Fully-funded PhD in mental health!

We are currently advertising a fully-funded PhD in mental health, which will cover UK academic fees and provide an annual stipend of £15,609 for three years! This project is ideal for anyone interested in mental health, clinical psychology and improving healthcare. The primary supervisor is Prof John Baker and I am the secondary supervisor. As such, the successful applicant will benefit from links with both the School of Healthcare and the School of Psychology at the University of Leeds. The project is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Yorkshire and Humber Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (YH PSTRC) and so the appointed candidate will also have a base at the Bradford Institute for Health Research and become an NIHR trainee.

The project

This important project addresses the challenging issue of self-harm on mental health inpatient units. Self-harm occurs frequently in these settings and can then trigger the use of restrictive care practices by staff. These practices can increase both the psychological and physical harm experienced by service-users and lead to stress and burnout in healthcare staff, potentially creating a vicious cycle. Psychological interventions have the potential to reduce self-harm on inpatient units, but the interventions which have been developed so far have needed a high levels of input which many mental health units may feel unable to resource and staff. This project will address this gap, by 1) reviewing the current interventions on offer, 2) exploring the extent to which these are currently used and 3) identifying a range of recommendations which units can implement to reduce self-harm and improve patient care.

The opportunity

This PhD in mental health is a great opportunity for ambitious and dedicated prospective students who are interested in pursuing future careers in mental health nursing, clinical psychology, patient safety and healthcare-related research. The successful applicant will be encouraged to present their research in different forums and publish in peer-reviewed academic journals, in order to build their academic health career. They will also be offered a wide range of development opportunities, including training courses focused on building methodological and research expertise, alongside those focused on career management. These opportunities will be available both via the University of Leeds and the Bradford Institute for Health Research.

This opportunity is open to prospective applicants who are eligible for UK academic fees. The deadline for applying is March 25th 2022 for an anticipated October 2022 start date. For more information and to apply see here.

 

Thalidomide: Nine things you didn’t know about the ‘poisonous pill’

Thalidomide was marketed to pregnant women as an antidote for morning sickness in the late 1950s, but the results were calamitous. An epidemic of babies born with various disabilities including limb, organ and neural damage led to its withdrawal from sale in November 1961. There were over 5000 known thalidomide survivors living worldwide in 2003, including 500 in the UK.

As a healthcare researcher, I had come to understand the thalidomide catastrophe as a systems failure: the disastrous outcome of an inadequate medications approval process. My dad, Dr Martin Johnson, was Director of the UK Thalidomide Trust between 2000 and 2014, and through him I had come to learn about its terrible impacts upon individuals and their families. I also understood that many survivors were still awaiting justice. However, in 2018, together with his co-authors Professor Ray Stokes and Tobias Arndt, dad published ‘The Thalidomide Catastrophe’, the first and only comprehensive history of thalidomide. Reading it led me to realise I had been seeing through a glass darkly. When laid bare, the thalidomide story is stunning, shocking and almost unbelievable. Here I share with you nine things I learned from the book:

Ed, aged 3

Ed, aged 3

  1. The full number of people affected by the drug reached tens of thousands. It is well known that thalidomide caused babies to be born with disabilities. However, it is highly likely that many other children died in the days and months after birth and that even more were miscarried or stillborn because of thalidomide. Johnson, Stokes and Arndt estimate that altogether, between 87,600 and 275,500 babies were affected.
  2. A single tablet had disastrous effects. Researchers have been able to link the days on which tablets were taken with specific forms of damage. For example, a tablet on days 21-22 after conception could cause damage to, or loss of the eyes. A tablet on day 24 could cause loss of the arms and a tablet on day 29 could cause loss of the legs. The key message from this is that the babies who survived thalidomide were those whose mothers took a tiny amount of the ‘poisonous pill’.
  3. Key players in the development of thalidomide are linked with the Nazi regime. The book explores this issue in meticulous depth and it is hard to summarise the evidence briefly. However, two things are clear. The first is that the Chief Scientist of Chemie Grunenthal, the Germany company who patented the drug, was Dr Heinrich Muckter. Muckter spent World War 2 (WW2) at an institution which tested drugs on Buchenwald concentration camp prisoners. The second is that Otto Ambros was a consultant for the Distillers Company, the British organisation which distributed Thalidomide in the UK. Ambros was sentenced to 8 years for his war crimes during WW2, which included using slave labour from the Auschwitz III-Monowitz concentration camp.
  4. Thalidomide seriously harmed adults too. When taken for more than 2 weeks, thalidomide could cause adults to contract ‘polyneuritis’, nerve damage involving symptoms such as tingling, numbness, excruciating muscle cramping and even partial paralysis. It could affect coordination, balance and the ability to walk. Altogether, around half a million adults were probably affected. “The Thalidomide Catatrophe” provides the response from Chemie Grunenthal to one affected surgeon who used the drug. “Thank you for your letter of 8th March 1960 in which you tell us you are increasingly suffering from paraesthesia and… probable polyneuritis… We wish to advise you that we have received no such reports to date” (p110). This letter was a lie: the company had received several reports and their false reassurance may have caused the surgeon to keep taking the harmful drug. As Johnson, Arndt and Stokes comment, these effects probably cost this surgeon his career.
    TIna Gallagher

