I'm a GP. These are the six most commonly asked questions
For years I worked as a hospital doctor but found I never actually knew the answers to those simple, practical and often rather important questions that family members, friends, patients and just about everyone I meet chucks your way as soon as they realise they've got time with a doctor.
In the pub, or at a dinner party, I would desperately try to recall what you were meant to do if you'd missed a dose of your contraceptive pill. Medical school seemed a distant memory. I could sort out your non-invasive ventilation and decide whether your kidneys were failing, but was your nephew's rash actually chickenpox? I wasn't sure either.
So I decided to retrain as a GP. A colleague likened being a GP to the role of a secular priest. My parish, it seems though, is eternal WhatsApp queries, photos that need deleting and a small queue of camera operators wanting 'just a minute of your time' as I come off set from recording BBC1's Morning Live. As I write, my phone vibrates with a chasing message from my brother wanting thoughts on his latest medical conundrum. Do I mind? Absolutely not. I live and breathe this stuff. Come one, come all.
1. Why won't my cough go away?
'Don't be a GP', some said, 'it's just coughs and colds'. But as any discerning Dr Googler knows, it is far more complicated than that. The cough, poses a challenge for patient and doctor alike. Your search may have planted seeds of concern about TB or cancer, but this list of rarer causes is never far from your doctor's mind either. The skill, the chase, and the ultimate satisfaction lies in balancing the patient's clinical history on the scales of medically trained probability.
A viral illness that will eventually self-resolve, far outruns the pack of most-likely bothersome cough causers, but the extensive options from search results will make you grateful to live in an era of high-speed broadband. Coughs lasting a few days? These are sadly a thing of the past. Many will take you into three or four weeks of misery. If a virus is to blame no antibiotic will help, but we are encouraged to consider self-care whilst the virus burns itself out.
Even the national guidelines from NICE take us through options such as honey and over-the-counter cough remedies as potential soothers. Evidence to suggest these shorten symptom duration or improve quality of life is limited but whether it's placebo, distraction or just allowing time to tick by, most will settle. And if they don't, further investigation is required.
2. What do the blood pressure numbers mean?
The Covid pandemic gave us a taste for home monitoring, with finger-tip oxygen meters flying off shelves. Many bathroom cabinets now resemble a well-stocked cubicle from the local Emergency Department. Whether you're checking it at home or being requested to pop by your local pharmacy or GP practice to give a reading, knowing your blood pressure is one of the single best things you can do to monitor your health.
The brain and other vital organs must receive blood. When we're standing, it takes considerable pressure to pump blood up to those lofty heights. As the heart muscle squeezes, the highest pressure is created – known as the systolic blood pressure – and when the heart relaxes, a lower pressure – diastolic – is recorded. It is vital that even during the relaxation phase some pressure is maintained to keep blood flowing to our vital organs.
Much like central heating systems, a total drop in pressure can have equally chilling results. Extremely high pressures can cause the pipes to burst, but for most with mild or moderate elevations in their blood pressure, this isn't the major concern. Modestly elevated pressures, left unattended over time, wear away at the walls of our blood vessels, roughening the inner surface lining of the pipes and allowing fats such as cholesterol to deposit, fur up, and increase the risk of cardiovascular diseases such as heart attack and stroke. Should you check it? Yes. But more importantly, act to reduce it when required.
3. Surely I don't need a statin?
By reputation these cholesterol-lowering drugs are ranked beneath most politicians. Often the mere suggestion of starting one will result in facial contortion of the patient sitting opposite me. I recently interviewed a cardiologist and asked him why statins had received such bad press? His response was that – as far as your heart was concerned – he had never seen a bad news story for statins. Of course, all drugs have potential side effects. Top of the disgust list for patients are stories of muscle pain and weakness. Reassuringly, a meta-analysis study in The Lancet, showed that over 90 per cent of muscle pain blamed on statins had nothing to do with the statin at all.
The benefits of statins in reducing the rate of cardiovascular diseases have been shown repeatedly. Not only do these drugs reduce the artery-clogging bad cholesterol, known as LDL, but they are also thought to have a separate anti-inflammatory effect on the blood vessels themselves. If stroke and heart disease prevention aren't enticing enough, a recent study following more than 571,000 patients over 34 years showed a 26 per cent reduction in dementia in patients with low levels of bad cholesterol. This risk was shown to drop by a further 13 per cent in those on a statin. Rethink the grimace. I certainly am.
