Sadness and Professionalism

I've written before on the sadder parts of working in paediatrics, and how I think it's ok to find it upsetting (it's entirely coincidence that I wrote that post exactly one year ago). As I've got more senior and been more directly involved with patient care and decision making, I've found that the harder parts of my job have got, at times, even tougher.

I am quite involved with the medical student paediatric society (hi LUMPS) and as part of this I mentor students who are interested in paediatrics. One of the commonest questions they ask is "how do you cope with the sad bits?" - most commonly they wonder how I deal with deaths and child protection issues. The honest answer is that I'm not sure I do, at least not in any way that I can really express to anyone else. Paediatricians, on the whole, are a pretty nice bunch, so there's always lots of peer support. Even very senior and experience colleagues still get upset by horrible things happening, and the general consensus is that it's ok to be sad when sad things happen. Still, I find myself wondering whether it's "professional" to be upset by things I see at work.

Is it ok to feel sad when you see a child who has had injuries inflicted by their own family? Is it wrong to cry when a baby you've looked after since their birth passes away? Do these emotions, or expressing them, make me a bad doctor? I'm a naturally self-critical person and so tend to feel like anything I do, say or feel is an indicator of how terrible I am, and I guess this is just another example of this. In reality, I suspect being upset about a patient is no bad thing, as long as it doesn't influence how you treat the next one. So cry, take 5 minutes for a cup of tea, go home after your shift and have a glass of wine, do whatever you need to. But when the next patient comes along, they deserve the same care and attention as all the rest.

It's not unprofessional to be sad. But it is unprofessional to let that sadness affect the care you provide to others.

I'm Not A Lousy Doctor - But I'm A Lousy Friend

If you've read this blog before, you'll probably be aware that I'm a prolific tweeter. In fact, I'd be surprised if you were reading and had come across this post via anything other than seeing me tweet about it. One of the things I love about Twitter is that it makes the world a smaller place. One of my favourite Tweeters is the lovely @dr_ashwitt; although she is as far from me as is basically possible (Melbourne, if you were wondering), I frequently read her tweets and think "oh my God, me too!". Recently, Ash re-posted a link to a post she wrote a couple of years ago about her experiences of depression. She urged other doctors to post their own 140 character experiences of mental health issues, and #MH4Docs got a fair number of tweets which Ash has collated here. I haven't actually tweeted yet, but I've been pretty vocal about my own issues over the years and it's good to see that people feel they can open up about these things. The thing that really made me think, though, was the sentence she used to link to her blog.

"I have depression, but that doesn't mean I'm not a good doctor."

I think a big part of the reason that a lot of health care professionals (and non-health care professionals, come to think of it) are reluctant to open up about mental health issues is the fear that their abilities at work will be called into question. I know that one of my major fears when I "admitted" to having depression was that people might think I was unable to do the job I love and have worked for for a long time. 

My mental health problems don't mean I'm not a good doctor. I have a need to be busy which means that I will crack on with as much work as I can, and I'll find non-essential tasks which just "need doing at some point" to keep me occupied. Focusing on other people means I'm not thinking about myself and my own emotions, so I'm unlikely to slip into a spiral of despair. My lack of self esteem and constant impostor syndrome mean I'm keen to please and make an extra effort to be friendly and polite. Work makes me feel better and I think my own issues mean I will always work as hard as I can. Possibly I'm at risk of burnout, but it's nothing I've ever felt close to, and the other hobbies I've developed to occupy myself and prevent negative thinking mean I have outlets outside of medicine.

No, depression doesn't mean I'm not a good doctor. It does mean I'm not a good friend, though. Being nice and polite to people can be frankly exhausting. After a whole day smiling and engaging in banal conversation and generally giving the impression that I'm a functional human being, I am absolutely worn out. I very rarely agree to after-work plans because I know I'll be too tired to be good company. If I've made arrangements, there's a good chance I'll flake out at the last minute because I just can't face being around people any more. Finally living alone rather than with flatmates is a Godsend because it means I can have meltdowns in the living room and kitchen rather than being restricted to my bedroom. On nights out, I'm renowned for disappearing without telling anyone after being consumed by an overwhelming wave of misery and wanting to get away before I spoil anyone else's night. As for relationships, I am probably one of the worst girlfriends out there. I take insecurity and anxiety to ridiculous levels, any compliment is analysed repeatedly to ensure it isn't actually a heavily veiled insult and "I love you" is not infrequently followed not with "I love you, too" but "..really? Do you actually though?".

