Views on mandatory reporting of impaired health practitioners by their treating practitioners: a qualitative study from Australia

Australian and New Zealand doctors' experiences of disciplinary notifications, investigations, proceedings and interventions relating to alleged mental health impairment: a qualitative analysis of interviews

When poor mental health impairs a doctor's ability to safely practise medicine, poor patient outcomes can result. Medical regulators play a critical role in protecting the public from impaired doctors, by requiring monitoring and treatment. However, regulatory processes may paradoxically harm doctors, with potential adverse implications for the community. There is little prior research examining the experiences of doctors with prior mental health or substance use challenges who are subject to regulatory notifications and processes relating to their health. Therefore, we explored this issue through the thematic analysis of semi-structured qualitative interviews. Participants reported that mandated treatment improved aspects of their health, but that fear of regulatory processes delayed them seeking treatment. Participants recognised being significantly unwell at the time of regulatory notification. Participants told us that regulatory processes triggered psychological distress, symptom relapse, and adverse financial and vocational implications. They also told us that these processes eroded their trust in regulators and regulatory processes. To improve health outcomes for unwell doctors and to create safer healthcare for the community, we propose: 1) greater awareness and education of the medical profession about the thresholds and requirements for mandatory reporting of health impairment; 2) better integrating specialised doctors' health services into existing regulatory pathways; and 3) adoption of a more therapeutic approach to regulation by medical regulators.

Conversations about FGM in primary care: a realist review on how, why and under what circumstances FGM is discussed in general practice consultations

OBJECTIVES

Little is known about the management of female genital mutilation (FGM) in primary care. There have been significant recent statutory changes relevant to general practitioners (GPs) in England, including a mandatory reporting duty. We undertook a realist synthesis to explore what influences how and when GPs discuss FGM with their patients.

SETTING

Primary care in England.

DATA SOURCES

Realist literature synthesis searching 10 databases with terms: GPs, primary care, obstetrics, gynaecology, midwifery and FGM (UK and worldwide). Citation chasing was used, and relevant grey literature was included, including searching FGM advocacy organisation websites for relevant data. Other potentially relevant literature fields were searched for evidence to inform programme theory development. We included all study designs and papers that presented evidence about factors potentially relevant to considering how, why and in what circumstances GPs feel able to discuss FGM with their patients.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

This realist review developed programme theory, tested against existing evidence, on what influences GPs actions and reactions to FGM in primary care consultations and where, when and why these influences are activated.

RESULTS

124 documents were included in the synthesis. Our analysis found that GPs need knowledge and training to help them support their patients with FGM, including who may be affected, what needs they may have and how to talk sensitively about FGM. Access to specialist services and guidance may help them with this role. Reporting requirements may complicate these conversations.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a pressing need to develop (and evaluate) training to help GPs meet FGM-affected communities' health needs and to promote the accessibility of primary care. Education and resources should be developed in partnership with community members. The impact of the mandatory reporting requirement and the Enhanced Dataset on healthcare interactions in primary care warrants evaluation.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018091996.

Barriers to seeking help for physicians with substance use disorder: A review

BACKGROUND

Substance use disorders (SUD) might concern as many as 8-15% of physicians. Previous studies suggest that self-diagnosis and self-medication are common practices among physicians. The aim of this review was to identify if barriers to seeking help and medical care for impaired physicians exist. We also aimed at characterizing the nature of these barriers.

METHODS

The review included scientific papers published on the MEDLINE and PsychINFO databases between January 2000 and September 2018. The inclusion criteria were: (i) articles that focused on SUD in physicians. The exclusion criteria were: (i) no mention of SUD; (ii) no mention of barriers to seeking help; (iii) articles focused on burn-out and work-related stress; (iv) articles focused on risk factors or treatments for SUD; (v) articles focused on psychiatric comorbidities and (vi) those focused on other professionals.

RESULTS

Potential barriers to seeking help that were identified for impaired physicians with SUD included denial of the disease and of loss of performance, fear of stigma, psychiatric comorbidities, fear of familial/social/professional and economic consequences and a lack of knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

Different barriers to seeking help could be identified. Priority should be given to educating medical students to ameliorate this. Increased awareness should reduce the stigma, which, even nowadays, still prevents some physicians from seeking help.