4. What can I do about my back pain?
That sudden twang after a bend or unplanned heavy lift, so often followed by a spine-clutching waddle into the consulting room. Back pain is a nightmare when it strikes, not just for the individual patient, but for society as a whole. Estimates vary, but the cost of treating back pain and the indirect costs associated with work absence, run into many billions of pounds of UK GDP each year.
Modern lifestyle does little to help. Our spines – hardly evolved from the days of active hunter-gatherer humans – simply disagree with sofa culture and desk time. The good news for the vast majority, is that our ancestors also offer a cure. The days of medical advice being to take yourself to bed with strong painkillers are long gone. Patients will often offer their own solution.
The pain is better when standing or walking and worsens when sitting or lying down. There then lies the answer. Walking, moving and back pain exercises will settle things for most – but it can take time. Red flags that need urgent medical review are weakness, numbness, unintentional weight loss and problems controlling your bladder or bowels.
Loyal friends and fellow sufferers may well-meaningly advocate an MRI scan. Whilst these certainly have their place, there's perhaps caution here against an overly-hasty trip to the scanner. For low-risk back pain, without red flags, scanning within the first 4-6 weeks has been shown in some studies to actually increase the length of duration of symptoms. Exactly why this happens is uncertain. Perhaps overly medicalising the problem has an impact on our speed of recovery. Not every bit of wear and tear seen on a scan is responsible for the symptoms we feel.
5. Should I go for screening?
Screening offered by the NHS is carefully analysed to ensure that each program offers high yield – cost-effective – early detection. Yet the number of us not taking up invitations for cervical, breast and bowel cancer screening is extraordinarily high. Recent data from NHS England showed that up to 5 million women were not up to date with their cervical cancer screening. For many, the intention is there. So often though, its added to the to-do list, well below arranging MOTs and switching electricity suppliers.
The reality is that early cancer detection really can save lives. Fear of testing and fear of results all play their part, but my greatest fear is you forgetting. If you've got a 'poo-in-the-post' packet sat on your kitchen table, follow the instructions. If there's a letter – it may seem Dickensian – open it. Elevate screening on your list. It should be up there with checking the smoke detectors. Get to it before the chirping beep starts annoying you.
6. Is this chickenpox?
Here come the picture messages and anxious family members in the waiting room. Childhood rashes bring fear thanks to the well-publicised, but fortunately rare, rash associated with severe infections like bacterial meningitis. Have you pressed a glass onto it to see if it disappears? A rash that remains – or doesn't blanch – needs urgent attention. The most important question here though is, how is the child? Many simple viral illnesses in childhood bring rashes that can safely be managed at home with medical advice. But is it chickenpox? Characteristic fluid-filled itchy blisters? Surely it should be easy. Can I finally answer with certainty and be the doctor that the world around me appears to need? Sometimes.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
North Wales Chronicle
2 hours ago
- North Wales Chronicle
No disciplinary sanction for doctor's ‘grave' failures in care of Martha Mills
Professor Richard Thompson did not refer Martha Mills, 13, to intensive care despite her displaying several high-risk indicators of sepsis. The on-call consultant also chose not to return to London's King's College Hospital to assess her in person as her condition deteriorated. A Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) panel sitting in Manchester had ruled those omissions were misconduct, which they described as 'particularly grave', and found his fitness to practise was impaired. However, on Wednesday the tribunal decided there were 'exceptional circumstances' which justified taking no further action against the world-renowned paediatric liver specialist. Martha had been an inpatient on the hospital's Rays of Sunshine Ward after she suffered a serious injury to her pancreas when she slipped while riding a bike on a family holiday in Wales in July 2021. Weeks later she experienced a fever and increased heart rate, followed by more spikes in her temperature before the consultant hepatologist saw Martha on his morning ward round on Sunday August 29. Prof