rather than simply as numbers on a spreadsheet. This can be achieved through providing adequate resources (both financial and personnel) for the NHS, better training for healthcare professionals, improved communication with patients, and greater emphasis on patient-centred care.

Ultimately, the goal of the NHS should be to provide high-quality, personalised care to all patients. This requires a shift in mindset away from the purely target-driven approach we often see in today’s NHS  towards a more holistic approach that prioritises the needs and well-being of patients and healthcare professionals alike.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between primordial prevention and primary prevention?

Primordial prevention and primary prevention are both crucial strategies for promoting health, but they operate at different levels. Primordial prevention aims to address the root causes of health problems and improve the wider determinants of health. It focuses on preventing the emergence of risk factors in the first place by tackling the underlying social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. This involves broad, population-wide interventions such as: Policies that promote healthy food choices: Think about initiatives like taxing sugary drinks to discourage unhealthy consumption, or providing subsidies for fruits and vegetables to make them more accessible. Urban planning that prioritises well-being: This could include creating walkable neighborhoods with safe cycling routes, ensuring access to green spaces for recreation and relaxation, and designing communities that foster social connections. Social programs that address inequality: Initiatives aimed at reducing pov...
Post a Comment
Read more

Talking to Patients About Weight-Loss Drugs

The use of weight-loss drugs such as GLP-1 receptor agonists (e.g., semaglutide, tirzepatide) has increased rapidly in recent years. These drugs can help some people achieve significant weight reduction, but they are not suitable for everyone and require careful counselling before starting treatment. By discussing benefits, risks, practicalities, and  uncertainties, clinicians can help patients make informed, realistic decisions about their treatment. Key points to discuss with patients 1. Indications and eligibility These drugs are usually licensed for adults with a specific BMI. They should be used alongside lifestyle interventions such as dietary change, increased physical activity, and behaviour modification. 2. Potential side effects – some can be serious Common adverse effects include nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, and abdominal discomfort. Less common but more serious risks include gallstones, pancreatitis and visual problems. Patients should know what to watch for a...
Post a Comment
Read more

What makes a good doctor – and who gets to decide?

What Makes a Good Doctor? This is the question that Waseem Jerjes and I explore in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine . It is a key question that underpins the architecture of medical education, clinical practice, regulation, and professional identity. It cannot be answered by regulators, educators, or employers in isolation. It must be answered together – by doctors and patients – revisited throughout a career, and adapted as society and the profession change. Without that shared reflection, the danger is not simply disillusionment, but the erosion of the moral foundations of clinical work. As we enter an era when diagnosis will increasingly involve artificial intelligence and when performance metrics reward volume over value, reclaiming this question as a professional one is imperative. The integrity of our institutions – and of the practitioners within them – depends on reimagining excellence in inclusive, relational terms. A good doctor is not a flawless technician or a f...
Post a Comment
Read more