WEBVTT
00:00:18.919 --> 00:00:19.219
Music.
00:00:19.219 --> 00:00:21.585
Signing scripts for Christmas.
00:00:21.585 --> 00:00:26.327
Oh, I wish I could see some faces.
00:00:26.327 --> 00:00:31.568
But I'm signing scripts for Christmas.
00:00:31.568 --> 00:00:47.823
I'm working through my line and it seems so clear to me Everyone's putting early for their holiday Cause they're gone away.
00:00:47.823 --> 00:00:53.664
So I'm sitting in my room Signing scripts for Christmas.
00:00:53.664 --> 00:00:58.765
Signing scripts for Christmas.
00:00:58.765 --> 00:01:07.643
Gonna take some time but I'll get there.
00:01:07.643 --> 00:01:17.865
Highest thing for your Godache Might need coding on top of that.
00:01:17.865 --> 00:01:27.105
You're waiting for your goldbladder up so you can eat more Christmas fat.
00:01:27.105 --> 00:01:37.691
And here's one asking for A Marxist ceiling to help their virus go.
00:01:37.691 --> 00:01:39.725
It's time for Christmas.
00:01:39.725 --> 00:01:42.427
Well, it doesn't work like that.
00:01:42.427 --> 00:01:45.126
I'm not signing that script for Christmas.
00:01:45.126 --> 00:01:50.063
Signing scripts for Christmas.
00:01:50.063 --> 00:01:57.487
Or the one asking me to send it to Paris.
00:01:57.487 --> 00:02:02.022
Paris, what's a Marxist ceiling?
00:02:02.022 --> 00:02:09.927
In French anyway, a Marxist ceiling.
00:02:09.927 --> 00:02:27.367
Music Ben's lost to take the edge off.
00:02:28.504 --> 00:02:29.575
That's a patient request.
00:02:29.596 --> 00:02:41.586
That's not for me, but I don't think it's in your best interest, can't deal with the phone call so I'm gonna send a text instead.
00:02:41.586 --> 00:03:21.888
But deep down, I know in ten You'll be here shouting at reception, but I won't hear you cause I'm sitting in my room Signing those scripts for Christmas, signing your scripts for Christmas, and I'm almost there, almost there To keep you happy to keep you healthy.
00:03:23.000 --> 00:03:37.570
It's like a little Christmas present, just with more side effects than Toblerone Music.
00:03:37.570 --> 00:04:00.276
It's Friday, the 22nd of December 2023, and this is the Hot Topics Podcast Music.
00:04:00.276 --> 00:04:05.811
Ho Ho Ho, merry Christmas everyone.
00:04:05.811 --> 00:04:07.948
Welcome to the Hot Topics Podcast.
00:04:08.706 --> 00:04:16.000
For the last time this year, I am Neil Tucker and in this episode we're not gonna spend a lot of time talking about the news.
00:04:16.000 --> 00:04:20.000
We're not gonna spend a lot of time talking about research, because it's Christmas.
00:04:20.000 --> 00:04:22.000
You're probably driving home from work right now.
00:04:22.000 --> 00:04:24.000
You've got better things to do.
00:04:24.000 --> 00:04:26.889
I wanna keep it lighthearted and fun.
00:04:26.889 --> 00:04:33.000
So the focus of today is about a fun piece of research With some important findings.
00:04:33.923 --> 00:04:35.528
Let me set the scene.
00:04:35.528 --> 00:04:46.980
Do you ever feel like there just isn't enough time, that the expectations of all the different aspects that we have to cover in a consultation Seem impossible in the time we are given?
00:04:46.980 --> 00:04:50.958
Well, if so, you are probably not alone.
00:04:50.958 --> 00:04:58.293
Today I'm joined by Dr Steve Bradley and Dr Alice Harper, who are the authors of a new paper.
00:04:58.293 --> 00:05:05.653
The title is Great Expectations GPs Estimations of Time Required to Deliver the BMJ's 10-Minute Consultations.
00:05:05.653 --> 00:05:10.339
So we've covered these BMJ articles a lot on the Hot Topics course over the years.
00:05:10.339 --> 00:05:13.339
They're primary care focused articles on a clinical topic.
00:05:13.339 --> 00:05:26.279
They discuss presentation, management, complications, red flags and lots, lots more To provide a framework for clinicians who are faced with a particular condition.
00:05:26.279 --> 00:05:31.932
But the big question here is can you actually do all of that in a 10-minute consultation?
00:05:31.932 --> 00:05:37.949
Let's bring in our experts here so I'll get you to both introduce yourself.
00:05:37.949 --> 00:05:45.649
I'm going to start with the top of my page, so let's bring in you, steve, so tell everyone a little bit about who you are and what you do.
00:05:46.399 --> 00:05:46.821
Hello Neil.
00:05:46.821 --> 00:05:47.742
So I'm Steve Bradley.
00:05:47.742 --> 00:05:54.307
I'm an academic GP and I work at the University of Leeds and York Street Practice in Leeds City Centre.
00:05:55.223 --> 00:05:57.730
And Alice, tell me a little bit about yourself.
00:05:58.620 --> 00:06:00.985
Hi Neil, so my name is Alice.
00:06:00.985 --> 00:06:11.788
I'm a GPS T2, so that means I'm in the second year of my GP training and I work at a practice in the south of Bristol and I'm also got an academic post.
