No abstract

No abstract

Whilst medicine is now an immense global industry clinicians often appear unclear as to its goals. This paper uses two philosophical steps to clarify our conceptualization of health and thus our goals for healthcare. Firstly, clinicians need to understand the significance of Hume's fact / value distinction in medicine, for medicine relies on both facts and values. Secondly clinicians need a better specified definition of 'health' to use as a goal for healthcare. Aristotle's model of human flourishing is used as the starting point for a new conceptualization of health.

Misselbrook D and Armstrong D. Thinking about risk. Can doctors and patients talk the same language? Family Practice 2002; 19: 1-2.Risk models are a powerful tool for assessing the biomedical significance of health problems and medical interventions. We know that if John Everyman is a smoker aged 70 with a BP of 152/85 mmHg and a normal cholesterol, then he has a 25-30% risk of a cardiovascular event (CVD event) over the next 5 years. 1 Medical treatment will reduce that risk by 9% over 5 years to a range of 22-27%. We also know that if John Everyman never saw a doctor, but simply stopped smoking, his risk would fall to 15-20%, a much more impressive health gain.Balancing the gains in risk reduction from different treatments is an important part of clinical practice, and doctors have three statistical representations to help them in this task.(i) Absolute risk: there is a 25-30% probability of John Everyman having a CVD event in 5 years. (ii) Relative risk: John Everyman is 1.6 times as likely to have a CVD event in the next 5 years than his identical but non-smoking twin brother. (iii) Number needed to treat (NNT): we would have to treat 11 John Everymans for 5 years to prevent one CVD event.However, this choice of statistical support is rather illusory as all derive from the same underlying (usually trial) evidence. The question is less how much would John Everyman gain from treatment, but more how can this gain best be expressed? Chatellier recommended the use of NNT when considering the needs of the individual patient 2 but, as there are not 11 John Everymans in most practices, the 'personal probability of benefit' (PPB) may make the probability as meaningful as possible to the individual patient. (%PPB = 1/NNT × 100, i.e. John Everyman would have a 9% chance of benefiting from treatment over the next 5 years.) Different mathematical expressions of risk are difficult enough for the doctor, but are likely to be harder for patients. Misselbrook and Armstrong showed that patients make very different choices about treatment depending on which of the above risk statistics they used as the basis of their judgement. 3 Rather than empowering patients, such risk models can therefore make them yet more dependent on their doctors. Mathematical models are designed for the world of the doctor and do not fit easily with the world of the patient. So how can we proceed?First we must recognize that patients have their own risk models. These bear little relation to the mathematical risk models used by doctors. Davison and his colleagues found that the lay classification of risk was based on a polarity model rather than the gradation of a continuing spectrum. 4 People saw themselves as either high risk or low risk. This model identified 'likely candidates' for illness. Thus a beer-swilling heavy smoking overweight man would (rightly) be seen as at high risk of a heart attack. However, if he did not have a heart attack and his healthy living neighbour did, Davison found that a second element in the lay risk model came into play....

Thank you for publishing our article 'Revealing the reality of undergraduate GP teaching in UK medical curricula' in which we highlighted the longstanding problem of underinvestment in general practice teaching in the UK. 1 One of our key recommendations was for 'an adequate primary care tariff, which reflects the cost of teaching and simplifies current payment mechanisms'. We are pleased to report that since writing this paper the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) in England has for the first time introduced a national minimum tariff for medical student placements in general practice. 2 We of course welcome this development as a step in the right direction. However, the new minimum tariff of £28 000 per full-time equivalent (FTE) placement per year still falls significantly short of the current tariff for secondary care undergraduate medical placements set at £33 286. 3 A primary care payment of £28 000 per FTE is also significantly lower than the actual cost of undergraduate teaching in general practice, identified by a national study in England as £41 700 per FTE. 4 While there is no doubt that the health economy will be struggling in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, recent events surely present yet further evidence of the need to provide all future doctors with highquality experience in general practice and primary care. We strongly urge governing bodies to move fully to a fair and flat tariff for undergraduate placements from 2021 onwards if they are committed to training the future medical workforce that the NHS will surely need.