Does GP income meet expectations? The impact on job satisfaction

Today, we’re speaking to Dr Ben Walker, a post-doctoral associate based at the University of Calgary, who conducted this work while working at the University of Manchester.Title of paper: Relationships of actual and expected levels of income with GP job satisfaction: repeated cross-sectional studyAvailable at: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2025.0683Recruitment and retention of GPs remains an issue for general practice in England. This work examined the relationship between actual income and income expectations with job satisfaction and intentions to quit. Higher actual income was found to be associated with job satisfaction, but there was little evidence to show that it was associated with intentions to quit. A key and novel finding was that higher income expectations were associated with both lower job satisfaction and higher intentions to quit. The findings suggest that policies that help GPs build accurate income expectations, such as increased transparency for incomes for different GP job roles, may be a means of addressing job dissatisfaction caused by discrepancies between expected and actual income for GPs.TranscriptThis transcript was generated using AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Please be aware it may contain errors or omissions.Speaker A00:00:01.040 - 00:00:58.350Hello and welcome to BJJP Interviews. I'm Nada Khan and I'm the Senior Research editor at the bjjp. Thanks for taking the time today to listen to this podcast.In today's episode we're talking to Dr. Ben Walker.Ben used to be based as a research fellow at the University of Manchester, but is now working as a postdoctoral associate at the University of Calgary in Canada.We here to talk about the paper he's just published in the BJ GP that's titled Relationships of Actual and Expected Levels of Income with GP Job Satisfaction. A Repeated Cross Sectional Study.So, hi Ben, it's really nice to meet you and to talk about this work and I guess to start us off, I just wanted to talk a little bit about the background to this paper and it's about GP income and job satisfaction, which is clearly a topic that people have plenty of opinions about. But what made you want to look at this question in a bit more detail?Speaker B00:00:58.590 - 00:02:08.930So, yeah, it's something we had been discussing internally as a team for a while, obviously, I mean, working in a primary care group, a lot of the driving motivation for a lot of our work is the GP recruitment and retention crisis. And we've always had, we've had this data for a while on GP income from us via our surveys.We've also had this data on GP income expectations and this has been in the survey forever and we've never, we hadn't used anything with it and basically because a lot of us are economists as well as this concept in economics of the Easterland Paradox or the idea that relative income matters more than actual income for happiness.And so we decided that, well, it would be like, like because we are interested in the GP recruitment and retention crisis, it would be interesting to look at the extent to which relative income matters for GP recruitment and retention. So job satisfaction and intentions to quit being two components of recruitment and retention.Speaker A00:02:09.330 - 00:02:14.290So you mentioned about a survey. So are you talking about the GP Work Life Survey that was done through Manchester?Speaker B00:02:14.370 - 00:02:17.130We are indeed, yeah. So the GP Work Life Survey.Speaker A00:02:17.130 - 00:02:28.110Yeah, yeah. So talk us through that just briefly. So what was that all about? I think, I mean there have been a few publications in the BJGP about it, but what.Who are you surveying through that?Speaker B00:02:28.590 - 00:03:18.400So the GP Work Life Survey has been going since I believe, 1998.It's been run by Manchester for I believe, all of its history and it's a government funded survey and when we do it we are attempting to a sample of the general GP population to basically ask about various things to do with their work life, including more sort of like formal things like their income and how many hours they're working, but also just how satisfied they are with their jobs, different aspects of their jobs. Yeah, so we collect lots of data on the GP to respond, and, yeah, we aim to get as general a sample of a population as we can.Speaker A00:03:18.800 - 00:03:40.000And I think one of the really interesting things about this study is that you're not just asking how much GPs actually earn, but how much they think they should earn.And you mentioned about this paradox that you're interested in in terms of health economics, and I wonder why you think that distinction is important between actual earnings and sort of relative earnings or how much people think they should earn.Speaker B00:03:40.990 - 00:04:21.630So I guess with a lot of things in life, and obviously from this economics paradox, a lot of things are not. It's not necessarily what you have. Absolutely.A lot of it is driven by things like peer comparison, or if you're seeing that someone else is getting paid more for doing what you believe is like, similar amount of work or similar quality work to you.So the idea of pure comparison's always just been like, important and there's lots of data out there and lots of studies looking at sort of the effect of absolute income. And this just felt like another relevant dimension to explore, basically.Speaker A00:04:22.190 - 00:04:33.710So I guess if we just come on to sort of the big finding. And what did you find when you looked at actual income and GP job satisfaction? What was sort of the main headline here?Speaker B00:04:34.220 - 00:05:21.850So, for job satisfaction, we, like, we find absolute income matters quite a lot and it has higher absolute income lead generally associated with higher job satisfaction across most, if not all domains.And for job satisfaction, absolute income matters a lot, but we found that absolute income didn't seem to have any statistically significant association with intentions to quit. So we asked them whether or not they want to leave direct patient care within five years or leave medical work entirely in five years.And we found that absolute income didn't have enough, didn't have a statistically significant association with that.Speaker A00:05:22.170 - 00:05:41.410So that's quite interesting, I guess, and it's a bit surprising, really.So higher actual income wasn't really associated with intentions to quit, but paying gps might make them more satisfied, but doesn't make them necessarily mean they'll stay. What do you make of that? It's kind of an interesting finding with.Speaker B00:05:41.410 - 00:06:00.300Job satisfaction that's obviously kind of in line with what we would expect. Intentions to quit, maybe it's just. It's a surprising finding.We would have expected it to have an effect on intention to quit, especially given that job satisfaction, intention to quit, go together. So it's a little contrary to what we might expect.Speaker A00:06:00.940 - 00:06:17.100I think it's quite an interesting distinction, I guess, because I guess sometimes in workforce discussions, we sometimes think about pay as one answer to recruitment and retention problems. And I think what this work is showing that maybe the picture is a little bit more complicated than that, actually.Speaker B00:06:17.420 - 00:06:18.540Yeah, I completely agree.Speaker A00:06:19.100 - 00:06:27.420So I wanted just to move on to some of your other findings. So you found something interesting when you looked at expected income. So can you talk us through that as well?Speaker B00:06:27.920 - 00:07:00.990So we find that higher expected income is associated with lower job satisfaction, and we actually find that has a small but positive effect on intentions to quit. So higher expected income has a small association with higher intentions to quit. I think there's obviously rationale for this.Obviously it kind of goes along with the economic theory and what studies have found in other domains with things like worse mental health, with higher gaps between actual and expected income.Speaker A00:07:01.070 - 00:07:15.230Yeah. So if I'm understanding that.Right, it's not simply that earning less makes you unhappy, it's about the gap between what you earn and what you feel someone else with your experience and career stage ought to be earning. So do you think that's a fair way of thinking about it?Speaker B00:07:15.230 - 00:07:57.860I think that's a very fair way of characterizing it, yeah.Basically, if you feel that you should be earning more, even if you're on, like a salary that, say, is pretty good, or they do things like pay the bills, if you feel that you should be earning more for the stage of your career, you're at the training you've had. I mean, gps are, obviously, they have to go through a lot of training through med school, and GP training itself is quite intense.And there's a lot of hours they have to work. So all of this builds into income...