    Tina Gallagher in 2002

  5. Warnings the drug was dangerous were ignored. To this date, Chemie Grunenthal claim that they could not have known about the harmful potential of Thalidomide. The evidence presented by Johnson, Stokes and Arndt makes this almost impossible to believe. For example, there is clear evidence Grunenthal’s Chief Scientist, Heinrich Muckter, received warnings a year before thalidomide even went to market from Dr Piacenza, an Italian doctor who undertook trials of the drug. Writing in 1956, Piacenza reported that the drug was unsuitable due to its toxicity. He described side effects in adult patients which included a whole-body rash and peripheral nerve damage. Reports from concerned physicians continued to be sent to Grunenthal, but the drug was not removed from market. Concerns were also raised about the potential harmful effects of thalidomide on unborn babies. For example, in 1959, scientist Dr Randolph Riemschneider raised concerns that thalidomide was causing birth defects in tadpoles he was experimenting with. As he later recorded, “we sent this information with photos to Chemie Grunenthal… Unfortunately, no answer was forthcoming” (p115).
  6. Even when its impact was known, Chemie Grunenthal continued to sell thalidomide. There were warnings that thalidomide was harmful before it even went to market. However, Chemie Grunenthal did not publicly acknowledge its harmful potential until 1961. In a speech on 14th July that year, Heinrich Muckter, Grunenthal’s Chief Scientist told his staff, “if I were a doctor, I would not prescribe Contergan [trade name for thalidomide] any more. Gentleman, I warn you… I see great dangers” (p41). Yet he didn’t withdraw the drug from sale until November that year. If he had pulled it immediately after his speech, more than 25% of the babies who were affected would have been saved.
  7. The impacts of thalidomide are sometimes invisible. Not all survivors were affected by the limb damage which is characteristic of thalidomide. As a toxic nerve agent, it also caused devastating hidden damage. Johnson, Stokes and Arndt report the situation of Julie Lane, whose mother had been supplied with the drug. Outwardly, Julie only had minor hand damage. However, at a young age, she developed epileptic fits. In her teens, she lost the use of her legs and later on, her arms. She also gradually lost her hearing and her sight. As her epileptic brain activity was not typical, her symptoms were misdiagnosed as being psychosomatic, and not of physical origin. This caused her problems to be stigmatised. However, a post-mortem conducted after she died aged 44 showed evidence of major internal damage which had been there since birth.
  8. Survivors still wait for justice. Chemie Grunenthal, the company which patented thalidomide, has never been held to account. A trial was called in 1968 but later suspended, apparently on the basis that “public interest in a continuation of the criminal prosecution no longer exists” (p.131). In the UK, Distillers, the company which distributed the drug paid out some compensation following a lengthy legal battle. However, survivors in some other countries have never received compensation, and all survivors are still waiting for an apology from Chemie Grunenthal.
  9. Some countries protected their populations from thalidomide. Several countries which considered licensing thalidomide denied or significantly restricted the sale of the drug. These included Turkey, East Germany, the USA and France. In Turkey, Dr Aygun undertook tests involving tissue cultures and concluded the drug was unsafe in 1960. In East Germany, the relevant officials had concerns based simply on the information supplied in the patent. They noted that due to the structure of the molecule, an “embryo-toxic effect” (p124) was possible. They refused a licence. In the USA, Dr Frances Kelsey resisted significant pressure from the prospective American licensee company (Richardson Merrell) and managed to delay the approval of the drug until it was removed from sale in 1961. Her delay meant that only around 160 babies are estimated to have been affected by thalidomide in the USA. What these countries show is that the toxic properties of thalidomide were possible to identify using the technologies and processes of the time. Those governments which failed to prevent the distribution of thalidomide are partly to blame for the disaster, and should also be held to account.