Thompson left the hospital at 3pm, but was phoned at home two hours later by a trainee doctor, who gave an update on Martha's condition. Medical records showed she had deteriorated over the course of the afternoon, and into the early evening, with a drop in her blood pressure, the appearance of a new rash and increases in heart rate, respiratory rate and body temperature. Tribunal chairman Robin Ince noted that by 5pm there were 'several high-risk indicators' as set out in the Nice guidelines relating to sepsis. The duty registrar called Prof Thompson again at 8.30pm because of ongoing concerns over Martha's fever, but she was kept on the ward despite the continued presence of moderate to high-risk indicators and the absence of meaningful clinical improvement. Martha collapsed on August 30 and was moved to intensive care before she was transferred to London's Great Ormond Street Hospital, where she died in the early hours of August 31. Announcing its conclusions on Wednesday, Mr Ince said: 'Professor Thompson has done everything possible to address his failings. 'The tribunal considered that the best way to repair any harm caused by his failings would be for him to continue to provide his specialist expertise at home and abroad. 'To now – some four years after the index event – remove Professor Thompson from practice, even for a short period of time, for one single lapse of judgment in an otherwise exemplary career would, in the tribunal's view, be akin to punishment which is not the role of the MPTS.' Among the 'exceptional circumstances' cited were that there was no allegation or evidence that Prof Thompson either caused or contributed to Martha's death. There were also systemic failings regarding how the ward functioned at the time with regard to referrals to the paediatric intensive care unit, said the tribunal. Mr Ince said: 'A sufficiently clear message has already been sent to the profession and to the public – that even such an experienced doctor as Professor Thompson could still make serious errors of clinical judgment for which he will be called to account. 'The public would be aware that this finding would remain a stain on Professor Thompson's reputation for the rest of his life.' At a 2022 inquest into her death, a coroner ruled that Martha would most likely have survived if doctors had identified the warning signs and transferred her to intensive care earlier. Martha's mother, Merope Mills, an editor at The Guardian, said she and her husband, Paul Laity, raised concerns about Martha's deteriorating health a number of times but these were not acted on. The couple later successfully campaigned for Martha's Rule to give patients, families and carers the chance to easily request a second opinion from a senior doctor in the same hospital in the event of a suspected deterioration or serious concern. Giving evidence, Prof Thompson told the MPTS hearing that he no longer provided in-patient care because he began to 'doubt my own judgment' after the tragic events. He said he felt 'deep remorse' for Martha's death but did not believe he made any errors in her case, as he denied all the allegations brought by the General Medical Council (GMC). The tribunal heard he had since completed a training course relating to the management of sepsis and a deteriorating child in paediatric care. His barrister, Ben Rich, said Prof Thompson has been a dedicated doctor and specialist for nearly 40 years and had never previously been investigated by a regulator. He said he had a reputation as a 'hard-working and outstanding clinician and researcher, who has an international reputation as one of the leading paediatric liver specialists in the world'. Mr Rich urged the tribunal members to impose an order of conditions involving supervision on Prof Thompson's registration, but the panel disagreed and said such a measure would be 'unnecessary and artificial', as they opted to take no further action. Christopher Rose, for the GMC, said that Prof Thompson should be suspended to send a message to the wider public and the wider profession, given the seriousness of the failings found. The tribunal had cleared Prof Thompson of the GMC's claims that he gave 'outdated, misleading' information on Martha's condition to a consultant colleague in the intensive care unit, and that he failed to mention her rash. In ruling his fitness to practise was impaired, Mr Ince said: 'There had been a significant potential risk of harm to Martha and it was appropriate to send a message to the profession as to the importance of following the basic and fundamental principles as set out in good medical practice so as to ensure that the potential risks of an adverse outcome are always taken into account.'