So yeah, I have depression, and that doesn't mean I'm not a good doctor. But it does mean I'm not a good friend. If you've stuck around anyway, thank you. I may not say it with nights out or long conversations, I may cancel half of our arrangements and you might feel like you're walking on eggshells when we talk, but you are loved and appreciated.

 

I'm A Paeds FY1... Get Me Out of Here!

With the much anticipated first Wednesday in August (for non-UK/non-hospital based folks, that's when all the junior doctors change jobs and our shiny new colleagues start their first roles as qualified doctors) fast approaching, I'm breaking from the EBM theme to write a #tipsfornewdocs type post for those who will be starting out in the crazy, scary, exciting world of paediatrics. I never actually did a paediatric rotation in FY1 but over the past year or so I've worked with numerous FY1 colleagues, some of them excellent and some of them a little less so. This is basically a list of the things I think really make the difference between the good ones and the rest.

If you're starting your first job as a doctor on paediatrics, lucky you! Whilst a lot of people are naturally anxious about working with children (yes, some of them are quite small, and they can be sticky and noisy, and worse than that, they come with parents attached!) you'll be working in a very well-supported environment with, on the whole, a very approachable group of senior colleagues. No one will expect you to be cannulating neonates or taking bloods from chunky toddlers on your first day! You also have the benefit, if you start in August, of working in a specialty with quite marked seasonal variation in admissions, so over the summer it should be relatively quiet on the wards and you'll have time to get your head around how things work before the winter chaos commences!

Paediatrics is a lovely, varied specialty with lots to learn. How much you do in terms of venepuncture, cannulation etc is largely up to you - if you aren't comfortable, no one will make you do it, but if you're keen then the SHOs and registrars will be more than happy to teach you. There should be lots of opportunity for getting involved in audit, if that's your sort of thing, and there's usually some kind of research going on if that's what interests you. So what makes a great paediatric FY1?

Be organised. This goes for every FY1 job out there, to be honest. If you know who your patients are, what's going on with them and when they might get home, you'll probably not go far wrong. If you know a patient might go home, get started on their discharge paperwork early. This is great for your patients, as it means they have less of a wait between being told they're fit for discharge and actually getting to go home. It also keeps the nurses happy, and frankly keeping the nurses on your side is one of the biggest things you can do to help yourself survive as a junior doctor!

Be interested. I get it, not everyone is keen on kids. For some of you, paediatrics will probably be your worst nightmare. We all do at least one job during our training we are not remotely keen on (FY1 general surgery, in my case), but these jobs still have plenty to teach you. The majority of you will end up having some contact with children during your future training, and even if you have your heart set on geriatrics from day one, there's a lot of opportunity for embracing multi-disciplinary working and improving your communication skills, which will be useful in any future career. You don't have to love it, but please don't treat your rotation as some kind of sentence which must be served.

Be able to spot a sick child. This is the biggest "clinical" thing expected of you if you're going to be involved in assessing children. Hopefully you'll get a chance to see new admissions to the unit and clerk them, as that's probably the best learning opportunity. No one will expect you to correctly diagnose everything you see, but it's important that you can recognise those children who look unwell and need senior review sooner rather than later. There is a really useful website called Spotting the Sick Child, which has elearning modules and videos of what to look out for and is worth doing if you aren't clear what a sick child looks like (you also get a certificate of completion which you can stick in your ePortfolio...). If in doubt, ask. Children can deteriorate quickly so if you aren't comfortable and feel something is wrong, get help sooner rather than later. Management priorities for someone acutely unwell follow the ABC approach, but you should never be in a situation where you're dealing with this by yourself. The DEFG (don't ever forget glucose) is particularly important in young children as they're prone to hypoglycaemia and it can have serious consequences.