 

In 2019, the generation of thalidomide survivors is turning 60. What “The Thalidomide Catastrophe” makes clear is this: the international sale of the drug was preventable. Its risks should have been identified by the company which patented the drug, those which distributed it and by the governments which allowed its sale. The damage which was initially caused has been extended over six decades by a failure to acknowledge and apologise for the harm that was caused. The need for an apology remains.

Tackling burnout in UK trainee doctors is vital for a sustainable, safe, high quality NHS: Our letter to the BMJ

In 2018, for the first time, the General Medical Council (GMC) included items on burnout in its National Training Survey. The survey was completed by 51,956 trainee doctors and 19,193 trainers, making it the largest burnout survey in UK doctors to date. The response rate was also extremely high – 96% of all doctors in training who were contacted completed it, as did 41% of all contacted trainers. As such, these results provide a reliable picture of the current situation in the medical workforce. The survey found that 24% of trainees and 21% of trainers feel burnt-out to a high degree or a very high degree (for the full report, see here).

When I read these results in the BMJ, I wasn’t surprised. Rates of stress and burnout are high in healthcare staff internationally; in the 2018 Medscape report on physician burnout and depression, out of 15,000 US doctors, 42% were burnt-out and 12% were categorised as ‘colloquially depressed’. I was also concerned: a growing body of research shows a strong and consistent link between higher staff burnout and poorer patient care. Papers I have authored and co-authored show:

• 70% of studies which have investigated burnout and patient safety in healthcare staff have found a significant link between the two (Hall et al., 2016).
• In nurses, higher burnout is linked with poorer perceptions of patient safety both at the level of the individual practitioner and the ward level (Johnson et al., 2017).
• GPs think that burnout affects the quality of patient care by reducing their abilities to emphathise, to show positive attitudes to patients and by increasing the number of inappropriate referrals made (Hall et al., 2017).

Together with Dr Maria Panagioti and Dr Christopher Bu, I decided to respond to the BMJ article on the survey findings to highlight the evidence that burnout in doctors affects patient care. In particular, our letter focused on a recently published systematic review and meta-analysis led by Dr Panagioti. The findings of the review are described in more detail in a previous blog post (see here), but in brief, the review reported that burnt-out doctors are at twice the risk of being involved in a patient safety incident and at twice the risk of having dissatisfied patients.

This research reinforces the importance of measuring burnout in the medical workforce and the need to reduce this. The best way to intervene is currently unclear; while evidence suggests that interventions which target organisations (for example, redesigning jobs) are more effective than those which target individuals (for example, delivering mindfulness courses; Panagioti et al., 2017), there are many interventions which blur this boundary. These include training interventions, which are delivered to individual practitioners but aim to support them in their work, rather than improve their personal coping skills. Evidence suggests these are effective for tackling burnout (Dreison et al., 2018). Clearly, more research is needed. However, while we wait for this, I would suggest that organisations respond to the expressed needs of their workforce, providing the interventions that are both requested and well utilised.

To read our letter to the BMJ, please see here.

To read my previous blog on tackling burnout, please see here.

Burnout in doctors and the quality of patient care: Our systematic review

There is increasing evidence that healthcare staff burnout is linked to a range of negative outcomes, including increased staff absences, higher rate of staff turnover, and poorer quality of patient care (see my previous blog on this here). In a systematic review I co-authored, we found that that 21 out of 30 (70%) studies looking at the link between higher staff burnout and poorer patient safety reported a significant association between the two (Hall et al., 2016). The review found hard evidence for what many clinicians could see happening in their wards and surgeries: when staff are hard pressed, patient care suffers. It was well received on social media and has since been cited dozens of times.

However, while this previous review found clear evidence for a link between staff burnout and patient safety, it seemed to me that two questions remained unanswered. The first was whether there is also a link between burnout and other aspects of patient care, such as patient satisfaction. The second was what the strength of this relationship is: that is, just how much do increases in burnout impact patient care?

