Abstract
Promoting patient safety in primary care Honesty and openness may not be best policyEditor-We were both surprised by Wilson et al who, in their editorial, ask everybody to send in reports of their errors. 1Our concerns remain regardless of whether or not such accounts are published anonymously.After all, the police have used anonymous medical research data in their investigations.A conviction of culpable and reckless behaviour was secured against a man after he had sexual intercourse with his girlfriend without telling her he was infected with HIV.The scientific evidence that secured the conviction came from confidential research data that were obtained with a police warrant. 2 Furthermore, Wilson et all say that for doctors to report their errors, patient consent will be needed.This means that the patient will know that an account of his or her care is to be published and may read it.He or she may ask his lawyers to read it.The lawyers may then be able to substantiate this published account as a confession of guilt or negligence.Wherever and whoever we are, we must be careful as doctors what we say.For example, although we understand that no charges were brought, an incident last year highlights this point.Police are to hold a murder inquiry into the case of Peter Brand, a Member of Parliament for the Liberal Democrat Party for the Isle of Wight and a general practitioner, who mentioned during a parliamentary debate that he had withdrawn treatment from a two year old boy with leukaemia at the parents' request, to save him any more distress. 3This case had occurred in 1973, when he was a house officer.However regrettable, we do live in a culture of blame.To admit professional mistakes of a minor nature may be straightforwardly forgivable.The admission, however, of a serious offence or negligence by doctors may result in litigation against them.Before discussing such matters in public, doctors should seriously consider whether honesty and openness are the best policy.
Full text
3,171 characters
· extracted from
oa-html
· click to expand
Editor—In his review on endometriosis, Prentice sets out management strategies for treating painful symptoms resulting from endometriosis.1 He concludes that the first line treatment should be medical and that surgery should be reserved for cases in which medical treatment has failed or for patients with severe disease. We believe that the emphasis on medical treatment and the assertion that controversy exists over the precise role of surgery are misleading and may be responsible for physicians mismanaging their patients.
The evidence from randomised controlled trials for the medical and surgical management of endometriosis has recently been reviewed.2 A critical summary of the medical management has shown that there is little difference in effectiveness of various medical treatments, which only last while patients remain on treatment. The review also showed that surgical management is effective in the treatment of both painful symptoms and subfertility. Furthermore, there is a wealth of grade II and III evidence in the literature which supports laparoscopic surgery as the primary treatment modality for all stages of endometriosis.3
We believe that in the United Kingdom endometriosis is misdiagnosed in many patients who are having a laparoscopy, and many are not treated adequately because of the emphasis on medical management strategies.3 This almost certainly reflects the fact that only a few surgeons in the United Kingdom have the advanced endoscopy skills required to diagnose and then treat the disease laparoscopically. This is in marked contrast to the situation in the rest of Europe and North America, where surgical techniques using minimal access were first developed.
We recommend that medical treatments be used by primary care doctors for the short to medium term to control painful symptoms, before referral to hospital for surgery or while the patient is on the waiting list for surgery. Patients should be referred to units where laparoscopic diagnosis and surgery can be carried out during the same operation. Conservative, excisional, or ablative endoscopic surgery and not medical treatment should be the first line management of patients with endometriosis. This applies to women with any stage of the disease, but particularly those with endometriotic cysts, or infiltrating rectovaginal disease.4,5
References
- 1.Prentice A. Endometriosis. Regular review. BMJ. 2001;323:93–95. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7304.93. . (14 July.) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Farquhar C, Sutton CJG. The evidence for the management of endometriosis. Curr Opin Obstet Gynaecol. 1998;10:321–332. doi: 10.1097/00001703-199808000-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Garry R. Endometriosis: an invasive disease. Gynaecol Endoscopy. 2001;10:79–83. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Jones KD, Sutton CJG. Laparoscopic management of ovarian endometriomas: a critical review of current practice. Curr Opin Obstet Gynaecol. 2000;12:309–317. doi: 10.1097/00001703-200008000-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Jones KD, Sutton CJG. Arcus taurinus: the mother and father of all LUNAs. Gynaecol Endoscopy. 2001;10:83–91. [Google Scholar]
Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below.
Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure
cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can
have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy
(via DOI)
is the canonical version.