Leader Live
2 hours ago
- Leader Live
No disciplinary sanction for doctor's ‘grave' failures in care of Martha Mills
Professor Richard Thompson did not refer Martha Mills, 13, to intensive care despite her displaying several high-risk indicators of sepsis. The on-call consultant also chose not to return to London's King's College Hospital to assess her in person as her condition deteriorated. A Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) panel sitting in Manchester had ruled those omissions were misconduct, which they described as 'particularly grave', and found his fitness to practise was impaired. However, on Wednesday the tribunal decided there were 'exceptional circumstances' which justified taking no further action against the world-renowned paediatric liver specialist. Martha had been an inpatient on the hospital's Rays of Sunshine Ward after she suffered a serious injury to her pancreas when she slipped while riding a bike on a family holiday in Wales in July 2021. Weeks later she experienced a fever and increased heart rate, followed by more spikes in her temperature before the consultant hepatologist saw Martha on his morning ward round on Sunday August 29. Prof Thompson left the hospital at 3pm, but was phoned at home two hours later by a trainee doctor, who gave an update on Martha's condition. Medical records showed she had deteriorated over the course of the afternoon, and into the early evening, with a drop in her blood pressure, the appearance of a new rash and increases in heart rate, respiratory rate and body temperature. Tribunal chairman Robin Ince noted that by 5pm there were 'several high-risk indicators' as set out in the Nice guidelines relating to sepsis. The duty registrar called Prof Thompson again at 8.30pm because of ongoing concerns over Martha's fever, but she was kept on the ward despite the continued presence of moderate to high-risk indicators and the absence of meaningful clinical improvement. Martha collapsed on August 30 and was moved to intensive care before she was transferred to London's Great Ormond Street Hospital, where she died in the early hours of August 31. Announcing its conclusions on Wednesday, Mr Ince said: 'Professor Thompson has done everything possible to address his failings. 'The tribunal considered that the best way to repair any harm caused by his failings would be for him to continue to provide his specialist expertise at home and abroad. 'To now – some four years after the index event – remove Professor Thompson from practice, even for a short period of time, for one single lapse of judgment in an otherwise exemplary career would, in the tribunal's view, be akin to punishment which is not the role of the MPTS.' Among the 'exceptional circumstances' cited were that there was no allegation or evidence that Prof Thompson either caused or contributed to Martha's death. There were also systemic failings regarding how the ward functioned at the time with regard to referrals to the paediatric intensive care unit, said the tribunal. Mr Ince said: 'A sufficiently clear message has already been sent to the profession and to the public – that even such an experienced doctor as Professor Thompson could still make serious errors of clinical judgment for which he will be called to account. 'The public would be aware that this finding would remain a stain on Professor Thompson's reputation for the rest of his life.' At a 2022 inquest into her death, a coroner ruled that Martha would most likely have survived if doctors had identified the warning signs and transferred her to intensive care earlier. Martha's mother, Merope Mills, an editor at The Guardian, said she and her husband, Paul Laity, raised concerns about Martha's deteriorating health a number of times but these were not acted on. The couple later successfully campaigned for Martha's Rule to give patients, families and carers the chance to easily request a second opinion from a senior doctor in the same hospital in the event of a suspected deterioration or serious concern. Giving evidence, Prof Thompson told the MPTS hearing that he no longer provided in-patient care because he began to 'doubt my own judgment' after the tragic events. He said he felt 'deep remorse' for Martha's death but did not believe he made any errors in her case, as he denied all the allegations brought by the General Medical Council (GMC). The tribunal heard he had since completed a training course relating to the management of sepsis and a deteriorating child in paediatric care. His barrister, Ben Rich, said Prof Thompson has been a dedicated doctor and specialist for nearly 40 years and had never previously been investigated by a regulator. He said he had a reputation as a 'hard-working and outstanding clinician and researcher, who has an international reputation as one of the leading paediatric liver specialists in the world'. Mr Rich urged the tribunal members to impose an order of conditions involving supervision on Prof Thompson's registration, but the panel disagreed and said such a measure would be 'unnecessary and artificial', as they opted to take no further action. Christopher Rose, for the GMC, said that Prof Thompson should be suspended to send a message to the wider public and the wider profession, given the seriousness of the failings found. The tribunal had cleared Prof Thompson of the GMC's claims that he gave 'outdated, misleading' information on Martha's condition to a consultant colleague in the intensive care unit, and that he failed to mention her rash. In ruling his fitness to practise was impaired, Mr Ince said: 'There had been a significant potential risk of harm to Martha and it was appropriate to send a message to the profession as to the importance of following the basic and fundamental principles as set out in good medical practice so as to ensure that the potential risks of an adverse outcome are always taken into account.'
