Stress and morale in general practice: a comparison of two health care systems

BACKGROUND

Poor morale and high levels of stress among general practitioners (GPs) are causing concern. Little research has previously been carried out to study possible differences in morale and stress between GPs working in two different but geographically similar health care systems.

AIM

To compare perceived levels of stress and morale between GPs working in two different health care systems--one having a state monopoly (Northern Ireland) and the other having mixed private and state funding (Republic of Ireland)--and to look for factors that might help explain any differences in stress levels and morale between the two systems.

METHOD

Anonymous and confidential questionnaires were sent to all 986 National Health Service (NHS) GPs in Northern Ireland (NI) and a random sample of 900 GPs in the Republic of Ireland (ROI). A common set of core questions on demographic details, partners and work patterns, perceived levels of stress and morale, safety, violence, and complaints were asked.

RESULTS

Response rates were high in both areas: 91% in NI and 78% in the ROI. GPs in NI had significantly higher stress levels and significantly lower levels of morale than GPs in the ROI. The NI sample expect matters to get worse over the following year. Doctors in the ROI were more likely to be single handed and to work from two sites. Also, more GPs in ROI had fears for their safety and had been the subject of physical violence, but fewer had received complaints and medico-legal actions than in NI.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant proportion of both groups of doctors report feeling highly stressed but GPs in NI appear more unhappy and have a poorer outlook for the future. It is suggested that the structure, management, and expectations of the NHS have taken a severe toll on its GPs, whereas a system in which doctors have less practice support but more control is good for morale.

Diabetes care by general practitioners in Northern Ireland: present state and future trends

A questionnaire returned by 250 (71.4%) of the 350 general practices in Northern Ireland indicated that although only 34 practices had special arrangements for seeing their diabetic patients, 178 practices stated that they would like to be more involved in the care of their non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) patients. One hundred and eight practices felt the same way about their insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM) patients. One hundred practices stated that the partners felt competent to manage their diabetic patients. The main area where general practitioners felt they needed to improve their knowledge was ophthalmology (56 practices). When asked which type of care scheme would appeal most to their practice, 135 practices stated that regular attendance with the general practitioner and annual hospital review would be the preferred arrangement. Overall there was a positive attitude towards increased general practitioner involvement in diabetes care.

Patients on H2-receptor antagonists--are we investigating them?

A survey was made of patients receiving H2-receptor antagonists in a group practice serving 8600 patients. Two hundred and twelve patients (2%) who had received at least one prescription for H2 antagonists in a 12 month period were identified. When compared with the practice population, men and patients over 50 years old were more likely to be taking these drugs (P less than 0.01 and P less than 0.001, respectively). One hundred and fifty-seven patients (74%) were investigated before commencing therapy; 114 (73%) of these patients were investigated via the hospital outpatient department, despite the general practitioners having full open access to barium meals. Only 23 (15%) of the patients investigated were found to have no active pathology. Twenty-nine (14%) of the 212 study patients had received one or more gastrointestinal investigations in the 18 months subsequent to starting H2-antagonist therapy. Twenty-five of these patients had also received an investigation before starting therapy. One hundred and eleven patients (52%) had had their H2 antagonist therapy initiated by their general practitioner.

Repeat prescribing of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs excluding aspirin: how careful are we?

About 5% of all National Health Service prescriptions in Britain and a quarter of reports of suspected adverse reactions are accounted for by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Their prescription was investigated in two computerised group practices serving 11850 patients. Altogether 198 patients receiving repeat prescriptions of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were identified and relevant clinical details extracted from their notes. Of these patients, 119 were over 65 years old; 172 were receiving one of six different non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; and 76 were taking drugs that can interact with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Ninety one patients had one or more medical conditions that may be aggravated by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and 36 had experienced side effects important enough for their treatment to be changed. A questionnaire to assess opinions and knowledge of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs was given to 42 general practitioners and 26 rheumatologists. Although the two groups showed a comparable knowledge of the properties and costs of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, they differed significantly in their views on the circumstances under which these drugs should be used. Clear guidelines on the prescription of these drugs would indicate when careful monitoring is essential for patients to benefit from them safely.