00:06:11.788 --> 00:06:19.632
So from next year I'll have some time dedicated to doing primary care related research associated with the University of Bristol.
00:06:20.439 --> 00:06:21.343
So let's start with the question.
00:06:21.343 --> 00:06:25.487
Then, steve, over to you first, what made you think about doing this research?
00:06:26.339 --> 00:06:31.949
I don't know about you, neil, but I've always read these articles, these time-in-a-consultations, and I really enjoy them and find them helpful.
00:06:31.949 --> 00:06:35.894
But I have wondered sometimes is this plausible?
00:06:35.894 --> 00:06:40.769
You would actually do this in 10 minutes and some of them seem a wee bit exhaustive actually, and rather long.
00:06:40.769 --> 00:06:48.339
I've also wondered whether these articles are getting longer, whether there's an inflation of expectation that's been lumped on us.
00:06:48.339 --> 00:06:51.689
Are we expected to do more and more in the consultation?
00:06:51.689 --> 00:06:54.887
I always thought that would be something interesting to look at.
00:06:55.420 --> 00:06:56.502
I would definitely agree.
00:06:56.502 --> 00:07:02.012
As someone who reads a lot of guidelines, it feels like they have extended a lot over the years.
00:07:02.012 --> 00:07:05.750
Alice, maybe fill us in with how did you then conduct the study?
00:07:06.339 --> 00:07:09.951
So we chose to get 44 of the published articles.
00:07:10.132 --> 00:07:18.093
So we looked at the first article ever published and then we took two from each calendar year since then up until the first article of 2022.
00:07:19.141 --> 00:07:42.071
I read all the articles and extracted the tasks that were recommended in each article and we then categorized them according to the type of task, so thinking about history taking or prescribing, and also whether or not the tasks were required for all patients or only in specific circumstances, such as prostate examination in male patients only, for example.
00:07:42.560 --> 00:07:55.872
We then asked for GPs, who were a range of different career stages but all practicing within the NHS, and we asked them to estimate the time that they think they would take to complete the relevant tasks.
00:07:55.872 --> 00:08:05.235
From that we then took a sort of median time of their four estimates and we calculated the minimum estimated consultation length.
00:08:05.235 --> 00:08:14.033
So that was the estimated time required to complete tasks for all patients and also a maximum estimated consultation length.
00:08:14.033 --> 00:08:19.389
So tasks for all patients and also those specific tasks that I mentioned.
00:08:19.389 --> 00:08:21.653
That might not be done in all circumstances.
00:08:21.653 --> 00:08:26.690
We also wanted to look at how demands may have increased over time.
00:08:26.690 --> 00:08:37.674
So we charted the estimates by year and also in five year periods to look at if there'd been a change over the 22 years since the articles were first published.
00:08:38.539 --> 00:08:41.866
I'm very impressed that you've read all 44 of these articles.
00:08:41.866 --> 00:08:45.214
You must be a true expert in these areas by now.
00:08:45.214 --> 00:08:47.648
So what were the findings then?
00:08:47.648 --> 00:08:51.340
Maybe let's start off with those minimum and maximum consultation lengths.
00:08:52.303 --> 00:09:17.695
Looking first towards the median for the minimum estimated consultation length, so thinking about the time that GPs estimated to complete the tasks that were recommended for all patients, that time estimate was 15.7 minutes, so a little bit over the 10 minutes that is usually permitted, and then thinking about the maximum estimated consultation length, that was a lot higher.
00:09:17.695 --> 00:09:18.918
That was 28.4 minutes.
00:09:20.504 --> 00:09:24.240
This might explain why both my surgeries yesterday ran over by at least an hour.
00:09:24.240 --> 00:09:29.032
I was kind of taking it personally, but no, maybe there's something more to it than that.
00:09:29.032 --> 00:09:36.313
Okay, so the timescales don't necessarily fit into what we might consider a classic general practice consultation.
00:09:36.313 --> 00:09:40.890
Steve, what's your take on the clinical implications of these findings?
00:09:41.379 --> 00:09:43.144
Firstly, to start with the positive.
00:09:43.144 --> 00:10:04.422
I think this article is a real celebration of the variety of general practice and all the things that we've done, all the things that general practice can do and is meant to be doing, which is an incredible range of articles, and you can see in the supplementary results there's a table where we actually list these 44s, so there's things like COPD, a tingling hand, snoring, gout, mineralia.
00:10:04.422 --> 00:10:07.339
They're just such a huge variety of stuff.
00:10:07.339 --> 00:10:08.774
We've got to celebrate what we do.
00:10:08.774 --> 00:10:20.754
It's incredible, actually, in terms of policy and clinical implications from this, though, I think as a community we've got to get real really about the expectations of what we can actually deliver in the time that we have permitted.
00:10:21.671 --> 00:10:23.597
I would say these are quite conservative estimates.
00:10:23.597 --> 00:10:36.701
They don't take into account the sort of system feelings that we see every day, the problems around things not working, products not being in pharmacy, stuff like that and we mentioned in the discussion that actually, patients don't come with one problem.
00:10:36.701 --> 00:10:50.520
They come with an average 2.5 problems, and if you were to map this out over what's said to be an average of 38 consultations a day, now a GP would spend the whole 24 hours of their day just having consultations.
00:10:50.520 --> 00:10:53.076
So clearly that's an absurd proposition.
00:10:53.076 --> 00:11:05.279
I think we need to recognise and be explicit that actually what's happening is GPs are very pragmatically allocating their time which is the main resource that we deal with in our day-to-day work to where they see the clinical needs.