Today, we’re speaking to Dr Jasjot Saund, a public health registrar based in London. Title of paper: Association of the NHS Health Check with all-cause mortality: a longitudinal cohort study in primary careAvailable at: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2025.0451The NHS Health Check (NHS-HC) has been shown to improve detection and management of surrogate markers of health, such as blood pressure and cholesterol. The long-term impact, however, is less evidenced, with mortality reductions seen in a UK Biobank cohort and no mortality reduction seen in a Cochrane review of general health checks, including those outside the UK. The current study added real-world evidence from a diverse UK urban population, and a 15-year study period. Survival analysis of GP electronic health record data shows reduced mortality in those who attended an NHS-HC compared with those who did not. These findings should be interpreted cautiously given the observational nature of the study design.TranscriptThis transcript was generated using AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Please be aware it may contain errors or omissions.Speaker A00:00:01.440 - 00:00:58.570Hi and welcome to BJGP Interviews. I'm Nada Khan and I'm the senior research editor of the Journal. Thanks for taking the time today to listen to this podcast.In today's episode, we're talking to Dr. Jazjot Sound, a public health registrar based in London.We're here to discuss the paper she's recently published here in the BJGP titled Association of the NHS Health Check with All Cause Mortality, A Longitudinal Cohort Study in Primary Care. So thanks very much for joining us here today, Jazja.It's really great to talk about this work and I think just before we get into the study itself, we know that NHS health checks are something that most GPs will probably be very familiar with, but maybe we don't always stop and think about the evidence behind them. So, just to start off, I wonder if you can explain to us a little bit about, about what the NHS Health Check program is actually designed to do.Speaker B00:00:59.050 - 00:02:16.370Yeah, absolutely.So the NHS Health Check program was rolled out in 2009 and it's essentially a population level preventative initiative, focusing particularly on cardiovascular disease, but potentially wider as well.And so it's specifically targeted at people who are between the ages of 40 and 75 and who don't already have a, a cardiovascular disease or a known cardiovascular disease. And I think that's really important because it's targeting people who are potentially at risk or have undetected disease.And what this means is, so ultimately the health check itself, it consists of a check that's usually undertaken by primary care, so looking at lifestyle factors, modifiable risk factors, biochemical tests, as well as sort of just other general checks. And importantly, this is embedded into primary care pathways.So essentially it's ensuring that these patients are followed up if they are determined to be high risk and potentially put on prescriptions or followed up with lifestyle modifications. So that's generally what the health check is at the moment.Speaker A00:02:16.690 - 00:02:31.070Brilliant. Yeah. And I guess the big question behind this paper is, do they actually make a difference?And I wonder what did we actually know about the impact of NHS health checks before you started this work? So what was out there in the literature already?Speaker B00:02:31.550 - 00:04:07.320Yeah, so there is a, a huge amount of evidence in different parts of the health check. So you might be aware already that it's a multifaceted intervention. So there's, there's the process bits like uptake and invitation.So there's a big amount of evidence that's been telling us that it's really important that we even just the method of invitation can be really influential on who takes up the health check. But then there's also the specific parts of the check itself.So how we communicate risk to patients, for example, can have an impact on how people go home and take on lifestyle advice. And then there's the body of evidence that's closer to where this paper sits, which is looking at clinical outcomes.And there is a whole body of evidence looking at surrogate markers, so things like does it shift the marker on blood pressure or bmi. And then there's the evidence on mortality, for example, or clinical endpoints such as stroke.And so far the evidence is predominantly positive to say we do see a change in clinical outcomes.And more recently, there was a paper in 2024 which was using a UK Biobank cohort and shows that there was an impact, a positive impact on disease, end stage disease, as well as mortality. But as the paper sort of addresses, there's some gaps in this evidence, which is what we. What we hoped to fill.Speaker A00:04:07.560 - 00:04:25.280Yeah.And I guess I wondered if you could just talk us through the data used for this study, because this was a really large real world cohort from an inner city London population, wasn't it? So very different than the kind of population that might, for instance, have taken part in UK Biobank?Speaker B00:04:26.240 - 00:05:17.420Yeah, absolutely.So we thought it was really important to look at whether or not the health check was having an impact as it was being delivered in a real world population.And so we were lucky enough to look at a cohort going all the way back to when the health check was implemented in 2009 in Lambeth, which is a really ethnically diverse and socioeconomically diverse cohort. So, for example, we have a population in lambeth that is 40% non white, as opposed to, I think the UK Biobank participants were 96% white.So there's a real difference.And so we wanted to ensure that the population we looked at was representative of some of the inner city boroughs that have particular challenges around NHS health check uptake.Speaker A00:05:17.660 - 00:05:27.330Okay, so let's get into what you found. And what was the headline result when you compared people who attended at least one NHS health check with those who didn't?Speaker B00:05:28.120 - 00:05:53.320Yeah, so the headline result actually showed that there was a 32% relative risk reduction associated with the health checks on all cause mortality. So that's looking at any cause of death, but shows quite an impressive risk reduction. So that is a relative risk reduction as opposed to absolute.So it's important to note that overall the absolute rate of survival was high,.Speaker A00:05:53.750 - 00:06:03.670And that's pretty Striking, actually. So that substantially lower risk of all cause mortality, were you surprised by the size of that association? So 32% is quite big, isn't it?Speaker B00:06:03.750 - 00:06:33.490I think initially I was surprised, but then looking back at the evidence and the data that's already out there, it does fall in line with kind of what we were seeing, particularly in the UK Biobank cohort as well. I think there is sort of evidence that potentially looks at general health checks, which has shown a converse picture.But as we discussed in the paper, it's really different to how the NHS health check is delivered here. So that's definitely something to bear in mind.Speaker A00:06:33.810 - 00:06:45.250And you also looked at absolute mortality risk over 10 years and the difference seemed to be really pronounced with increasing age. So could you talk us a little bit through what you found there?Speaker B00:06:45.650 - 00:07:39.440Yeah, so we found that although the older population had a. A higher absolute risk reduction, they also had a higher absolute baseline risk of death as well.So it's really difficult to distinguish whether or not that finding was related to the health check being more beneficial in older patients or whether or not actually we see a bigger absolute reduction, because in our over 65 population there is a higher baseline risk of, of death. I think we, like, when looking back at the data population who was enrolled in 2009 at the youngest possible age were 40.And even though we had 14 years of follow up, they would only be 57 years old at this point now. So their absolute risk of death is still very low, which might be more difficult to pick up in a study like this.Speaker A00:07:39.760 - 00:08:10.860Yeah, fair enough.And I guess, you know, whenever we look at observational research, I suppose the question is whether people who attend an NHS health check are somehow different than people who don't. And that's, you know, in parallel to the studies. For instance, you know, just focusing on UK Biobank, it's sort of a different population really.And I guess people who attend a health check could potentially be more health conscious or more likely to engage with healthcare. Anyway. How did you try to account for that in this work?Speaker B00:08:11.100 - 00:09:45.530Yeah, and that's a really important point to pick up and something that's really challenging in observational data in general. But so, yeah, we really wanted to make sure we tried to adjust or account...

Today, we’re speaking to Dr Emma Ladds, a GP partner and DPhil candidate at the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences at the University of Oxford. We’re here today to discuss the recent article she and her colleagues have written for the journal, titled, ‘Ambient scribes in general practice — help or hindrance?’Title of paper: Ambient scribes in general practice — help or hindrance?Available at: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2026.0097TranscriptThis transcript was generated using AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Please be aware it may contain errors or omissions.Speaker A00:00:00.320 - 00:01:15.600Hi and welcome back to BJGP interviews after our summer off. I'm Nada Khan and I'm one of the Associate editors of the Journal. Thanks for listening to this podcast today.In today's episode, we're talking to Dr. Emma lads. Emma is a GP partner and a DPHIL candidate at the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences at the University of Oxford.We're here today to talk about the recent article that she and her colleagues have written for the analysis section of the Journal. And the article is titled Ambient Scribes in General Practice. Help or Hindrance? So, hi again, Emma. It's lovely to speak to you about this work.And I think one of the reasons we were interested in picking up this article is that it's really highly topical and it's in an area that I think a lot of people are wondering what to do in their day to day practice.And I think that some of the issues that you've highlighted in the article do speak to some of the concerns that people are raising, but also some of the challenges with the implementation in practice. But I guess before we get onto some of the issues that you raise in the paper, can you just explain what we mean by an AI or ambient scribe?Speaker B00:01:16.160 - 00:01:45.660Well, it's the technologies based on artificial intelligence that detects conversations, so between the patient and gp, or between GP and other colleagues. And in consultations, it then generates a summary of what's been discussed, but also does some other things as well.So, for example, it might add some coding labels for specific things that are mentioned, and then all of that goes into the patient's electronic health record.Speaker A00:01:45.980 - 00:02:15.130And I think that these tools are often presented, at least to some of the GP colleagues that I know and work with, as almost like an obvious win for general practice. So less documentation, more efficiency, and maybe more time with patients.But what made you want to just take a pause and think about some of the assumptions behind some of those quick wins that people might be thinking about, thinking about.Speaker B00:02:15.450 - 00:03:31.980And I mean, I think it's interesting, isn't it, because ever since we started to introduce different technologies into the consultations, there's often been an assumption that every new thing would be a quick win.And even since the introduction of the computer, you make for greater efficiency and it will be easier to store data, to retrieve data, to share data, et cetera. And of course, a lot of the time what those technologies do is they drive particular activities.I think it's been interesting just to think about how introduction of different technologies and platforms and digital approaches has driven a much more transactional, quantifiable way of working.And those things that can be recorded and can be captured in technologies or enabled by technologies have been promoted, perhaps at the expense of some of the less quantifiable, more nuanced activity. So suppose it was looking at that journey of technologies and just trying to think about what this next step might also add to that picture.Speaker A00:03:32.220 - 00:03:41.820And one of the things you talk about in the article is that AI scribes could create what you call false efficiencies. But can you unpick what you mean by that?Speaker B00:03:42.300 - 00:04:53.150I think there's this assumption that actually the summaries and the codes that AI scribes will generate will be very time saving for gps. And no GP ever has enough time. So everybody's looking for, as you put it, the quick wins.And some of the challenges with the outputs from AI inscribes are that they often produce very long transcripts because they're trying to capture a summary of everything that was discussed and that gets entered into the record. And obviously it takes time for subsequent clinicians to look through those kind of summaries. So that could be a fold sufficiency.But also, I mean, it can add false labels or generate errors and that requires