Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30235051›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine2018

Guarding against dispassion for doctors in the NHS.

Archik Das, Rodger Charlton

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Archik Das1 Academic Foundation Year 2 Doctor, Warwick Medical School, Medical School Building, Coventry CV4 7AJ, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3739-1741
Rodger Charlton2 Professor of Undergraduate Primary Care Education, University of Leicester Medical School, Centre for Medicine, Lancaster Rd, Leicester LE1 7HA, UK.
University of Leicester · GBUniversity of Warwick · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Compassion has always been a vital component of healthcare anywhere in the world. With numerous definitions in a variety of contexts, it cannot simply be prescribed, measured or given in a bottle. When our patients are ill, great attention is paid to the verbal and non-verbal communication presented by a doctor and the manner in which they are delivered. However, with an ever-growing demand on the NHS workforce, numerous patient surveys across the UK have accused doctors for lacking compassion in their practice, amid the strains of their modern-day commitments. The concept of being caring to our patients is highlighted from the first walks of medical school or indeed any healthcare professional's training programme, meaning that patients will always be our prime audience for compassion. Yet, so often in medical training, it is emphasised how important it is to demonstrate a personal detachment between oneself and the patient and not to get too emotionally involved. So despite numerous challenges, how do we find the correct balance to optimise our day-to-day service and stay sensitive to the needs of our patients? This article reflects upon compassion from multiple perspectives in the NHS pertinent to doctors of all settings and experience levels, exploring the barriers, internal conflicts and facilitators of its delivery. We examine the objective evidence of measures that have been put in place to overcome these challenges and summarise key considerations to optimise the enablement of a workforce to deliver compassion at universally higher standards in future practice.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceEmpathyPhysician-Patient RelationsPhysiciansState MedicineDelivery of Health CareEmotionsHumansUnited KingdomChanging physician behavioureffectiveness of care

Identifiers

PMID30235051
PMCPMC6194958
OpenAlexW2890003779

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.