00:11:05.730 --> 00:11:08.841
Were there any limitations to this research?
00:11:09.270 --> 00:11:14.158
Yeah, neil, it's an important question, and we'd just like to say up front that this is quite limited.
00:11:14.158 --> 00:11:14.721
In a lot of ways.
00:11:14.721 --> 00:11:20.621
This is a highly theoretical exercise in which GPs estimated how long they thought things would take.
00:11:20.621 --> 00:11:23.730
It's a very speculative endeavour, I would say.
00:11:23.730 --> 00:11:31.217
A real strength of this paper, I think, is that we pre-registered the protocol, so we really stuck to the analysis plan.
00:11:31.217 --> 00:11:33.557
All the data is available.
00:11:33.557 --> 00:11:38.741
Everybody can see for themselves what the timings are and explore that data for themselves.
00:11:38.741 --> 00:11:57.852
I think a real problem with a lot of research of this type is that it's vulnerable to constructing the narrative after the event and working, tinkering with the analysis to get the most eye-catching results, and we were very pleased to declare all our methods beforehand, so that would absolutely not be the case.
00:11:58.590 --> 00:12:03.974
And I'll put a link to the paper in the podcast description so you can go and have a look at it yourself.
00:12:03.974 --> 00:12:07.419
Maybe, if you fancy it, got a bit of spare time during the day.
00:12:07.419 --> 00:12:14.275
I know that's unlikely, but you could have a look at your real-world experience on some of these topics and compare it against this data.
00:12:14.275 --> 00:12:17.659
Alice, what's the GP trainee perspective on this?
00:12:18.211 --> 00:12:26.115
Well, I think as a trainee, we're quite fortunate because we do start on longer consultations, but I think they're very much needed.
00:12:26.115 --> 00:12:35.799
When I first started, I was on 30-minute consultations and sometimes I was still overrunning and then I was filled with dread with the idea that I'd have to reduce it down to 20 minutes.
00:12:35.799 --> 00:12:43.529
But yeah, if someone told me again tomorrow that I need to half my appointment times again, that would fill me with dread, definitely.
00:12:43.529 --> 00:12:58.940
This study highlights the importance of trainees having enough time to consult patients, and then also we spend a lot of the time referring back to the guidelines as well, so we need to have enough time to be able to complete all the relevant tasks.
00:12:59.629 --> 00:13:06.623
I think maybe we are seeing a shift in how practices organise their day, with longer consultations.
00:13:06.623 --> 00:13:11.922
The practice I was working in yesterday typically has 15-minute consultation times.
00:13:11.922 --> 00:13:15.500
I'm sure going back 10 years ago, that would have been 10 minutes.
00:13:15.500 --> 00:13:23.717
I think back to when my wife was a GP registrar and they were still doing five-minute appointments for acute illness slots.
00:13:23.717 --> 00:13:25.977
I couldn't get my head around that at all.
00:13:25.977 --> 00:13:29.078
I can barely say hello to a patient in five minutes.
00:13:29.078 --> 00:13:35.673
What staggered me about yesterday was the complexity of so many of the patients that I was seeing.
00:13:35.673 --> 00:13:42.033
And, of course, if you're going to manage those patients well and safely, then it does take more time.
00:13:42.033 --> 00:13:45.700
The BMJ still has the title of 10-minute consultations.
00:13:45.700 --> 00:13:49.779
Most GPs, I think, would now be thinking more about 15-minute consultations.
00:13:49.779 --> 00:13:53.719
This data questions whether even that is sufficient.
00:13:53.719 --> 00:13:55.575
Steve, what do you think?
00:13:56.230 --> 00:13:58.698
Yeah, we discussed this in the paper.
00:13:58.698 --> 00:14:03.981
Actually there is the findings would seem to support a move to 15-minute consultations.
00:14:03.981 --> 00:14:19.581
That doesn't necessarily address the problem of access, but it does seem to me logical that we ought to move to 15-minute appointments because it really feels slightly disapproachable actually, too patients and they're concerned to try to pretend that we can actually address their problems in 10 minutes.
00:14:19.581 --> 00:14:26.631
I've never actually really managed to do that satisfactorily where I work as 15 minutes appointments I mean.
00:14:26.631 --> 00:14:56.601
Another thing we say in the paper, which maybe feels like a slightly trivial point but actually I think is rather important, is that we are suggesting BMJ renames this article series because it just seems to set up expectations that aren't possible and colludes in this kind of this expectation that we do everything in a very, very short period of time, which just, which just really can't be met and I think contributes to the sort of moral distress that a lot of us feel about the mismatch between what we would like to do if there was the time available and what we actually can do.
00:14:57.130 --> 00:14:58.134
What next, then?
00:14:58.134 --> 00:15:01.501
Is there more work that you think is required in this area?
00:15:02.413 --> 00:15:06.250
Well, as you know, every, every conclusion of every study is more research is required.
00:15:06.250 --> 00:15:09.860
So I wouldn't I wouldn't want to break with that noble tradition.
00:15:09.860 --> 00:15:21.261
I mean, one of our colleagues, carl Sinet, who is a co-author on this paper, has done a lot of work around this area, particularly looking at systems failures and how that affects timing of consultations.
