General Medical Council

About: General Medical Council is a government organization based out in London, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Health care & Public health. The organization has 69 authors who have published 111 publications receiving 1663 citations. The organization is also known as: GMC.

Access to personal protective equipment in healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom: results from a nationwide cohort study (UK-REACH)

Abstract: ObjectivesTo determine the prevalence and predictors of self-reported access to appropriate personal protective equipment (aPPE) for healthcare workers (HCWs) in the United Kingdom (UK) during the first UK national COVID-19 lockdown (March 2020) and at the time of questionnaire response (December 2020 - February 2021). DesignTwo cross sectional analyses using data from a questionnaire-based cohort study. SettingNationwide questionnaire from 4th December 2020 to 28th February 2021. ParticipantsA representative sample of HCWs or ancillary workers in a UK healthcare setting aged 16 or over, registered with one of seven main UK healthcare regulatory bodies. Main outcome measureBinary measure of self-reported aPPE (access all of the time vs access most of the time or less frequently) at two timepoints: the first national lockdown in the UK (primary analysis) and at the time of questionnaire response (secondary analysis). Results10,508 HCWs were included in the primary analysis, and 12,252 in the secondary analysis. 3702 (35.2%) of HCWs reported aPPE at all times in the primary analysis; 6806 (83.9%) reported aPPE at all times in the secondary analysis. After adjustment (for age, sex, ethnicity, migration status, occupation, aerosol generating procedure exposure, work sector, work region, working hours, night shift frequency and trust in employing organisation), older HCWs (per decade increase in age: aOR 1.2, 95% CI 1.16-1.26, p<0.001) and those working in Intensive Care Units (1.61, 1.38 - 1.89, p<0.001) were more likely to report aPPE at all times. Those from Asian ethnic groups compared to White (0.77, 0.67-0.89, p<0.001), those in allied health professional (AHPs) and dental roles (vs those in medical roles; AHPs: 0.77, 0.68 - 0.87, p<0.001; dental: 0.63, 0.49-0.81, p<0.001), and those who saw a higher number of COVID-19 patients compared to those who saw none ([≥]21 patients 0.74, 0.61-0.90, p=0.003) were less likely to report aPPE at all times in the primary analysis. aPPE at all times was also not uniform across UK regions (reported access being better in South West and North East England than London). Those who trusted their employing organisation to deal with concerns about unsafe clinical practice, compared to those who did not, were twice as likely to report aPPE at all times (2.18, 1.97-2.40, p<0.001). With the exception of occupation, these factors were also significantly associated with aPPE at all times in the secondary analysis. ConclusionsWe found that only a third of HCWs in the UK reported aPPE at all times during the period of the first lockdown and that aPPE had improved later in the pandemic. We also identified key sociodemographic and occupational determinants of aPPE during the first UK lockdown, the majority of which have persisted since lockdown was eased. These findings have important public health implications for HCWs, particularly as cases of infection and long-COVID continue to rise in the UK. Trial registrationISRCTN 11811602 What is already known on this topicAccess to personal protective equipment (PPE) is crucial to protect healthcare workers (HCWs) from infection. Limited data exist concerning the prevalence of, and factors relating to, PPE access for HCWs in the United Kingdom (UK) during the COVID-19 pandemic. What this study addsOnly a third of HCWs reported having access to appropriate PPE all of the time during the first UK national lockdown. Older HCWs, those working in Intensive Care Units and those who trusted their employing organisation to deal with concerns about unsafe clinical practice, were more likely to report access to adequate PPE. Those from Asian ethnic groups (compared to White ethnic groups) and those who saw a high number of COVID-19 were less likely to report access to adequate PPE. Our findings have important implications for the mental and physical health of HCWs working during the pandemic in the UK.

Knowledge and attitude of primary health care staff screening and not screening for domestic violence against women

Abstract: Background Violence against women is an important public health problem that draws attention of a wide spectrum of clinicians. Attitude and knowledge of the primary health care (PHC) staff can affect their ability and willingness to screen for and manage domestic violence (DV) against women. Objectives Reveal the impact of knowledge and attitude of workers to screen for DV against women. Methods An observational cross-sectional study was carried out in PHC centers located in two randomly selected health regions in Kuwait. The study involved all available physicians (210) and nurses (464) in the selected centers. The overall response rate was 54.3%. A self-administrative questionnaire was used for data collection. It included four main aspects relevant to knowledge and one attitude domain regarding DV. A 5-point, Likert-scale was used to assess participant's answers for each item. Results Male physicians were significantly more likely to screen for violence (36.2% compared with 18.8% for females, P P P = 0.006). The only knowledge sub-domain showing significant difference was the psychological sub-domain (78.4 ± 20.3 compared with 69.4 ± 26.3%, P = 0.004). Although, no significant differences were detected for each of the questions of this domain yet, those not screening for violence had a significantly higher mean percent score than those screening for violence (70.1 ± 18.6 compared with 65.5 ± 16.5%, P = 0.015). Conclusion Physicians at the PHC centers screened for violence against women more than nurses. Although, the knowledge of those screening for violence was better than those for not screening, yet more positive attitude was demonstrated among those not screening. Task and skill based programs should be planned to enhance both knowledge and skills of the health care staff about the screening process. Other factors affecting the screening process such as infrastructure and physical environment need to be considered.

Professionally led regulation in medicine

Abstract: The power of any profession to regulate itself is a privilege given by the state through parliament and not a right.1 If society loses its confidence in the ability of the profession to exercise that right responsibly the possibility of alternative methods of regulation naturally arises. Recent high profile cases of serious professional misconduct or seriously deficient performance by doctors in the UK in recent months have dented that confidence somewhat, and sensationalised reporting in the media has done nothing to help the situation.2 It is encouraging, however, that in a recent public opinion poll conducted by MORI on behalf of the BMA, 87% of those polled said they would generally trust doctors to tell the truth. Only 7% of members of the public responding were dissatisfied with the way doctors do their jobs.3 A number of advantages accrue from a regulatory system that is controlled by the medical profession. Most people are reassured to know that doctors not only have contractual obligations to any employer but also professional obligations to live up to the standards of conduct, performance, and behaviour set by their peers, as these are invariably more demanding than any contractual ones. For self employed doctors, professional accountability is perhaps even more important. Doctors are also likely to have more confidence in a regulatory body for which they feel a degree of ownership than in external regulation; the teaching profession provides an example of the effect of externally imposed regulation on morale. Doctors are in a good position to define the standards that they expect of themselves and their colleagues, and these standards have been clearly expressed by the General Medical Council (GMC) in its document Good Medical Practice .4 There is, however, widespread recognition by the profession that strong non-medical input is …