checking as well. So it's not that it just produces an accurate summary and then that's out there.Actually, the clinician still has to go back and double check that everything's been done correctly. So even though they don't have to do the actual typing, there's still a level of processing that they have to do of that summary.So it's not necessarily a time saving tool, really.Speaker A00:04:53.630 - 00:05:15.390And I think that's one of the interesting things about it because, yeah, there's that interesting point that, you know, GPS might be getting that time back in some other way, but I guess that's highlighting that that might not actually be quite that simple, that the time that you might get back from not having to type out the notes from a consultation is actually being used elsewhere.Speaker B00:05:15.390 - 00:06:20.920Actually, I think that's very true. And I think the other thing that's worth thinking about is what's in the notes, the actual information that's there.Yes, it's a summary of the consultation, but actually generating that summary when the clinician does it, there's a level of processing, there's a level of sort of cognitive thinking, of reflection, of thinking about what it was that was happening during the encounter between patient and gp, what was actually being said, or a lot of the time, what was not being said, and the AI scribe won't detect that. And a lot of clinical reasoning sometimes happens for gps, sometimes happens behind the scenes when they're doing that retrospective processing.And as one of my colleagues said, you know, she often thinks about other investigations she'd like to add or things that she might not have made overt to the patient, which perhaps need to be made over to the. So it's those sorts of subtleties that aren't captured in just a very superficial representation of a consultation.That's the content of a consultation.Speaker A00:06:21.720 - 00:06:53.030And I think that struck me that taking notes isn't simply an administrative task, it's actually part of clinical thinking.And I certainly, I've tried AI scribes, but how I do my consultations is I write on a piece of paper because I think that's how I process it, and then I move from the paper to the notes and that's part of how I work through the problem. And I guess that's what you're getting at here just in terms of sort of the clinical thinking about actually putting the notes onto the record.Is that what you're saying?Speaker B00:06:53.350 - 00:08:00.370Yeah, I think that's right. And I think it's a reflection about how we all develop as individual practitioners as well.I mean, the way you do your consultations may be slightly different to the way that I do my consultations, and the way that you write your notes may be slightly different to the way that I write my notes.But I think often when you've worked together with people for quite a long time, you learn hidden meanings and you pick up that they may phrase things in very particular ways and that conveys a deeper level of meaning to you because of that kind of relational knowledge that you have of your colleagues. So for example, if I write one consultation in my note, my partners know that it was an extremely long consultation that was probably quite circular.We probably didn't come to a very conclusive outcome and probably the patient is going to want to come back and see me again rather than one of them.You know, there are these subtleties in communication that actually at the moment the AI scribes aren't good enough or nuanced enough to be able to detect. And I don't know if they'll ever get to that kind of level of something.Speaker A00:08:01.130 - 00:08:28.010But I suppose an AI scribe is never going to really capture clinicians voice, is it? And I think that's what I see when I see some colleagues who are using AI scribes that the.There seems to be quite a lot of detail there which is great, but it doesn't have that clinician's voice in it. So it's hard to really unpick some of the hidden meaning behind sort of what's going on there.And I think that's why I don't use it, because I don't feel it reflects my thought process when I'm going back to look at notes.Speaker B00:08:28.150 - 00:09:41.210Yeah, yeah, no, I think that's exactly right. And I think it's extremely good at trans. At sort of capturing transactional interactions and transactional material.And I think that during my detail, I was observing a GP using one of the

In this episode, we look back at the last season of the BJGP podcast and reflect on some of the work we’ve discussed. TranscriptThis transcript was generated using AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Please be aware it may contain errors or omissions.Speaker A00:00:00.560 - 00:11:08.620Hi, and welcome to the BJGP podcast. I'm Nada Khan, one of the associate editors of the Journal.And we've reached the end of another podcast season, and before we take a short break for the summer, we thought we'd look back at some of the papers we've covered and pick out a few highlights and common threads between them.And looking back at the different podcasts over this this past season, it seemed that although each conversation started with a completely different research question, by the end we all seemed to be talking about the same thing, and that was, how can general practice work better for patients in today's increasingly complex healthcare system?And although we talked about a wide range of different topics, we covered cancer diagnosis, dementia, women's health, medical education, and we even talked to Garth Funston about artificial intelligence. They all came back to this same underlying challenge.And we know that general practice has always dealt with complexity, and that's not really anything new, but the kind of complexity we're dealing with now feels different. Patients are living longer with multiple conditions. Care is spread even more so across increasing numbers of services than ever before.Technology is changing the way that we work, and somehow, amongst all that, we're still trying to preserve those relationships that have always sat at the heart of general practice. And I think another thing that really struck me was that very few of the papers and researchers were talking about making dramatic changes.And instead we had a lot of discussions about how we could make systems we already have, just work a little bit better. So making it easier to navigate, getting people more connected, more equitable, and more human as well.So one of the first interviews we recorded was with Katharina Savolkul about why medical students choose or don't choose a career in general practice. And on the surface, it's comes across a bit like workforce paper.We know that we need more gps, and understanding career choice is clearly important, but I think we talked about something a little bit bigger, which is, what kind of profession are we asking people to join? And this review highlighted positive GP placements, so good role models and the hidden curriculum as well.And although we often focus on recruitment targets, Katharina reminded us that students choose career because of the experiences they have and the values that they see lived out.And interestingly, continuity of care remains one of the biggest reasons people are still drawn towards becoming GPs, even though many of us worry that that's becoming harder to achieve in practice. And I think that continuity became one of those defining threads that ran through a lot of the interviews that followed.And we had Ewan Lawson join the podcast to speak to Charlotte Morris about dementia care. And what they talked about was that participants weren't really asking for more investigations or different medications.What they wanted to feel was to be known and to have someone who understood who they were before their diagnosis recognize those changes over time and stayed alongside them as their condition progressed.And I guess listening to that interview made me realize that it's not just about seeing the same gp, but it's about patients feeling that someone is carrying the thread of their story over time. And I had a really similar feeling talking to Dr. Tory Ford about recurrent vulvovaginal thrush.And these were two qualitative papers about diagnosis and healthcare experiences. But I think by the end of the interview, we were talking about something much broader.And as clinicians, we think sometimes about those bite sized consultations, but patients don't at all. At least this was the experience that I think that we drew out from Tori's work.And in this work, I think Tori highlighted that people experience illness as a continuous journey. And although in a system where continuity of care might be challenged, clinicians might see episodes of care, but patients live their whole story.And I think that's why sometimes recurrent conditions can feel so frustrating for patients, not because, particularly those individual episodes of care consultations are poor, but because if there's discontinuity, no one's joining those consultations together.And I think the more interviews we recorded, I pulled out another pattern, and that's that whether we're talking about dementia, recurrent thrush, pediatric safety or postnatal care, patients and families were doing a lot of work.So an extraordinary amount of invisible work, they were chasing referrals, following up on test results, explaining the same story repeatedly to different professionals.And although these papers weren't a criticism of general practice, and oftentimes many of the patients talked about how much they valued their GP teams. But I think that it almost made it feel as though patients and families were bridging these gaps together between increasingly fragmented services.And I think that Tom Purchase's work on pediatric patient safety really captured this beautifully. So rather than seeing patients just as recipients of health care, his study showed that they're active contributors to safer care.So they're already preventing harm. Patients and their families are identifying problems and improving systems.And I think he challenged us to think about patients as partners in care, rather than just recipients of care. Another theme that kept surfacing was inequality.And I spoke to Eliza Hutchinson about her work in inflammatory skin disease in People with skin of color.And her participants talked about delayed diagnosis, underrepresentation in medical education, and that impact of dyspigmentation as well in practice.And I think, again, what stayed with me wasn't just the clinical message, which was really helpful, and I'd encourage gps to go back to listen to that, but it's how often people really just wanted their experiences to be recognized.And similarly, I think that Claire MacDonald's work on postnatal care reminded us that women with the greatest social needs are often face the biggest barriers to access and care after birth. And ironically or sadly, this is just as services begin to step back.And I guess these two papers were asking a much broader question was how do we design healthcare systems that work equally well for everyone?And I think one of the papers that I really enjoyed, or one of the people I really enjoyed talking to, was Garth Funston and his work using large language models to analyze free text consultation records, aiming to pick up earlier signals for ovarian cancer. And I think that, you know, we.We talk a lot about artificial intelligence, but actually what we ended up talking about was how we record things in consultations.And as gps, we write huge amounts that really never get coded as read codes in the system or snowbed codes, you know, symptoms, concerns, uncertainty, those details that really make up the richness of a consultation. And I think that what Garth's work showed us was that AI might help us make better use of the information we've already recorded.But I think that actually, you know, it's worth thinking about how we're actually using technology to help recover the stories we've already written in the free text as well.And the last thing that we talked about in this season was something that probably every GP understands instinctively, but few of us have actually been explicitly taught, and that's prioritisation. And we spoke to Andrew McClary about the rapid decisions we make every day. So which patient do we call first? What referral can wait?And crucially, what do we do first? Do we tackle the difficult task or go for the quick wins?And I think that I liked the title of his work, because I suspect every GP probably immediately recognized them themselves somewhere between these two approaches. And I think we also touched upon that prioritisation isn't simply about managing workload, but it's also about managing uncertainty.And I think that if there's one thing I'll take away from this entire season and the different people that we've talked to and the great work that we've listened to, I think it's that general practice has always been about managing complexity. But these conversations reminded me that complexity isn't something we can just eliminate or fix.It's something that it's worth delving into to try to understand a little bit better.And I think, you know, whether we're talking about continuity, inequalities, patient safety, or the workforce force, another common thread I thought that ran through these, these conversations was that connection.So connecting services together, connecting research with everyday practice, and staying connected to patients and the stories that they bring with them through time, really.And I guess for me, really, every interview this season left me thinking a little bit differently about how I, how I consult and practice and about that...