00:15:21.261 --> 00:15:40.441
A few things that I thought should be looked at is how we build some consensus around this stuff that we ought to not do or de-prioritise, because there's a whole lot of workload and I think we need to try to understand what is the stuff that is least important or has least direct effects for patients that we can stop doing.
00:15:40.750 --> 00:15:46.283
Another thought I've had on this is around process automation and artificial intelligence.
00:15:46.283 --> 00:15:56.200
I mean, one thing that's disappointed me a little bit around the narrative with AI is that everybody seems fixated on replacing doctors with AI cyborgs, which seems to me to miss the point.
00:15:56.200 --> 00:16:00.902
What we would actually like, and I think what patients would like, is for us to have more time to spend with them.
00:16:00.902 --> 00:16:14.570
I think we should be looking at that technology to replace the stuff that we do that's tedious and could be automated, stuff like if reports could be written automatically filing of routine results, things like that.
00:16:14.570 --> 00:16:28.278
There's so many fiddly little tasks that take up a lot of time and attention and actually are very, very draining, and I think if we could focus the technology in that direction, then maybe that could free us a bit more to actually do the stuff we want to do just talking to patients about what matters to them.
00:16:28.730 --> 00:16:42.282
I think the other thing that your research highlights is the necessity of having GPs and other primary health care clinicians intrinsically involved in the guideline writing process.
00:16:42.282 --> 00:16:51.706
It's still true that primary and secondary care don't necessarily understand very well what each other does, so we need a strong voice that can push back a little bit.
00:16:51.706 --> 00:17:01.302
Sometimes they can say that sounds fantastic, but this is the reality and, by doing so, making these guidelines more relevant and practical for us and our patients.
00:17:01.870 --> 00:17:11.114
Yeah, there was a fantastic article in BMJ last year, I think, that called for time to be taken into account with guidelines and this emerging body of evidence around this.
00:17:11.114 --> 00:17:16.203
Most of it is around guidelines rather than what we looked, which was peer recommendations.
00:17:16.203 --> 00:17:25.962
But I think time does need to be explicitly considered and if we do need to push back a bit and challenge and say, ok, we might be able to do that, what is it that you would like us to not do?
00:17:26.590 --> 00:17:28.617
And Alice, what's next for you?
00:17:28.930 --> 00:17:38.981
Well, the AKT is the end of January, so that's the big next step for me, and then currently thinking about what I'm going to do with when I have some dedicated academic time.
00:17:38.981 --> 00:17:47.565
I'm interested in patients and carers with multiple long term conditions, thinking about how we can support them in primary care.
00:17:47.565 --> 00:17:51.500
Personalised care planning project to be confirmed.
00:17:52.030 --> 00:17:56.442
One final question, then, in homage to your title Great Expectations.
00:17:56.442 --> 00:18:02.262
If you had to be one character from the Charles Dickens novel, what would you be?
00:18:02.262 --> 00:18:04.858
To be honest, stephen, I've already got you pegged as Pip.
00:18:06.875 --> 00:18:09.369
I thought maybe, joe, you know honest, dependable.
00:18:10.974 --> 00:18:13.523
OK, so Alice can be Pip and I'll be Miss Haversham.
00:18:14.185 --> 00:18:15.592
I was thinking the conflict with you.
00:18:18.365 --> 00:18:18.906
No comment.
00:18:18.906 --> 00:18:21.354
Thank you both for joining us on the podcast today.
00:18:21.354 --> 00:18:27.742
It's been brilliant to have you along and have the opportunity to chat a little bit about how we do general practice.
00:18:27.742 --> 00:18:33.461
I know that, steven, you're heavily involved in cancer research relating to primary care.
00:18:33.461 --> 00:18:38.476
I'm sure we're going to hear more from you in the near future, so I look forward to having you back on the podcast then.
00:18:38.965 --> 00:18:49.406
Yeah, thanks so much, neil, and it's really been lovely to talk to you and a big fan of it the podcast and I'd just like to say thank you, if that's okay, to the four GPs who really did the work for us.
00:18:49.406 --> 00:18:51.614
These are not academic GPs.
00:18:51.614 --> 00:18:57.796
They took extra time out to think about how long things would take, which is actually quite a big ask to make of them.
00:18:57.796 --> 00:19:02.751
So thank you very much to Nigel Taylor, harriet DeLapp, helen Pike and James Gurkin.
00:19:02.751 --> 00:19:04.978
We're so grateful that you did this work with us.
00:19:05.266 --> 00:19:09.826
And a big thank you as well to Dr Alice Harper, who I'm sure will be seeing lots more of in the future.
00:19:09.826 --> 00:19:10.509
Thanks, alice.
00:19:10.789 --> 00:19:11.673
Thanks very much, neil.
00:19:12.075 --> 00:19:15.045
That's a wrap for the Hot Topics podcast for 2023.
00:19:15.045 --> 00:19:17.613
Thanks for joining us throughout the year.
00:19:17.613 --> 00:19:23.429
Remember, you can always get in touch on hot topics at mbmedicalcom.
00:19:23.429 --> 00:19:31.352
In January, mb Medical has live webinars for our Hot Topics in Dermatology and our latest main Hot Topics course as well.
00:19:31.352 --> 00:19:36.489
Join us for those and I'll be back with a podcast sometime in a few weeks.
00:19:36.489 --> 00:19:38.011
Merry Christmas, everyone.
00:19:38.011 --> 00:19:38.894
Happy New Year.
00:19:38.894 --> 00:19:40.617
Look after yourselves, bye, bye.
