Why do doctors struggle to communicate with their patients?

Many doctors turn their nose up at the art of communication, viewing it as potentially soft medicine.

Last month, the GMC reported that the number of complaints regarding doctors have increased by 23 per cent with complaints received focusing primarily on how doctors interact with their patients. Allegations about communication in particular have increased by 69 per cent with a lack of respect rising to 45 per cent. Dr Niall Dickson, Chief Executive of the GMC, commented that:

"the rise in complaints did not necessarily mean worse care and that the evidence was actually about rising levels of satisfaction with medical care across the country."

Katherine Murphy, Chief Executive of the Patients Association, reported that

"the huge rise in complaints in relation to communication and a lack of respect are of particular concern. Patients are not receiving the compassion, dignity and respect which they deserve."

For several years, medical schools across the UK have taken steps to help train future doctors enhance their communication skills. Throughout their training, students are expected to undertake role play sessions to help simulate situations they may face in the future either on the wards or in the GP setting. These can include anything from breaking bad news to communicating with an angry patient or explaining a procedure such as endoscopy. At the time, I can admit to doubting its relevance. However, looking back, those sessions certainly helped me to improve my patient interaction and appreciate what being a patient may actually feel like.

And of course don’t just take my word as gospel. A study by Dr Debra Nestel and Dr Tanya Tierney at Imperial College looked at the merit of role play during students’ first year at medical school. The scenario utilised centered on a "patient" who had come to see their GP following sustaining a wound to their hand in the garden. The patient is instructed to act worried about the wound using non verbal and verbal clues. And as the wound occurred following contact with a nail, the patient may as a result need a tetanus injection, and is instructed to act frightened of injections. Students are then assessed on their overall ability to assess why the patient has come to the GP and their ability to assess the patient’s ideas, concerns and expectations (ICE). The results of their research found that role play was an effective means of learning communication skills with over 96 per cent of students reporting it as helpful.

Of course role play is just one example of improving one’s communication skills. Dr Alan McDevitt, chair of the BMA Scottish GP committee, recently reported that his mother’s influence in persuading him to get his first job selling cream door to door aged 11 helped him to learn a lot of communication skills.

However despite some success stories, the current evidence suggests that doctors on the whole are failing to demonstrate their bravura in real life.

Dr Clare Gerada, chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners commented that:

"a number of factors could be responsible for the increase in complaints including over-worked and stressed doctors failing to communicate well and a growing culture of complaining."

She went on to say that:

"‘We must always be kind and compassionate. In the end, being kind and compassionate is what is important about being a doctor and what patients want."

Many doctors turn their nose up at the art of communication, viewing it as potentially soft medicine. And speaking with colleagues the general consensus is that patients surely want a doctor who simply knows their stuff, regardless of how they communicate. It seems however the inability of doctors to communicate well is not only being discussed among adults – its transition to the animated world surely serves to emphasise Oliver Goldsmith’s mind set: "People seldom improve when they have no other model but themselves to copy."

Neel Sharma is a medical doctor and Honorary Clinical Lecturer at the Centre for Medical Education, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry

 

A doctor examines a patient. Photograph: Getty Images
Getty
Show Hide image

The tale of Battersea power station shows how affordable housing is lost

Initially, the developers promised 636 affordable homes. Now, they have reduced the number to 386. 

It’s the most predictable trick in the big book of property development. A developer signs an agreement with a local council promising to provide a barely acceptable level of barely affordable housing, then slashes these commitments at the first, second and third signs of trouble. It’s happened all over the country, from Hastings to Cumbria. But it happens most often in London, and most recently of all at Battersea power station, the Thames landmark and long-time London ruin which I wrote about in my 2016 book, Up In Smoke: The Failed Dreams of Battersea Power Station. For decades, the power station was one of London’s most popular buildings but now it represents some of the most depressing aspects of the capital’s attempts at regeneration. Almost in shame, the building itself has started to disappear from view behind a curtain of ugly gold-and-glass apartments aimed squarely at the international rich. The Battersea power station development is costing around £9bn. There will be around 4,200 flats, an office for Apple and a new Tube station. But only 386 of the new flats will be considered affordable

What makes the Battersea power station development worse is the developer’s argument for why there are so few affordable homes, which runs something like this. The bottom is falling out of the luxury homes market because too many are being built, which means developers can no longer afford to build the sort of homes that people actually want. It’s yet another sign of the failure of the housing market to provide what is most needed. But it also highlights the delusion of politicians who still seem to believe that property developers are going to provide the answers to one of the most pressing problems in politics.

A Malaysian consortium acquired the power station in 2012 and initially promised to build 517 affordable units, which then rose to 636. This was pretty meagre, but with four developers having already failed to develop the site, it was enough to satisfy Wandsworth council. By the time I wrote Up In Smoke, this had been reduced back to 565 units – around 15 per cent of the total number of new flats. Now the developers want to build only 386 affordable homes – around 9 per cent of the final residential offering, which includes expensive flats bought by the likes of Sting and Bear Grylls. 

The developers say this is because of escalating costs and the technical challenges of restoring the power station – but it’s also the case that the entire Nine Elms area between Battersea and Vauxhall is experiencing a glut of similar property, which is driving down prices. They want to focus instead on paying for the new Northern Line extension that joins the power station to Kennington. The slashing of affordable housing can be done without need for a new planning application or public consultation by using a “deed of variation”. It also means Mayor Sadiq Khan can’t do much more than write to Wandsworth urging the council to reject the new scheme. There’s little chance of that. Conservative Wandsworth has been committed to a developer-led solution to the power station for three decades and in that time has perfected the art of rolling over, despite several excruciating, and occasionally hilarious, disappointments.

The Battersea power station situation also highlights the sophistry developers will use to excuse any decision. When I interviewed Rob Tincknell, the developer’s chief executive, in 2014, he boasted it was the developer’s commitment to paying for the Northern Line extension (NLE) that was allowing the already limited amount of affordable housing to be built in the first place. Without the NLE, he insisted, they would never be able to build this number of affordable units. “The important point to note is that the NLE project allows the development density in the district of Nine Elms to nearly double,” he said. “Therefore, without the NLE the density at Battersea would be about half and even if there was a higher level of affordable, say 30 per cent, it would be a percentage of a lower figure and therefore the city wouldn’t get any more affordable than they do now.”

Now the argument is reversed. Because the developer has to pay for the transport infrastructure, they can’t afford to build as much affordable housing. Smart hey?

It’s not entirely hopeless. Wandsworth may yet reject the plan, while the developers say they hope to restore the missing 250 units at the end of the build.

But I wouldn’t hold your breath.

This is a version of a blog post which originally appeared here.

0800 7318496