Today, we’re speaking to Andrew McClarey, who works as a GP and Education co-ordinator Lead for General Practice in the Scottish Centre for Simulation and Clinical Human Factors. Title of paper: “Quick wins” vs “eating the frog”: Exploring general practitioners’ prioritisation dilemmasAvailable at: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2025.0628Link to tactical decision making games: https://archive.johs.org.uk/article/doi/10.54531/svvw4195This is the first study to look at the factors which experienced GPs consider when prioritising their acute workload. Several themes have emerged which highlight the importance of prioritisation training in General Practice. These themes could be used to teach prioritisation decision making to GP registrars or in the creation of continuing professional development resources for experienced GPs.TranscriptThis transcript was generated using AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Please be aware it may contain errors or omissions.Speaker A00:00:00.400 - 00:00:56.560Hi and welcome to BJ GP Interviews. I'm Nada Khan and I'm one of the Associate editors of the Journal. Thanks for listening to this podcast today.In today's episode, we're speaking to Dr. Andrew McClary.Andrew is a GP partner and he also works as Education Coordinator, Lead for General Practice in the Scottish Centre for Simulation and Clinical Human Factors. We're here today to discuss the paper that he's recently published in the bjjp.And the paper is titled Quick Wins versus Eating the Frog, Exploring general practitioners Prioritization dilemmas. So, hi, Andrew, it's really nice to meet you.And this paper really stood out to us, I think, because prioritisation is something that gps do every day, but it's not really something that we discuss explicitly. I'm just interested in what made you do this work and made you interested in studying it.Speaker B00:00:57.200 - 00:02:00.600It's interesting, I think, that for me, I finished my GP training just after the pandemic and therefore I did a lot of my training during the COVID pandemic. And around then the face of general practice, like most things in life, changed completely overnight.We moved on to telephone consulting and being encouraged to have empty waiting rooms.And I think around the same time we realized that we probably couldn't continue doing what we had been doing, which was being everything to everyone, which brought us on to prioritizing our workload. We have to decide who needs seen, who does not, and when are they seen. And that was a real gap for me in the training that I was provided.And I found myself going into working as a fully qualified GP without really an awareness of how to prioritise in a, in a sensible way. And I think that's where this interest was born out of.Speaker A00:02:00.760 - 00:02:42.050And before we get into what you found, it's probably worth saying a little bit about how you approach the study. So this was a qualitative interview study involving gps from a range of practices and career stages.And what you did was you really explored how they prioritized work during the course of a typical surgery.And then I guess through those interviews you looked at sort of the strategies and influences and trade offs that shaped those decisions in everyday general practice. But one of the things I found really interesting was that prioritization wasn't just about clinical urgency.And I wonder if you could talk through some of the other factors that GPs are weighing up quickly, I suppose, when they're deciding what to tackle first.Speaker B00:02:42.690 - 00:06:17.800Absolutely.It was very interesting, the themes that emerged from the data and also actually how much agreement There was amongst the gps in the focus groups, as we're not traditionally a group of people who agree about very much. So one thing that GP is particularly interested in, there's five main themes. One is about the system awareness.So we're aware about our own surgeries and where the pressure points are.For example, we're low on particular acute slots today, or there's a certain type of patient that is coming in more frequently at the moment, so we're aware of that. But it's not just having that awareness, it's also being able to adjust how we consult based on the pressures that the system are under.For example, if there are a lot of children or fevers coming in, we want to see them all face to face. We ask the admin team, just bring them all in face to face and we'll see them that way, rather than setting everything up over the phone.So it's not just an awareness of the system, but actually adjusting ourselves to that demand. Another one is the time management. What's the most efficient use of my time?How am I going to get out on time this evening for nursery pickup or whatever else I have to do in the evening? But it's not just our time, it's also the system's time.So what I mean by that is, I know if I try and refer to a hospital service in the afternoon, they'll probably be at capacity. If I do that in the morning, I am much more or first thing, except an afternoon surgery.I'm much more likely to have my patient accepted and managed in a way that I think is most appropriate for them. Also, third theme, familiarity with our patients.We are more familiar with our patients and therefore we don't have to go trawl through their histories. We know, right? I know that patient, I know what that's about. I spoke to them about it last week. Let's just phone them first and move on.That's an easy thing for me to do. Then relationships.Fourth theme, relationships with patients, in that we develop a trusting relationship, particularly if you've been working in a practice for a long period of time.For example, we might be able to have a conversation on the phone saying, well, are you as bad as you were the last time, for example, when you went to hospital with your copd? Is it as bad as that? Well, no, no, Doctor, not as bad as that. And you know these patients and you trust them to tell you the story like it is.But we also not only prioritise relationships with our patients, but also with other staff members.For example, if you're interrupted during a duty doctor session and it's the practice nurse who is needing help with something, that person is there in front of you. They're a valued member of your team and you want to be able to provide input for them in a timely way.And I guess that takes us back to system awareness. We know that that nurse has also got lots of patients to see, and if there's a delay in that, then the whole system is suffering from it.And then lastly, fifth is this idea of personal preferences. Some of us like doing hard things first, so that's eating the frog.Some of us like the quick wins and the endorphin release, of actually seeing all of the columns or all of the slots in the IT system changing a different color, we get a bit of a rush from that. There's no right or wrong answer with this, but actually a lot of it does come down to that.But it's also about looking after ourselves, but also balancing that against good patient care and what needs to be done first from a clinical urgency perspective.Speaker A00:06:18.360 - 00:06:45.170And the title of the paper is Quick Wins versus Eating the Frog.And I find that really interesting because from my own clinical practice, sometimes I feel like I'm telling myself off if I'm only taking off the easy tasks, because I know then at the end of the day I'm going to have all the long referral letters, the things that I've really been putting off. And I think, gosh, why did I leave it to this point, really?But I wonder if you can explain what that means a bit more generally, and why it captured something important about GP decision making.Speaker B00:06:45.570 - 00:08:12.210I think ultimately, for me, it's about when we are at the trainee stage. We are actually honest about how we approach prioritizing our workload. And I think ultimately that comes down to personality.Some of us like doing the more difficult things first, and then we feel that we've got the wind at our back and we're able to go on about our afternoon knowing that the most difficult thing in that list is done. In fact, the quote goes, eat a live frog first thing in the morning and nothing worse will happen you for the rest of the day.And I think that's probably paraphrasing a little bit, but I think that's the thing. If the worst thing is out of the way, the afternoon suddenly seems much better versus actually some of us need that endorphin release.And the highs, I guess, of actually seeing, feeling that we're going through our afternoon at a Good rate. And we are managing things well and some of us like that.But I think ultimately, if we can have that conversation at the trainee stage to say, look, you're either a frog eater or you're a quick winner and you have to decide which you are. And maybe actually you're at the point in your career where you have the opportunity to actually try these out.Say, right, we'll do the hardest thing first, how does that feel? Versus, you know, take off a few easy things, how does...