Rhyl Journal
3 hours ago
- Rhyl Journal
No disciplinary sanction for doctor's ‘grave' failures in care of Martha Mills
Professor Richard Thompson did not refer Martha Mills, 13, to intensive care despite her displaying several high-risk indicators of sepsis. The on-call consultant also chose not to return to London's King's College Hospital to assess her in person as her condition deteriorated. A Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) panel sitting in Manchester had ruled those omissions were misconduct, which they described as 'particularly grave', and found his fitness to practise was impaired. However, on Wednesday the tribunal decided there were 'exceptional circumstances' which justified taking no further action against the world-renowned paediatric liver specialist. Martha had been an inpatient on the hospital's Rays of Sunshine Ward after she suffered a serious injury to her pancreas when she slipped while riding a bike on a family holiday in Wales in July 2021. Weeks later she experienced a fever and increased heart rate, followed by more spikes in her temperature before the consultant hepatologist saw Martha on his morning ward round on Sunday August 29. Prof Thompson left the hospital at 3pm, but was phoned at home two hours later by a trainee doctor, who gave an update on Martha's condition. Medical records showed she had deteriorated over the course of the afternoon, and into the early evening, with a drop in her blood pressure, the appearance of a new rash and increases in heart rate, respiratory rate and body temperature. Tribunal chairman Robin Ince noted that by 5pm there were 'several high-risk indicators' as set out in the Nice guidelines relating to sepsis. The duty registrar called Prof Thompson again at 8.30pm because of ongoing concerns over Martha's fever, but she was kept on the ward despite the continued presence of moderate to high-risk indicators and the absence of meaningful clinical improvement. Martha collapsed on August 30 and was moved to intensive care before she was transferred to London's Great Ormond Street Hospital, where she died in the early hours of August 31. Announcing its conclusions on Wednesday, Mr Ince said: 'Professor Thompson has done everything possible to address his failings. 'The tribunal considered that the best way to repair any harm caused by his failings would be for him to continue to provide his specialist expertise at home and abroad. 'To now – some four years after the index event – remove Professor Thompson from practice, even for a short period of time, for one single lapse of judgment in an otherwise exemplary career would, in the tribunal's view, be akin to punishment which is not the role of the MPTS.' Among the 'exceptional circumstances' cited were that there was no allegation or evidence that Prof Thompson either caused or contributed to Martha's death. There were also systemic failings regarding how the ward functioned at the time with regard to referrals to the paediatric intensive care unit, said the tribunal. Mr Ince said: 'A sufficiently clear message has already been sent to the profession and to the public – that even such an experienced doctor as Professor Thompson could still make serious errors of clinical judgment for which he will be called to account. 'The public would be aware that this finding would remain a stain on Professor Thompson's reputation for the rest of his life.' At a 2022 inquest into her death, a coroner ruled that Martha would most likely have survived if doctors had identified the warning signs and transferred her to intensive care earlier. Martha's mother, Merope Mills, an editor at The Guardian, said she and her husband, Paul Laity, raised concerns about Martha's deteriorating health a number of times but these were not acted on. The couple later successfully campaigned for Martha's Rule to give patients, families and carers the chance to easily request a second opinion from a senior doctor in the same hospital in the event of a suspected deterioration or serious concern. Giving evidence, Prof Thompson told the MPTS hearing that he no longer provided in-patient care because he began to 'doubt my own judgment' after the tragic events. He said he felt 'deep remorse' for Martha's death but did not believe he made any errors in her case, as he denied all the allegations brought by the General Medical Council (GMC). The tribunal heard he had since completed a training course relating to the management of sepsis and a deteriorating child in paediatric care. His barrister, Ben Rich, said Prof Thompson has been a dedicated doctor and specialist for nearly 40 years and had never previously been investigated by a regulator. He said he had a reputation as a 'hard-working and outstanding clinician and researcher, who has an international reputation as one of the leading paediatric liver specialists in the world'. Mr Rich urged the tribunal members to impose an order of conditions involving supervision on Prof Thompson's registration, but the panel disagreed and said such a measure would be 'unnecessary and artificial', as they opted to take no further action. Christopher Rose, for the GMC, said that Prof Thompson should be suspended to send a message to the wider public and the wider profession, given the seriousness of the failings found. The tribunal had cleared Prof Thompson of the GMC's claims that he gave 'outdated, misleading' information on Martha's condition to a consultant colleague in the intensive care unit, and that he failed to mention her rash. In ruling his fitness to practise was impaired, Mr Ince said: 'There had been a significant potential risk of harm to Martha and it was appropriate to send a message to the profession as to the importance of following the basic and fundamental principles as set out in good medical practice so as to ensure that the potential risks of an adverse outcome are always taken into account.'