00:00:18.919 --> 00:00:19.219
Music.
00:00:19.219 --> 00:00:21.585
Signing scripts for Christmas.
00:00:21.585 --> 00:00:26.327
Oh, I wish I could see some faces.
00:00:26.327 --> 00:00:31.568
But I'm signing scripts for Christmas.
00:00:31.568 --> 00:00:47.823
I'm working through my line and it seems so clear to me Everyone's putting early for their holiday Cause they're gone away.
00:00:47.823 --> 00:00:53.664
So I'm sitting in my room Signing scripts for Christmas.
00:00:53.664 --> 00:00:58.765
Signing scripts for Christmas.
00:00:58.765 --> 00:01:07.643
Gonna take some time but I'll get there.
00:01:07.643 --> 00:01:17.865
Highest thing for your Godache Might need coding on top of that.
00:01:17.865 --> 00:01:27.105
You're waiting for your goldbladder up so you can eat more Christmas fat.
00:01:27.105 --> 00:01:37.691
And here's one asking for A Marxist ceiling to help their virus go.
00:01:37.691 --> 00:01:39.725
It's time for Christmas.
00:01:39.725 --> 00:01:42.427
Well, it doesn't work like that.
00:01:42.427 --> 00:01:45.126
I'm not signing that script for Christmas.
00:01:45.126 --> 00:01:50.063
Signing scripts for Christmas.
00:01:50.063 --> 00:01:57.487
Or the one asking me to send it to Paris.
00:01:57.487 --> 00:02:02.022
Paris, what's a Marxist ceiling?
00:02:02.022 --> 00:02:09.927
In French anyway, a Marxist ceiling.
00:02:09.927 --> 00:02:27.367
Music Ben's lost to take the edge off.
00:02:28.504 --> 00:02:29.575
That's a patient request.
00:02:29.596 --> 00:02:41.586
That's not for me, but I don't think it's in your best interest, can't deal with the phone call so I'm gonna send a text instead.
00:02:41.586 --> 00:03:21.888
But deep down, I know in ten You'll be here shouting at reception, but I won't hear you cause I'm sitting in my room Signing those scripts for Christmas, signing your scripts for Christmas, and I'm almost there, almost there To keep you happy to keep you healthy.
00:03:23.000 --> 00:03:37.570
It's like a little Christmas present, just with more side effects than Toblerone Music.
00:03:37.570 --> 00:04:00.276
It's Friday, the 22nd of December 2023, and this is the Hot Topics Podcast Music.
00:04:00.276 --> 00:04:05.811
Ho Ho Ho, merry Christmas everyone.
00:04:05.811 --> 00:04:07.948
Welcome to the Hot Topics Podcast.
00:04:08.706 --> 00:04:16.000
For the last time this year, I am Neil Tucker and in this episode we're not gonna spend a lot of time talking about the news.
00:04:16.000 --> 00:04:20.000
We're not gonna spend a lot of time talking about research, because it's Christmas.
00:04:20.000 --> 00:04:22.000
You're probably driving home from work right now.
00:04:22.000 --> 00:04:24.000
You've got better things to do.
00:04:24.000 --> 00:04:26.889
I wanna keep it lighthearted and fun.
00:04:26.889 --> 00:04:33.000
So the focus of today is about a fun piece of research With some important findings.
00:04:33.923 --> 00:04:35.528
Let me set the scene.
00:04:35.528 --> 00:04:46.980
Do you ever feel like there just isn't enough time, that the expectations of all the different aspects that we have to cover in a consultation Seem impossible in the time we are given?
00:04:46.980 --> 00:04:50.958
Well, if so, you are probably not alone.
00:04:50.958 --> 00:04:58.293
Today I'm joined by Dr Steve Bradley and Dr Alice Harper, who are the authors of a new paper.
00:04:58.293 --> 00:05:05.653
The title is Great Expectations GPs Estimations of Time Required to Deliver the BMJ's 10-Minute Consultations.
00:05:05.653 --> 00:05:10.339
So we've covered these BMJ articles a lot on the Hot Topics course over the years.
00:05:10.339 --> 00:05:13.339
They're primary care focused articles on a clinical topic.
00:05:13.339 --> 00:05:26.279
They discuss presentation, management, complications, red flags and lots, lots more To provide a framework for clinicians who are faced with a particular condition.
00:05:26.279 --> 00:05:31.932
But the big question here is can you actually do all of that in a 10-minute consultation?
00:05:31.932 --> 00:05:37.949
Let's bring in our experts here so I'll get you to both introduce yourself.
00:05:37.949 --> 00:05:45.649
I'm going to start with the top of my page, so let's bring in you, steve, so tell everyone a little bit about who you are and what you do.
00:05:46.399 --> 00:05:46.821
Hello Neil.
00:05:46.821 --> 00:05:47.742
So I'm Steve Bradley.
00:05:47.742 --> 00:05:54.307
I'm an academic GP and I work at the University of Leeds and York Street Practice in Leeds City Centre.
00:05:55.223 --> 00:05:57.730
And Alice, tell me a little bit about yourself.
00:05:58.620 --> 00:06:00.985
Hi Neil, so my name is Alice.
00:06:00.985 --> 00:06:11.788
I'm a GPS T2, so that means I'm in the second year of my GP training and I work at a practice in the south of Bristol and I'm also got an academic post.
00:06:11.788 --> 00:06:19.632
So from next year I'll have some time dedicated to doing primary care related research associated with the University of Bristol.