Today, we’re speaking to Dr Tom Purchase, a GP and Health and Care Research Wales NIHR doctoral fellow.Title of paper: Co-generating ideas for safer paediatric care in general practice with parents and stakeholdersAvailable at: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2025.0690Research has highlighted the important role parents play in in paediatric patient safety, for example, through mitigating safety incidents in general practice, yet their perspectives have rarely shaped system-level improvements. This study co-generated and prioritised ideas for change with parents and key stakeholders, identifying feasible and impactful strategies to improve paediatric safety in primary care. These strategies centred around practice communication, accessing care records and results, and fostering a culture of shared learning and development. Parents are willing and able to contribute meaningfully to safety improvement efforts, and their insights align with national patient safety priorities. Clinicians and policy makers can use these findings to strengthen collaboration with families, tailor safety interventions to local needs, and embed parent voices into the design of safer care systems.TranscriptThis transcript was generated using AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Please be aware it may contain errors or omissions.Speaker A00:00:00.480 - 00:00:49.500Hello and welcome today to BJGP Interviews. I'm Nada Khan and I'm one of the Associate editors of the Journal. Thanks for listening again to this podcast.In today's episode, we're talking to Dr. Tom Purchase. Tom is a GP and a health and Care Research Wales NIHR Doctoral Fellow.We're here today to talk about the paper he's just published in the bjgp and the paper is titled Co Generating Ideas for Safer Pediatric Care in General Practice with Parents and Stakeholders.So, hi, Tom, it's really great to meet you and to talk about your work, but before we talk about the study itself, I'm interested to know what first got you interested in pediatric patient safety in general practice.Speaker B00:00:50.060 - 00:02:26.850Thanks. It's born, I think, out of an extension of the work that we've been doing within the patient safety team within Cardiff University.So a lot of what we do is looking at incident reports, safety incident reports, and trying to pick out what are the, you know, high level key learning points and takeaway messages from those.And then within the team, we started to think about, as well as the types of incidents and the types of harms that are occurring within pediatric incidents. For example, how are parents involved?And it was a bit of a novel approach to what we normally do, trying to have that extra aspect within the incidents and figuring out how parents were either helping to contribute or to mitigate against the incidents, not just looking at the incidents themselves. So that was the starting point, really.And then once we'd started digging into that data and identifying that, actually the majority of the time, which is in one of the papers that was published last year in BJGP, 77% of the reports we were looking at specifically around general practice showed that parents were taking these mitigatory actions that, you know, positive actions that were able to prevent harm or further harm from occurring to their child, for example, chasing results or chasing referrals or importantly, being able to speak up. And then that highlighted, I think, the importance of parents being able to have a voice and advocating on behalf of their child.And that really sparked, I think, the interest, and therefore this part of the.Speaker A00:02:26.850 - 00:02:46.490Project, and I think that's a really interesting thing about this paper, is that it focuses on parents and parents not just as observers of care, but as active contributors to safety. And I wonder what your thoughts are about why that's an important shift in how we think about these things.I think you've touched on it a bit, but yeah, I'm interested to know a bit more about that.Speaker B00:02:46.810 - 00:03:55.980I think it is a really important aspect of care, but also particularly safety, which maybe is untapped in terms of parents as a resource as to how we can keep children safe.We know that children on the whole are more, maybe not more vulnerable, but certainly are a vulnerable group when it comes to patient care in general and patient safety.And that's because they're so heavily reliant on others to speak on their behalf, to make sure somebody else is looking out for their healthcare needs. And therefore they are probably playing a part within the world of patient safety.And there are good studies from hospital relating to incident reports that show that parents are capable of picking up issues early on. They're able to detect issues that maybe other parts or people within the system aren't detecting.And as I mentioned, our paper from last year specifically looking at general practice showed that parents are able to prevent harms from reaching their children. So they're playing a substantial part already.And from a systems perspective, that is mainly parents figuring out workarounds within a system that really isn't, I don't think, designed to support them as well as it could be.Speaker A00:03:56.460 - 00:04:33.810And I guess that's kind of the crux of what you were doing here.So I guess before we get into findings, just, you know, a quick word about the methods because you worked here with groups of parents to develop ideas for improving pediatric patient safety in, in general practice, in primary care, and then you explored those ideas with a wider group of stakeholders and that included clinicians, managers and policymakers, and then brought them all together to co generate ideas for safer care. And it was really interesting because the parents generated 16 different ideas for improving safety.And were there any that particularly surprised you and jumped out at you?Speaker B00:04:34.450 - 00:05:33.980I don't think necessarily any were too surprising on the basis that we. I don't think I really had any thoughts going into it as to what they might say.But I guess what did surprise me more was that some of the ideas that we then took forward to the stakeholder group kind of highlighted some disparities or some clear disagreements between the parents who were accessing our services and the people who work within the services. And how we viewed, I suppose, viewed what's actually happening, that kind of work is imagined and how we think things are going and the work is done.I guess what the parents were trying to do to come up with the idea is to bridge that gap unknowingly. I suppose maybe what's surprising is that none of them, I didn't think any of the ideas were necessarily too resource intensive.You know, I think what was quite reassuring is that lots of what the parents were saying were actually relatively simple things that we might be able to enact or at least adopt or adapt, you know, to our own environments.Speaker A00:05:34.540 - 00:05:47.730And a lot of the ideas seem to center, I think, around communication, access to records and test results, and actually just helping parents to speak up. And why do you think those themes emerge so strongly?Speaker B00:05:48.450 - 00:07:24.990I think that comes back to maybe that difference between how we like to think the system's functioning and how parents think the system's functioning as healthcare professionals and parents.Because we know from a thematic analysis we did, which is also going to be published in bjgp, from these discussions we've had with the parents, that a lot of them said they felt the need to fight in order to be heard.So although within, say, pediatrics and GP training programmes and CBDs and everything we have to do for revalidation, taking ideas, concerns, expectations, collateral histories, making sure we're really considering that the holistic approach is all considered clinically, what you're then getting, I suppose, from the parents is that maybe we're not doing it as well as we could be.And one parent within the workshop said, I know as a parent you are expected to advocate for your child, but what it surprises me is how regularly you have to do it and sometimes it feels like a full time job.And I think that one really struck a chord in terms of really emphasizing how much extra effort and how much work parents are feeling they need to put in. And I think that also implies that the system isn't making it as easy as possible for them to be able to do the right thing.So I can't necessarily explain unfortunately why they feel that those areas needed to be targeted.I guess it's because there are barriers that we are not tackling correctly in order to help parents to speak up more efficiently and certainly to be listened to.Speaker A00:07:26.840 - 00:07:35.160And one of the stakeholder priorities was this idea of a designated parent advocate. Can you tell us a bit more about that idea and why it resonated?Speaker B00:07:35.640 - 00:09:21.810Yeah, sure.I really liked that one and I thought it was an interesting one because again, it...

