I think many people lament the passing of decision making
ability in junior doctors. If I had 1p for every time I
read "senior R/V" as the *first* line of any management
plan...
The hiccough with using 'numbers of patients seen per
hour' for anything is that juniors who perceive that they
are under pressure to speed up will likely make more
mistakes. Sure, there are those who are incredibly
work-shy... but one doesn't need numbers to know that (nor
to address the problem).
If I had to put a number on a 'minimum' I would have
thought one per hour is generous.
Sarah <-- a very grumpy not-so-old woman about all
things related to the decline of the medical profession!
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 08:41:36 -0000
Ray McGlone <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I agree about the problem with decision making. In past
>years at Lancaster
> they used to work on their own at night.... some
>complained..... but the
> more reflective ones did say that it helped with their
>decision making
> process and gave them more confidence. If they were on
>their own now this
> would mean lots of 4 hr breach reports.... because it is
>busier and because
> "their metal has not been hardened in the furnace of
>life". There are of
> course some juniors who still buck the trend.
>
> Incidentally how many patients should a FY2 or ST1-2 see
>in an hour? The Way
> Ahead says one an hour for FY2. By the way the question
>is not how many they
> see but how many they should see perhaps to be signed
>off for the post.
>
> Every patient is an "educational opportunity"..... the
>more you see the more
> you learn.
>
> Recently a senior Consultant said to me that he had
>signed off a
> junior...... soon afterwards he discovered how many
>patients had been seen
> by the doctor. He exclaimed that if he had known that he
>would not have
> signed them off. So what is the minimum..... what is
>"the line in the sand".
> Of course with the doctor seeing the average case mix.
>
> Regards
>
> Ray McGlone.... grumpy old man....
> Lancaster
>
|