00:06:20.439 --> 00:06:21.343
So let's start with the question.
00:06:21.343 --> 00:06:25.487
Then, steve, over to you first, what made you think about doing this research?
00:06:26.339 --> 00:06:31.949
I don't know about you, neil, but I've always read these articles, these time-in-a-consultations, and I really enjoy them and find them helpful.
00:06:31.949 --> 00:06:35.894
But I have wondered sometimes is this plausible?
00:06:35.894 --> 00:06:40.769
You would actually do this in 10 minutes and some of them seem a wee bit exhaustive actually, and rather long.
00:06:40.769 --> 00:06:48.339
I've also wondered whether these articles are getting longer, whether there's an inflation of expectation that's been lumped on us.
00:06:48.339 --> 00:06:51.689
Are we expected to do more and more in the consultation?
00:06:51.689 --> 00:06:54.887
I always thought that would be something interesting to look at.
00:06:55.420 --> 00:06:56.502
I would definitely agree.
00:06:56.502 --> 00:07:02.012
As someone who reads a lot of guidelines, it feels like they have extended a lot over the years.
00:07:02.012 --> 00:07:05.750
Alice, maybe fill us in with how did you then conduct the study?
00:07:06.339 --> 00:07:09.951
So we chose to get 44 of the published articles.
00:07:10.132 --> 00:07:18.093
So we looked at the first article ever published and then we took two from each calendar year since then up until the first article of 2022.
00:07:19.141 --> 00:07:42.071
I read all the articles and extracted the tasks that were recommended in each article and we then categorized them according to the type of task, so thinking about history taking or prescribing, and also whether or not the tasks were required for all patients or only in specific circumstances, such as prostate examination in male patients only, for example.
00:07:42.560 --> 00:07:55.872
We then asked for GPs, who were a range of different career stages but all practicing within the NHS, and we asked them to estimate the time that they think they would take to complete the relevant tasks.
00:07:55.872 --> 00:08:05.235
From that we then took a sort of median time of their four estimates and we calculated the minimum estimated consultation length.
00:08:05.235 --> 00:08:14.033
So that was the estimated time required to complete tasks for all patients and also a maximum estimated consultation length.
00:08:14.033 --> 00:08:19.389
So tasks for all patients and also those specific tasks that I mentioned.
00:08:19.389 --> 00:08:21.653
That might not be done in all circumstances.
00:08:21.653 --> 00:08:26.690
We also wanted to look at how demands may have increased over time.
00:08:26.690 --> 00:08:37.674
So we charted the estimates by year and also in five year periods to look at if there'd been a change over the 22 years since the articles were first published.
00:08:38.539 --> 00:08:41.866
I'm very impressed that you've read all 44 of these articles.
00:08:41.866 --> 00:08:45.214
You must be a true expert in these areas by now.
00:08:45.214 --> 00:08:47.648
So what were the findings then?
00:08:47.648 --> 00:08:51.340
Maybe let's start off with those minimum and maximum consultation lengths.
00:08:52.303 --> 00:09:17.695
Looking first towards the median for the minimum estimated consultation length, so thinking about the time that GPs estimated to complete the tasks that were recommended for all patients, that time estimate was 15.7 minutes, so a little bit over the 10 minutes that is usually permitted, and then thinking about the maximum estimated consultation length, that was a lot higher.
00:09:17.695 --> 00:09:18.918
That was 28.4 minutes.
00:09:20.504 --> 00:09:24.240
This might explain why both my surgeries yesterday ran over by at least an hour.
00:09:24.240 --> 00:09:29.032
I was kind of taking it personally, but no, maybe there's something more to it than that.
00:09:29.032 --> 00:09:36.313
Okay, so the timescales don't necessarily fit into what we might consider a classic general practice consultation.
00:09:36.313 --> 00:09:40.890
Steve, what's your take on the clinical implications of these findings?
00:09:41.379 --> 00:09:43.144
Firstly, to start with the positive.
00:09:43.144 --> 00:10:04.422
I think this article is a real celebration of the variety of general practice and all the things that we've done, all the things that general practice can do and is meant to be doing, which is an incredible range of articles, and you can see in the supplementary results there's a table where we actually list these 44s, so there's things like COPD, a tingling hand, snoring, gout, mineralia.
00:10:04.422 --> 00:10:07.339
They're just such a huge variety of stuff.
00:10:07.339 --> 00:10:08.774
We've got to celebrate what we do.
00:10:08.774 --> 00:10:20.754
It's incredible, actually, in terms of policy and clinical implications from this, though, I think as a community we've got to get real really about the expectations of what we can actually deliver in the time that we have permitted.
00:10:21.671 --> 00:10:23.597
I would say these are quite conservative estimates.
00:10:23.597 --> 00:10:36.701
They don't take into account the sort of system feelings that we see every day, the problems around things not working, products not being in pharmacy, stuff like that and we mentioned in the discussion that actually, patients don't come with one problem.
00:10:36.701 --> 00:10:50.520
They come with an average 2.5 problems, and if you were to map this out over what's said to be an average of 38 consultations a day, now a GP would spend the whole 24 hours of their day just having consultations.
00:10:50.520 --> 00:10:53.076
So clearly that's an absurd proposition.
00:10:53.076 --> 00:11:05.279
I think we need to recognise and be explicit that actually what's happening is GPs are very pragmatically allocating their time which is the main resource that we deal with in our day-to-day work to where they see the clinical needs.