Be friendly. Engaging well with a child can make a huge difference. Not everyone is naturally comfortable with children, but if you can chat about something that interests them, that's a great start. Knowing which characters frequently appear on t-shirts and pyjamas is useful, as clothes are a great starting point for conversation ("oh wow, that's Peppa Pig on your top, is she your favourite?"), as are toys and characters around the room. Frozen and Minions are particularly popular at present. If you can distract a child talking about whether they like Anna or Elsa best or how funny it is when the naughty Minions turn purple, you're much more likely to work out whether they have genuine abdominal tenderness, for example. Hi-fives after finishing an examination or procedure go down well, and if there are bravery certificates and stickers on the ward these tend to be good bargaining tools if you need to do something the child perceives as unpleasant (including looking at the throat; you would be amazed at just how much kids hate opening their mouths when you ask them to do it!).

Be professional. There's a fine balance between being child-friendly and being silly. Yes, parents want someone who's good with their child and knows how to communicate with them, but they also want a doctor. Being daft when you're examining and chatting to a kid is fine, but make sure when explaining finds and communicating plans to parents that you come across as the knowledgeable professional you are. This also goes for speaking with teenagers, who will be wholly unimpressed if you treat them like children.

Common things are common. Have a basic grasp of the common presentations and how to manage them. A lot of paediatrics is about simple things, done well. Wheeze and fever are probably the 2 most common presentations, so know your local investigation and management guidelines for these. You'll also probably see a a lot of jaundiced babies, rashes and gastroenteritis. If you can take a decent history, examine and work out which kids are the really poorly ones (see earlier point) you won't go far wrong.

Enjoy it! Paediatrics is fun and children are interesting. Plus, where else can you get baby cuddles, play with bubbles and watch cartoons whilst at work?!

Good luck!

Potential Pitfalls in Evidence Based Medicine

In my last post, I talked a bit about why we need to use evidence in medicine. However, much as I support using evidence wherever possible, I can also see that there are a number of things that can go wrong when using EBM approach. Most of these are not due, per se, to EBM, but are down to issues with its implementation. Nonetheless, I think they're worth discussing.

One of the biggest issues with evidence is knowing how to apply it. A study may say something that sound potentially interesting, but it's important to work out whether the result actually applies to the patient sat in front of you before changing your practise. Was the study you're reading carried out exclusively in 50 year old men with high blood pressure but no other co morbidity? That doesn't mean that the 65 year old diabetic women in front of you won't benefit from the intervention studied, but it does mean that the evidence is less applicable to her and you should think carefully about applying it to her case. Lots of studies look at extremely specific groups. This is to reduce the likelihood of "confounding variables" - things other than the intervention which may result in a difference in outcome between study groups. However, the flip side is that the study result may not apply to those who differ from the specific group looked at in the study. It's therefore well worth having a good look at the inclusion criteria for participants in trials and bearing in mind that the results might not automatically apply to all of the patients you see.

A related issue arises when we look at guidelines. Clinical guidelines are available for many, many conditions now, and provide advice on interventions, investigations, referrals etc. In the UK, most of these are issued by The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and, in Scotland, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Guidelines are usually devised by a group of professionals appraising the available evidence - basically, they've done the hard work for you and read through all the evidence to determine what the best thing to do is in a number of situations. They will usually reference the evidence they used, should you wish to read it for yourself, and also tell you how strong the evidence is behind each recommendation. However, they are not hard and fast rules, they don't replace clinical decision making and they certainly don't cover every eventuality. Use them, just don't do so without thinking.