Today, we’re speaking to Dr Garth Funston, a GP and Clinical Senior Lecturer in Primary Care Cancer Research at Queen Mary University of London. Title of paper: Using large language models to identify pre-diagnostic clinical features of ovarian cancer from healthcare records: a population-based case-control studyAvailable at: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2025.0366Most women with ovarian cancer present with symptoms, but many symptoms are recorded only in free text healthcare records and missed by studies and clinical decision support tools that rely on coded data. We found that using large language models (LLMs) to extract symptoms from free text records substantially increased symptom detection and strengthened associations with ovarian cancer. Incorporating LLM-extracted symptom information into research and clinical decision tools may support identification of women at higher risk of cancer and aid appropriate investigation.TranscriptThis transcript was generated using AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Please be aware it may contain errors or omissions.Speaker A00:00:00.800 - 00:00:50.940Hi and welcome to BJGP Interviews. I'm Nada Khan and I'm one of the Associate editors of the Journal. Thanks for listening to this podcast today.In today's episode, we're talking to Dr. Garth Funston, who is an academic GP and clinical senior Lecturer in Primary Care Research at Queen Mary University of London.We're here to talk about his recent paper in the BJDP which is titled Using Large Language Models to Identify Pre Diagnostic Clinical Features of Ovarian and Cancer from Healthcare Records.So, Garth, thanks so much for talking to us again today, but I wonder, just before we get into the AI side of this paper, can you briefly explain the clinical problem you're trying to address here with ovarian cancer diagnosis in general practice?Speaker B00:00:51.500 - 00:01:55.010So most women with ovarian cancer are diagnosed after they develop symptoms and see their doctor. The challenge is that most symptoms are really non specific. There's no real red flag symptoms for ovarian cancer.That makes it a real clinical challenge for the GP to kind of recognize it and perform tests.So the symptoms are things like abdominal and pelvic pain, persistent bloating, urinary urgency and frequency, things that we see really frequently in gp. So knowing when to consider ovarian cancer is the big challenge.And we know that certainly a proportion of women see their GP multiple times before the diagnosis. Now we're lucky for ovarian cancer in that we have reasonably good triage tests and CA125 and transvaginal ultrasound.So the challenge really is to identify women with these non specific symptoms early so as we can work out who to test and hopefully improve early diagnosis and on outcomes in that way.Speaker A00:01:55.250 - 00:02:14.530Yeah, and I'm sure you're well aware of sort of the body work around this area and people like Willie Hamilton, who's done work around early diagnosis of ovarian cancer, along with Claire Bankhead, and they did some really interesting work around things like bloating, didn't they? But that was slightly different, I think, and a little bit that's some time ago now, isn't it?Speaker B00:02:14.930 - 00:02:39.230Yeah, it was some time ago. I think all of that is, you know, fundamental and still holds true.And they did a lot of work around things like IBS and in women over, over 50 and things like that that are kind of these subtle signs that we need to be aware of with ovarian cancer.So, yeah, we know there's lots of features that are associated with ovarian cancer, but it's recognizing when to invest to get those features because they're so common.Speaker A00:02:39.630 - 00:02:49.310Yeah. And do you think that's why it's described as difficult to diagnose early in general practice? Is it because the symptoms are so common?What are your thoughts on that?Speaker B00:02:49.390 - 00:03:48.750I think there's a few reasons.I think ovarian cancer used to be called, certainly in the media, the kind of the silent killer and terminology, which I really, really frustrates me, because we know it's not. We know that most women of symptoms for diagnosis. We actually know that from this paper and other papers that are symptoms in early stage cancer.But that kind of thought around ovarian cancer still holds. Secondly, the symptoms are nonspecific, they're reasonably common. I mean, you know, I probably see a.A patient with abdominal pain most days and it's kind of working out which ones to investigate for ovarian cancer. Yeah. And so I think those are the main things. And thirdly, it's, you know, it's not the most common common cancer.GP will see people probably only encounter a case of ovarian cancer every three to five years, a new case. And that's the extra challenge. It's kind of suspecting it when it's a rare thing in primary care.Speaker A00:03:49.100 - 00:04:03.500Yeah. And one thing I found really interesting about this work is that you're using free text clinical records rather than just coded data.So can you tell us a little bit about the data you accessed here and why it was so important to use this free text data?Speaker B00:04:04.220 - 00:05:09.600So a lot of the work that we do with primary care data focuses on coded data and certainly within the uk, because that's really the data we can actually access within UK for research purposes. But up to 80% of clinical information is not in that coded format, it's in the free text.And work from people like Sarah Price in the past have shown that often subtle things that we need to pick up are in the free text and GPS don't code that.So it's something I've been really keen to use in research for many years now to try and look at what extra information is there in the free text that could help us in both research and clinical practice and kind of picking up these cancers. And the data we accessed was from the United States, it was from healthcare clinics associated with the University of Washington.And that included kind of coded data, but also the free text medical records of patients which had been anonymized and were accessed in a kind of a safe and appropriate way.Speaker A00:05:10.000 - 00:05:40.140Yeah.And I think a lot of clinical staff listening to this will certainly, certainly appreciate that a Lot goes into the notes that we just type in that doesn't really get coded. So it's phenomenal that you're able to access that data.And this paper uses large language models or LLMs, which some people might associate, associate with tools like ChatGPT, but just at a very basic level. Can you just talk us through what actually is a large language model and what sort of it was used for in this, in this study?Speaker B00:05:40.950 - 00:06:49.130Large language models, lots of people use them on a daily basis. Absolutely right.Things like ChatGPT, they're essentially a tool for our purposes which we use to extract information from the free text medical records. Now natural language processing approaches have been used actually for many years, kind of rule based approaches.Other models, these require lots of training. You need to lots of highly annotated records and notes to train the models.Advantage of large language models, things like GPT, is they need less annotated notes and we did still do some of that, but they require less and that makes them much easier to apply and use in practice. We use them in this setting to effectively pull out key information on symptoms.We predefined a list of 17 symptoms from the literature which were associated with ovarian cancer and we used the large language models to go through the notes, pull out information on those symptoms that we could use in the study alongside the coded data.Speaker A00:06:50.090 - 00:07:03.350And I think that as we've been discussing, these large language models are probably really useful for this kind of data. I think especially because a lot of general practice is narrative and contextual as we've been discussing as well.Speaker B00:07:03.350 - 00:07:38.940Yeah, I think, I mean there's two challenges with using free text data. One is access requirements because there's lots of concerns around confidentiality. The other is just the volume of it.You've got these massive records that you know, contain lots of information, lots of writing, go back years. How do you actually process that to find the key information that you need?I think large language models are a really useful tool here because with a bit of training you can use them to actually extract the information that's pertinent to your kind of question.Speaker A00:07:39.340 - 00:07:48.620So let's go into what you found and I'm really interested to know about what kind of patterns or features was this model able to identify before an ovarian cancer diagnosis.Speaker B00:07:49.180 - 00:09:06.690So we looked at 17, 17 features. We find actually that 14 of the features were more frequently recorded within the free text and coded...

Today, we’re speaking to Dr Clare Macdonald, an Academic Clinical Lecturer in General Practice based at the University of Birmingham.Title of paper: Complex social needs and maternal postnatal care: what can primary care do?Available at: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2026.0069Throughout the discussion we use the terms ‘woman’ and ‘women’, but we know that not all those who give birth will identify as women and intend this to mean all those who give birth.TranscriptThis transcript was generated using AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Please be aware it may contain errors or omissions.Speaker A00:00:00.480 - 00:00:51.740Hello and welcome to BJ GP Interviews. I'm Nada Khan and I'm one of the Associate Editors of the Journal. Thanks for listening to this podcast today.In today's episode, we're speaking to Dr. Claire MacDonald. Claire is an academic clinical lecturer in general practice, and she's based at the University of Birmingham.We're here today to talk about the editorial she's just published in the May issue of the bjgp, and it's titled Complex Social Needs and Maternal Postnatal Care. What Can Primary Care Do?So, hi, Clare, it's lovely to meet you and to talk about this brilliant editorial, but before we get into the editorial itself, I wonder if you can just talk us through what you actually mean by complex social needs in the context of postnatal care.Speaker B00:00:51.980 - 00:02:21.290Yeah.So I think when we talk about social complexity in the postnatal population, we're talking about women who have multiple factors that might be influencing how they can access care or influencing the clinical and social risks that they have. So for most people, the time after they've had a baby results in some social change.Even in the most straightforward, most brilliantly supported, most physically well person, there are big social changes. And that is a period of a complex time to navigate and finding your way and your identity as a family with a new baby and so on.When we talk about complex social needs, we're talking about women who face other aspects of adversity.So it might be that they have housing instability, it might be that they have experienced domestic abuse or they continue to experience domestic abuse, that they have a history of safeguarding issues, safeguarding for themselves or safeguarding concern, concerns about other children or other family members.And when we see women who have overlapping social risk factors that produces this kind of network of complexity that puts them at compounded additional risk and they need additional help in navigating their health needs in that time.Speaker A00:02:21.450 - 00:02:47.310And I wonder why you felt that this was an important issue to highlight right now. So is there anything in particular that makes you think that this is the right time to sort of look into this?I know that there's a complex picture in terms of sort of maternal care, and if we look at things like the cost of living crisis, which is compounding a lot of the pressures that people are facing. But talk me through what your impetus was in thinking about this as a now issue.Speaker B00:02:48.110 - 00:05:26.470Yeah, that's right.So maternity services are really high profile in the news a lot at the moment, but from a secondary care perspective, and quite rightly, there's a spotlight on the poor care that some women and their families and their babies receive from secondary care. And there are, you know, huge pieces of work being done to improve that, to improve outcomes and to improve people's experiences.But that focus tends to be on intrapartum care.So the care that people receive in hospital around the time of birth, sometimes there's a little bit of focus on antenatal care as well and reducing risk during pregnancy, there's a lot less focus on what looks like the less exciting time of preconception care and then postnatal care. So after women get discharged from maternity services, we know that they're often left feeling a little bit isolated in the healthcare context.Some qualitative research that we've done in the past, looking at women's experiences of postnatal care, women told us that they were surprised about they'd had so many appointments during pregnancy and then so much healthcare retention in the first few days after birth, and then they were just surprised. No, you know, they had a baby and no one was really interested in their health anymore. And that genuinely came as a surprise to them.We know that maternal mortality in the