00:11:05.730 --> 00:11:08.841
Were there any limitations to this research?
00:11:09.270 --> 00:11:14.158
Yeah, neil, it's an important question, and we'd just like to say up front that this is quite limited.
00:11:14.158 --> 00:11:14.721
In a lot of ways.
00:11:14.721 --> 00:11:20.621
This is a highly theoretical exercise in which GPs estimated how long they thought things would take.
00:11:20.621 --> 00:11:23.730
It's a very speculative endeavour, I would say.
00:11:23.730 --> 00:11:31.217
A real strength of this paper, I think, is that we pre-registered the protocol, so we really stuck to the analysis plan.
00:11:31.217 --> 00:11:33.557
All the data is available.
00:11:33.557 --> 00:11:38.741
Everybody can see for themselves what the timings are and explore that data for themselves.
00:11:38.741 --> 00:11:57.852
I think a real problem with a lot of research of this type is that it's vulnerable to constructing the narrative after the event and working, tinkering with the analysis to get the most eye-catching results, and we were very pleased to declare all our methods beforehand, so that would absolutely not be the case.
00:11:58.590 --> 00:12:03.974
And I'll put a link to the paper in the podcast description so you can go and have a look at it yourself.
00:12:03.974 --> 00:12:07.419
Maybe, if you fancy it, got a bit of spare time during the day.
00:12:07.419 --> 00:12:14.275
I know that's unlikely, but you could have a look at your real-world experience on some of these topics and compare it against this data.
00:12:14.275 --> 00:12:17.659
Alice, what's the GP trainee perspective on this?
00:12:18.211 --> 00:12:26.115
Well, I think as a trainee, we're quite fortunate because we do start on longer consultations, but I think they're very much needed.
00:12:26.115 --> 00:12:35.799
When I first started, I was on 30-minute consultations and sometimes I was still overrunning and then I was filled with dread with the idea that I'd have to reduce it down to 20 minutes.
00:12:35.799 --> 00:12:43.529
But yeah, if someone told me again tomorrow that I need to half my appointment times again, that would fill me with dread, definitely.
00:12:43.529 --> 00:12:58.940
This study highlights the importance of trainees having enough time to consult patients, and then also we spend a lot of the time referring back to the guidelines as well, so we need to have enough time to be able to complete all the relevant tasks.
00:12:59.629 --> 00:13:06.623
I think maybe we are seeing a shift in how practices organise their day, with longer consultations.
00:13:06.623 --> 00:13:11.922
The practice I was working in yesterday typically has 15-minute consultation times.
00:13:11.922 --> 00:13:15.500
I'm sure going back 10 years ago, that would have been 10 minutes.
00:13:15.500 --> 00:13:23.717
I think back to when my wife was a GP registrar and they were still doing five-minute appointments for acute illness slots.
00:13:23.717 --> 00:13:25.977
I couldn't get my head around that at all.
00:13:25.977 --> 00:13:29.078
I can barely say hello to a patient in five minutes.
00:13:29.078 --> 00:13:35.673
What staggered me about yesterday was the complexity of so many of the patients that I was seeing.
00:13:35.673 --> 00:13:42.033
And, of course, if you're going to manage those patients well and safely, then it does take more time.
00:13:42.033 --> 00:13:45.700
The BMJ still has the title of 10-minute consultations.
00:13:45.700 --> 00:13:49.779
Most GPs, I think, would now be thinking more about 15-minute consultations.
00:13:49.779 --> 00:13:53.719
This data questions whether even that is sufficient.
00:13:53.719 --> 00:13:55.575
Steve, what do you think?
00:13:56.230 --> 00:13:58.698
Yeah, we discussed this in the paper.
00:13:58.698 --> 00:14:03.981
Actually there is the findings would seem to support a move to 15-minute consultations.
00:14:03.981 --> 00:14:19.581
That doesn't necessarily address the problem of access, but it does seem to me logical that we ought to move to 15-minute appointments because it really feels slightly disapproachable actually, too patients and they're concerned to try to pretend that we can actually address their problems in 10 minutes.
00:14:19.581 --> 00:14:26.631
I've never actually really managed to do that satisfactorily where I work as 15 minutes appointments I mean.
00:14:26.631 --> 00:14:56.601
Another thing we say in the paper, which maybe feels like a slightly trivial point but actually I think is rather important, is that we are suggesting BMJ renames this article series because it just seems to set up expectations that aren't possible and colludes in this kind of this expectation that we do everything in a very, very short period of time, which just, which just really can't be met and I think contributes to the sort of moral distress that a lot of us feel about the mismatch between what we would like to do if there was the time available and what we actually can do.
00:14:57.130 --> 00:14:58.134
What next, then?
00:14:58.134 --> 00:15:01.501
Is there more work that you think is required in this area?
00:15:02.413 --> 00:15:06.250
Well, as you know, every, every conclusion of every study is more research is required.
00:15:06.250 --> 00:15:09.860
So I wouldn't I wouldn't want to break with that noble tradition.
00:15:09.860 --> 00:15:21.261
I mean, one of our colleagues, carl Sinet, who is a co-author on this paper, has done a lot of work around this area, particularly looking at systems failures and how that affects timing of consultations.