An issue it's also worth talking about is the difference between clinically significant and statistically significant. Statistical significance in most medical (and other) science) is usually taken to mean p <0.05. This means that there is less than a 1 in 20 chance that the result occurred by chance; in other words, it's likely that any difference in outcome between groups was down to differences in intervention rather than just being coincidental. Statistical significance is important because it's how we know that our interventions have actually done something. However, this has no reflection on whether the difference in outcome will make any kind of difference to a patients health, well being or long-term risks. This is another important thing to bear in mind before advising or prescribing an intervention based on evidence; will the outcome matter to my patient? An example where this becomes important is when thinking about statins, a group of drugs which lower cholesterol. There is good evidence that (a particular group of) patients who take statins are significantly less likely to suffer a stroke or heart attack within 20 years than those who don't. This sounds great, but if you have an octogenarian sat in front of you, does this really matter? They are unlikely to live another 20 years, so is it worth adding to their drug burden, with all the risks of side effects and drug interactions this brings? I'm not saying don't, just that you should be realistic about what the benefits of this will be to your patient. Maybe discuss the risks and benefits with them and see what they think.

There are other important factors to think about too when looking at a paper/trial/study. Rather than go through all of them, it makes more sense to hand over to the experts at this point. There are really useful study appraisal checklists available on the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) website, which guide you through the things you should ask yourself when you're considering the value of a piece of research.

I've hopefully discussed the main issues that occur when trying to implement evidence. In my next post, I plan to talk more about what we actually mean by "evidence" and how we can decide whether one piece of evidence is more or less worth using than another.

Why We Need Evidence in Medicine

I’m a self-confessed geek. I like learning. I like working things out. I like science. I did a science degree before going to medical school and I spend my spare time on such fun activities as post graduate certificates and systematic reviews. This doesn’t mean that I think of medicine as a science – I think there is definitely an art to lots of what I do – but I do think that it’s important for doctors to have a good understanding of scientific methodology so that they can interpret the vast amount of evidence they are presented with when making clinical decisions.

This is the first in a series of posts about evidence-based medicine. It's deliberately simplistic so that those outside of the medical field can understand it, but I hope it doesn't come across as patronising. The premise of this post is to explain why we need evidence in medicine. In later posts, I'll go on to talk about what constitutes evidence, problems we face in evidence-based medicine and ways in which we can use it to benefit patients.

I’ve heard numerous colleagues tell me that they “aren’t convinced by this evidence based medicine lark”. Their arguments usually centre around the fact that they have seen interventions work before and therefore are happy to use them again. On the surface, this is a reasonable argument. Someone is poorly. You give them some tablets. They get better. Next time you see someone who is poorly in the same way, you give them the same tablets. They get better too. The problem is, how do you know that they wouldn’t have got better anyway?

Let’s take a common example – a cold. If you have a cold and you take a course of antibiotics, you’ll probably feel better within 2-3 days. However, if you don’t take the antibiotics, you’ll also feel better in the same amount of time. That’s just how long it takes for a cold to get better, but if you gave every patient with a cold some antibiotics, you’d be forgiven for thinking you had found an excellent treatment. Observations like this are very useful in medicine. They’re the basis of a lot of important discoveries. They just aren’t the be all and end all.

So, how do you work out whether your treatment actually makes a difference? This is where trials come in. In very simple terms, if you want to know whether or not your treatment works, you need to randomly give it to half the people you see with a particular condition and not give it to the other half. If the half who get the treatment get better more quickly than those who don’t, that’s a good indicator that your treatment probably does make a difference. Of course it’s more complicated than that, but that’s the basic premise.

You might ask why I really care about evidence at this stage. After all, in the examples I’ve been giving, the patients all get better. There are two issues that we need to address here. The first one is side effects. No medication is risk free, so before choosing to give it to your patient, you want to be comfortable that the benefits of using it outweigh the risks. If you’d stopped at the first, observational stage, you wouldn’t know that your treatment didn’t offer any benefit over not treating, so you’d be subjecting all your patients to the risk of a treatment that might not actually make them any better. Remember, “first, do no harm”.

The next issue is about multiple treatment options. What happens when two people think their treatment works? We owe it to our patients to give them the best possible treatment, so we need to use trials and evidence to work out which option is “best”. This needs to take into account multiple factors, such as which treatments make more people better, which ones get people better more quickly and which ones have fewest side effects.

This has been a very brief run-down of why we need evidence. Without proper trials etc, we are left guessing whether or not things work and which things work best, and who wants medicine based on guess-work?