uk, which, thankfully, in absolute numbers, is. Is quite small, but it's certainly higher than it could be and maybe should be, particularly compared to other kind of similar European countries.And there are actually more maternal deaths postnatally, so in the sort of later postnatal period, six weeks to a year after birth, than there are in that sort of antenatal, intrapartum and early postnatal period. And all of the political drive tends to be about reducing maternal mortality in its traditional definition of being up to six weeks after birth.But as GPs, where we can really have an impact is in those late maternal deaths.And of course, very few of us, thankfully, will be involved in the care of a woman who dies in that period, because they are small in absolute numbers. But there are all the women who do not die, but have those risk factors and have that complexity.And the longer they live with those sort of adverse health conditions and adverse social conditions, that is dramatically reducing their quality life course health. And we can really step in, in that postnatal period to look at how we can influence that.Speaker A00:05:26.870 - 00:05:49.080Yeah, and you've mentioned about the kind of care that women get in during their pregnancy. And sometimes, I'm sure for some women, the postnatal period can feel already pretty fragmented for those reasons.But how do you think that that fragmentation can become amplified for women with complex social needs? Do you have any thoughts about that?Speaker B00:05:50.280 - 00:08:25.320Absolutely. So a Lot of people will know how to contact their gp, right?I think if you ask people, most people have probably got that number saved in their phone or they know where their GP practice is.But after you have a baby, women are then given all these kind of new healthcare professionals who are interested and involved and it's impossible to know how that all fits together.So the midwife will typically follow women up for that kind of, you know, 10 to 14 days postnatally, usually just at the time the midwife is giving you the final sign off appointment. Within a day or two, you have an appointment with the health visitor, which again is somebody new, and then you might have a follow up.For example, if a woman's had a third degree tear or is having some additional hospital follow up because of hypertension or gestational diabetes, then the hospital are involved and then they come back to the GP.And I often feel like, for us as GPs, women, as soon as they're pregnant, they can generally self refer to the midwife and they get kind of lifted out of the primary care system to an extent.We might not see them through their whole pregnancy, then they have a baby, we might or might not get a discharge summary that gives us some details about the birth and then we invite them for their postnatal consultation and in that time, you know, they've had an entire pregnancy, a huge life changing event, and then we get to see them for this one appointment. And it's so complicated.Often for women who are not sure where they're going to get their next meal from, how can they be giving any kind of cognitive time to figuring out if the midwife told the health visitor and if the health visitor told the GP and if they're worried that their bleeding's gone on for a bit too long, do they try and phone the woman who came on Thursday or the woman who came on Monday, or do they come back to their gp?We're asking a lot and we also place a lot of burden on women to retell their story because information transfer is not always timely, it's not always sufficiently detailed.And again, for women who are living in more precarious social situations, that burden then of having to, you know, they're juggling and the, you know, the mental load of everything they're trying to figure out. And then we're asking them, can you remember if your blood pressure was high during your pregnancy?Whereas we should know that we should have that information from those other services. So that fragmentation in services really means that the burden is unduly placed on women to kind of patch that up.And we need to find a better way of dealing with that.Speaker A00:08:25.640 - 00:08:38.260One of the things I think that comes through really strongly is that some of the women with the greatest needs often face the biggest barriers, care. And what kind of barriers are we talking about here that these women are facing?Speaker B00:08:38.980 - 00:10:06.270The Embrace report, which is well, well worth a look at at least their infographics, I think for every gp, it's just a...

Today, we’re speaking to Dr Eliza Hutchinson, a dermatology registrar and academic clinical fellow based at the Centre for Applied Excellence in Skin and Allergy Research at the University of Bristol.Title of paper: Eczema, acne, and psoriasis in people with skin of colour: a qualitative UK-based studyAvailable at: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2025.0720This study is the first, to the authors’ knowledge, to explore the experiences of living with an inflammatory dermatosis specifically in people with skin of colour. We generated eight themes important to participants: delayed or missed diagnosis; preferences regarding healthcare professionals; lack of online information and social media use; misunderstandings in cultural communities; concerns about treatment and lack of research; complementary medicine use; experiences and impact of dyspigmentation; and challenges with structural racism. These findings offer insight into the complex experiences and challenges faced by UK adults with skin of colour living with eczema, acne, and psoriasis. Our practical points for primary care clinicians are a step towards facilitating mutual understanding and improving care for people with skin of colour.TranscriptThis transcript was generated using AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Please be aware it may contain errors or omissions.Speaker A00:00:00.560 - 00:00:53.150Hi and welcome to BJGP Interviews. I'm Nada Khan and I'm one of the Associate editors of the BJGP. In today's episode, we're speaking to Dr. Eliza Hutchinson.Eliza is a dermatology registrar and an academic clinical fellow and she's based at the Centre for Applied Excellence in Skin and Skin Allergy Research at the University of Bristol. We're here to talk about the paper she's just published in the bjgp and the paper is titled Eczema Acne and Psoriasis in People with Skin of Color.A Qualitative UK based Study. So, Eliza, it's lovely to meet you and thanks again for joining us to talk about this paper.But before we talk about the paper itself, I'm just wondering what made you specifically interested in researching skin conditions in skin of color?Speaker B00:00:53.550 - 00:01:34.700Yeah, thank you so much for having me.So I think people with skin of color have been and still are massively underrepresented in kind of medical curricula, learning resources, clinical trials. And I certainly remember when I was at medical school, I don't think I had any teaching on diverse skin tones at all.And so it was as I sort of learned more dermatology, I just became very aware that they are so underrepresented. And I think earlier work in this area, I really tried to improve education for medical students and healthcare professionals around skin of color.That was kind of my starting point.And then I realised actually there's very little, if anything actually on the experiences of people with skin of colour, which is kind of what led me to this project.Speaker A00:01:35.820 - 00:01:38.380And you work in dermatology, is that right?Speaker B00:01:38.460 - 00:01:42.300Yes, yes, I'm a dermatology registrar based in the Bristol Bath area.Speaker A00:01:42.540 - 00:02:06.890Great. So it's wonderful to have your expertise in this especially.And we may get into this sort of about sort of your perspective from secondary care as well, looking back into general practice as well. But this paper focuses on eczema, acne and psoriasis and these are conditions that we see a lot as gps.So why did you feel that this was an important area to look at for people with skin of colour?Speaker B00:02:07.290 - 00:02:41.470Yes, I mean, as you said, we know that skin conditions are super common.They make up over 14% of GP consultations and eczema, acne and psoriasis are some of the most common inflammatory skin conditions we see and we know that they have a significant burden on everyone that experiences them.But I think particularly in people with skin of colour, we already know that these people experience kind of increasing things like Dispigmentation, so skin tone getting lighter or darker from their skin condition. And yeah, I think I just wanted to focus on some of the more common conditions that are seen kind of day to day in primary care.Speaker A00:02:42.110 - 00:02:54.890And this was a qualitative study and you emphasized that you really wanted to understand the experiences of people here. So talk us through a bit what you did. You spoke to people who had these conditions and had skin of colour?Speaker B00:02:55.050 - 00:03:26.060Yes. So we recruited using online methods for a couple of reasons, but really wanted to get kind of diverse range of experiences from across the uk.So we started off with an online survey and that was open to people of all skin tones. And we have written this up as a separate paper which should be out hopefully in the next few months.But based on these responses, we then kind of purposefully recruited people with skin of color to take part in an online one to one interview. And so we spoke to 20 different people with skin of colour as part of this.Speaker A00:03:26.460 - 00:03:40.300And I think one of the really interesting things that came out and is running as a strong theme through the paper is that skin conditions can present really differently in skin of colour. Can you explain a bit about what that means in practice as well?Speaker B00:03:40.700 - 00:04:49.210Yeah. So we know that skin conditions can look and behave very differently in people with skin of colour compared to white skin.So for example, eczema is typically in a kind of flexural distribution in people with white skin, so like in the elbow creases behind the knees.But in people with skin of colour it might be more likely to be on the extensor surfaces, it might be in a sort of discoid type pattern, so kind of well defined round patches or sort of a follicular pattern is another one we see. So if you look at medical textbooks and what we're taught at medical school, we just don't see pictures of these presentations.And I think another big thing is obviously redness is much less obvious in skin of colour. So that's typically what we would associate with skin inflammation is redness and it is much less obvious.And instead in darker skin tones it might look kind of purpley. Brownie might not be as obvious. And certainly in the interviews we found that patients were aware of this as well.So they were looking at their own skin and not picking up that it was kind of actively inflamed. They didn't know what it was and they'd go and see a GP or another healthcare professional in primary care and they also wouldn't know.And then it's just kind of leading to Delayed diagnosis, misdiagnoses.Speaker A00:04:50.140 - 00:05:16.780Yeah, And I think that's certainly something. So the people you spoke to described these delays in diagnosis and also this uncertainty from clinicians.And I do wonder if that is reflected in what we learn and what the wider public understand is what inflammation might look like as well. So I wonder what really stood out to you from these experiences.So how did people and clinicians sort of navigate those delays and uncertainty as well?Speaker B00:05:17.320 - 00:05:44.760What was quite shocking was in terms of the misdiagnosis a lot of the time, infection and infestation.So, for example, scabies was a big one that people were misdiagnosed with, and that in some circumstances did lead to kind of stigmatisation, psychological distress, embarrassment, and then people were more afraid to seek help. Further delays in diagnosis. Yeah, I think that was the thing that struck me the most in terms of this problem.Speaker A00:05:45.240 - 00:06:00.040And you've mentioned this, you talked about dyspigmentation, and that came through as well very strongly in the interviews. And I think that's probably a problem that's specific to skin of color as well.And can you talk through why that came up as such an important issue for patients in this study?Speaker B00:06:00.760 - 00:06:46.890Yeah, of course. So I think we already know that dyspigmentation.So skin tone usually getting darker, but sometimes lighter as a result of skin inflammation, we know that it is more common in darker skin tones just because they've got more melanin there to start with. But the thing that struck me in these interviews was just the profound impact that this can have on patients.So embarrassment, isolation, body dysmorphia. There's a lot of misunderstanding as well, kind of within certain communities about what causes it.And some people experience negative comments from within their own community, from friends and family, which really exacerbated that kind of psychosocial impact even more. And obviously, skin tone is massively tied into kind of identity, and the impact on people's wellbeing was just. Yeah, it was huge.Speaker A00:06:47.690 - 00:06:58.490And coming from a general practice perspective, it sometimes feels like the treatment options for dyspigmentation are really...