00:15:21.261 --> 00:15:40.441
A few things that I thought should be looked at is how we build some consensus around this stuff that we ought to not do or de-prioritise, because there's a whole lot of workload and I think we need to try to understand what is the stuff that is least important or has least direct effects for patients that we can stop doing.
00:15:40.750 --> 00:15:46.283
Another thought I've had on this is around process automation and artificial intelligence.
00:15:46.283 --> 00:15:56.200
I mean, one thing that's disappointed me a little bit around the narrative with AI is that everybody seems fixated on replacing doctors with AI cyborgs, which seems to me to miss the point.
00:15:56.200 --> 00:16:00.902
What we would actually like, and I think what patients would like, is for us to have more time to spend with them.
00:16:00.902 --> 00:16:14.570
I think we should be looking at that technology to replace the stuff that we do that's tedious and could be automated, stuff like if reports could be written automatically filing of routine results, things like that.
00:16:14.570 --> 00:16:28.278
There's so many fiddly little tasks that take up a lot of time and attention and actually are very, very draining, and I think if we could focus the technology in that direction, then maybe that could free us a bit more to actually do the stuff we want to do just talking to patients about what matters to them.
00:16:28.730 --> 00:16:42.282
I think the other thing that your research highlights is the necessity of having GPs and other primary health care clinicians intrinsically involved in the guideline writing process.
00:16:42.282 --> 00:16:51.706
It's still true that primary and secondary care don't necessarily understand very well what each other does, so we need a strong voice that can push back a little bit.
00:16:51.706 --> 00:17:01.302
Sometimes they can say that sounds fantastic, but this is the reality and, by doing so, making these guidelines more relevant and practical for us and our patients.
00:17:01.870 --> 00:17:11.114
Yeah, there was a fantastic article in BMJ last year, I think, that called for time to be taken into account with guidelines and this emerging body of evidence around this.
00:17:11.114 --> 00:17:16.203
Most of it is around guidelines rather than what we looked, which was peer recommendations.
00:17:16.203 --> 00:17:25.962
But I think time does need to be explicitly considered and if we do need to push back a bit and challenge and say, ok, we might be able to do that, what is it that you would like us to not do?
00:17:26.590 --> 00:17:28.617
And Alice, what's next for you?
00:17:28.930 --> 00:17:38.981
Well, the AKT is the end of January, so that's the big next step for me, and then currently thinking about what I'm going to do with when I have some dedicated academic time.
00:17:38.981 --> 00:17:47.565
I'm interested in patients and carers with multiple long term conditions, thinking about how we can support them in primary care.
00:17:47.565 --> 00:17:51.500
Personalised care planning project to be confirmed.
00:17:52.030 --> 00:17:56.442
One final question, then, in homage to your title Great Expectations.
00:17:56.442 --> 00:18:02.262
If you had to be one character from the Charles Dickens novel, what would you be?
00:18:02.262 --> 00:18:04.858
To be honest, stephen, I've already got you pegged as Pip.
00:18:06.875 --> 00:18:09.369
I thought maybe, joe, you know honest, dependable.
00:18:10.974 --> 00:18:13.523
OK, so Alice can be Pip and I'll be Miss Haversham.
00:18:14.185 --> 00:18:15.592
I was thinking the conflict with you.
00:18:18.365 --> 00:18:18.906
No comment.
00:18:18.906 --> 00:18:21.354
Thank you both for joining us on the podcast today.
00:18:21.354 --> 00:18:27.742
It's been brilliant to have you along and have the opportunity to chat a little bit about how we do general practice.
00:18:27.742 --> 00:18:33.461
I know that, steven, you're heavily involved in cancer research relating to primary care.
00:18:33.461 --> 00:18:38.476
I'm sure we're going to hear more from you in the near future, so I look forward to having you back on the podcast then.
00:18:38.965 --> 00:18:49.406
Yeah, thanks so much, neil, and it's really been lovely to talk to you and a big fan of it the podcast and I'd just like to say thank you, if that's okay, to the four GPs who really did the work for us.
00:18:49.406 --> 00:18:51.614
These are not academic GPs.
00:18:51.614 --> 00:18:57.796
They took extra time out to think about how long things would take, which is actually quite a big ask to make of them.
00:18:57.796 --> 00:19:02.751
So thank you very much to Nigel Taylor, harriet DeLapp, helen Pike and James Gurkin.
00:19:02.751 --> 00:19:04.978
We're so grateful that you did this work with us.
00:19:05.266 --> 00:19:09.826
And a big thank you as well to Dr Alice Harper, who I'm sure will be seeing lots more of in the future.
00:19:09.826 --> 00:19:10.509
Thanks, alice.
00:19:10.789 --> 00:19:11.673
Thanks very much, neil.
00:19:12.075 --> 00:19:15.045
That's a wrap for the Hot Topics podcast for 2023.
00:19:15.045 --> 00:19:17.613
Thanks for joining us throughout the year.
00:19:17.613 --> 00:19:23.429
Remember, you can always get in touch on hot topics at mbmedicalcom.
00:19:23.429 --> 00:19:31.352
In January, mb Medical has live webinars for our Hot Topics in Dermatology and our latest main Hot Topics course as well.
00:19:31.352 --> 00:19:36.489
Join us for those and I'll be back with a podcast sometime in a few weeks.
00:19:36.489 --> 00:19:38.011
Merry Christmas, everyone.
00:19:38.011 --> 00:19:38.894
Happy New Year.
00:19:38.894 --> 00:19:40.617
Look after yourselves, bye, bye.