Today, we’re speaking to Dr Tori Ford, a qualitative researcher based at the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences at the University of Oxford.Title of papers: ‘Accumulative Experiences: Navigating Healthcare for Recurrent Vulvovaginal Thrush from Patient and Clinician Perspectives’ and ‘It’s not just thrush, it’s recurrent thrush’: Patient and Clinician Perspectives on Diagnosing Recurrent Vulvovaginal Candidiasis’.Available at: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2025.0437 and https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2025.0531TranscriptThis transcript was generated using AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Please be aware it may contain errors or omissions.Speaker A00:00:01.280 - 00:01:15.200Hi, and welcome to BJGP Interviews. I'm Nada Khan and I'm one of the associate editors of the journal. Thanks again for listening to this podcast today.In today's episode, we're speaking to Dr. Tori Ford, who is a qualitative researcher based at the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences at the University of Oxford. We're going to talk today about two linked papers that she and her team have published here in the bjgp.The first one is titled Accumulative Navigating Healthcare for Recurrent Vulvovaginal Thrush from Patient and Clinician Perspectives. And the second paper is it's not just thrush, it's recurrent thrush.Patient and Clinician Perspectives on Diagnosing Recurrent Vulva Vaginal Candidiasis. So, Tori, thanks very much for joining us here today.And this might come from a slightly unscientific perspective, but my feeling is that I'm seeing a lot more recurrent thrush in practice. And we know that it's incredibly common. I think, despite that, it's not something we hear discussed very often in primary care research.So my first question is, what made you want to study it?Speaker B00:01:15.520 - 00:01:54.060So, like you say, recurrent thrush is an increasingly common condition. We know that 1.2 million women in the UK live with it, 6% of people globally, and I just happen to have been one of them.So my paper came out of lived experience of living with recurrent thrush over many years and having a diagnostic journey of, you know, seeing different healthcare professionals looking for answers. And like you say, those feelings of shame and stigma that keep you feeling alone were all too familiar for me.So that's what actually led me into starting my PhD, looking at recurrent thrush and then wanting to hear other patient experiences as well.Speaker A00:01:54.460 - 00:02:22.220And we're looking at two of your papers here that were published in the bjgp, and they're both looking at the patient and the clinician perspective.And one thing that comes through really strongly in both papers is that recurrent thrush is often treated as if it's just repeated acute episodes rather than a condition in its own right. Why do you think that that distinction matters to patients and probably to clinicians as well, or should do?Speaker B00:02:22.380 - 00:03:55.420I think when we hear about thrush, it's often something that's seen as trivial or mundane, and that's often because it's through this lens of acute, transient, episodic, episod, and most of the time it is right. 75% Of people with Vaginas will have thrush at some point in their life.It's usually self managed over the counter with pharmacy care and symptoms resolved within a few days.But where recurrent thrush differs is when those symptoms keep coming back so that itching, burning pain and irritation becomes sometimes cyclical, sometimes repetitive. And I spoke to three or two patients who all had different durations of heat know, happening every two weeks, every month.And what they often found was because they were accessing fragmented care.So, you know, going to the pharmacy, sometimes going to the gp, sometimes maybe seeing sexual health, it was often seen as again, that mundane, one off, trivial case. And it was really hard to trace those patterns across care, especially due to a lack of continuity. Right.If you're trying to track a pattern but nobody is following you up, it's really difficult to, to capture those. So I think it's a few layers of one.I explore how these sort of social dimensions keep it seen as something maybe less long term, but then also in the ways that sort of care was fragmented made it harder for those patterns to be picked up and then to transition the care moving away from, you know, acute one off prescriptions of an antifungal medication to something that required repeat, repetitive, enduring, you know, testing, treatment, retesting of treatments.Speaker A00:03:56.060 - 00:04:09.970Absolutely. And I think what's interesting is that your papers describe recurrent thrush as something that's accumulative and cyclical over time.And you mentioned that it's not just these sort of one off episodes. Can you explain what patients meant by that?Speaker B00:04:10.210 - 00:05:13.850Yeah.So often, I think when we talk about healthcare, journeys are presented in a way that's quite linear and straightforward that, you know, you see a healthcare professional, you get treatment, you go home, you start to feel better. But with recurrence, something interesting happens where people aren't, you know, returning to the start.It's not that you go back to a blank page and then restart your healthcare journey every time you're carrying with you everything, everything that's amassed through healthcare encounters, what you've seen online, what you discuss with friends, and that is all carrying through to those consultations.And I think what was really important there was acknowledging that for many people there was a lot to unpack there and often they felt that it wasn't being acknowledged in those clinical spaces. It was seen as, oh, it's just thrush. And that's why in one of the papers the title is, it's not just thrush, it's recurrent thrush.And that's a quote from One of the participants who was speaking about the importance of labeling and distinguishing this condition, especially in terms of the impacts it had on people's lives and also the approaches and pathways that would be needed to properly treat it.Speaker A00:05:14.330 - 00:05:32.570And this is an issue that we see across clinical care and women's healthcare. But a lot of participants described feeling dismissed or not listened to.And I wanted to just get your perspective from your wider sort of work in this area is how much of that reflected wider issues in women's health care, do you think?Speaker B00:05:33.170 - 00:06:46.980Yeah, I mean, we know there's increasing conversations, right, with the women's health strategy, with the Cumberlage report, about how people's pain is often dismissed based on their gender. And that definitely came across in the studies. But I think what was interesting was that both patients and clinicians were aware of this.And something that is quite interesting was in the diagnostic paper, we look at sort of those moments where there were sort of miscommunication or differing expectations between patients and clinicians, clinicians, where clinicians were, you know, operating on a standard guideline that requires two swabs, two positive swabs for a thrush within a year to diagnose recurrent thrush.But when that wasn't communicated to the patient, of being told we need to accumulate these number of swabs, what the patients thought was happening was, oh, they're swabbing me again, they're not listening to me, they don't believe me.So it was interesting where the dismissal was often in those moments of, you know, it wasn't healthcare professionals saying, this isn't important, or please don't come see me about this. It was really in those sort of small details where patients were operating on one framework and clinicians on another.And there were these gaps in communication. And that's why our papers seek to address some of those gaps with some recommendations as well.Speaker A00:06:47.620 - 00:07:04.640Yeah, and as you mentioned, one of the papers is called it's not just thrush, it's recurrent thrush.And I wonder what you felt were the key challenges around actually recognizing recurrence in primary care, as opposed to it just being a, a one off episode.Speaker B00:07:04.720 - 00:09:30.220There's multiple layers to this, I think, in terms of the. The papers are sort of split in terms of the diagnostic journey and then the healthcare journey.But that's sort of an artificial split in some ways, because what we saw a lot was, you know, patients trying to seek out continuity of care to get someone to notice the pattern that they were starting to see and assign a label to it and we saw some hesitancy with this in clinicians who said, you know, I'm not going to use the term recurrence because that sounds like it's something serious or sounds like it's chronic. And they saw that being helpful.But then for patients they found that really challenging because they said, you know, they just see it as thrush, they just see it as a one off case, they're not recognizing it when often...