So, when I was invited to contribute to a systematic review on the links between burnout and patient care in doctors by Dr Maria Panagioti, I jumped at the chance. The review led by Dr Panagioti aimed to answer both these questions. It gathered studies which investigated burnout in doctors in relation to a broader range of outcomes, including:

  1. Patient safety incidents, (e.g., adverse events, medication errors, diagnostic incidents)
  2. Low professionalism (e.g., adherence to treatment guidelines, quality of communication, malpractice claims, empathy)
  3. Low patient satisfaction

It also quantified the strength of these relationships using meta-analysis, which was not employed in the previous review.

Is burnout linked with patient safety incidents?

The review identified 21 studies which reported on the association between burnout and patient safety incidents. The results of the meta-analyses suggested that burnt-out doctors were twice as likely to be involved in a patient safety incident as those not suffering from burnout. All aspects of burnout (exhaustion, disengagement and low accomplishment) were associated with a significantly higher risk of being involved in a patient safety incident.

Is burnout linked with low professionalism?

28 studies were found which reported on the link between burnout and low professionalism (e.g., showing low empathy, having received a malpractice claim). The results of the meta-analyses suggested that burnt-out doctors were twice as likely to show low professionalism. When the different aspects of burnout were examined separately, disengagement was the aspect most linked with low professionalism. Doctors who were disengaged from their patients were 3-times as likely to exhibit low professionalism. Doctors high in emotional exhaustion or low in personal accomplishment were over 2.5-times as likely to exhibit low professionalism.

Importantly, the review found that the link between burnout and low professionalism was twice as high in trainee and early career doctors compared with more experienced doctors. This is particularly concerning when the recent GMC survey results showing that a quarter of trainee doctors are burnt-out are considered.

Is burnout linked with low patient satisfaction?

7 studies reported measures of patient satisfaction. It was found that burnt-out doctors were at twice the risk of having dissatisfied patients. Again, disengagement was the aspect of burnout most closely linked with low patient satisfaction, with disengaged doctors showing a 4.5-fold increased risk. Low personal accomplishment was also linked with twice the risk of low patient satisfaction. No link was found with emotional exhaustion.

Where now?

This review finds strong evidence that burnt-out doctors are at significantly higher risk of being involved in patient safety incidents, showing low professionalism and having dissatisfied patients. Having clarified the presence and size of the problem of burnout for patient care, the next step for us as researchers is to identify evidence-based solutions to this problem. While a number of interventions to reduce burnout have been proposed (see Panagioti et al., 2017), there is a need to identify 1) which interventions are most feasible and most effective, and 2) whether reducing burnout can improve patient care.

For my previous blog on tackling burnout, please see here.

The review described in this article was published in JAMA: Internal Medicine. To read it, please see here.

Can patient safety improvement still learn from the aviation industry?

As a clinical psychologist by background, starting out in patient safety research was a learning curve for me. Suddenly the outcomes being discussed weren’t mental health symptoms, they were avoidable patient deaths, medication errors and patient falls on wards. Another thing I began to hear about was the aviation industry. Practices from aviation had inspired early patient safety researchers and I came to understand that we had learned much from them. For example, they had introduced standardised reporting and embraced psychological approaches in order to understand the group behaviours that contribute to safety failures (Helmreich, 2000).

More recently, however, this idea has fallen from popularity. When Jeremy Hunt attended a hospital Q&A earlier this week, he used this analogy. @Dr_Sarah_H, an emergency doctor at the hospital, challenged him on it. She later tweeted the problems with this comparison, highlighting the relative complexity of healthcare to aviation, the lack of control staff often have over their workload and issues with understaffing in hospitals. Her string of tweets went viral (below).

 

A couple of days after seeing these tweets, I was contacted by an experienced RAF professional keen to share with me the things he believes aviation do which healthcare can still learn from. He said that the RAF:

  • Have both open and confidential reporting processes in place which are simple to use; with confidential reporting, should someone have a concern they feel they can’t raise through normal reporting channels, they can submit a confidential report which by-passes all channels and goes direct to the RAF’s Safety Centre where it will be investigated by an independent team whilst respecting the confidentiality of the reporter.

  • Reporting is viewed as the life-blood of the Safety Management System so some stations have introduced a monthly award scheme for the best report which is awarded by the senior officer on the station.This is aimed at those who report a ‘near miss’, even if it is due to their own honest mistake.

  • Every report is logged and investigated, with feedback provided to the reporter.

  • Everyone receives Human Factors training during which real-life case studies are used to draw out the key learning points.

  • To avoid ‘witch hunts’ which damage the reporting culture, all investigations take place under a strict ‘just’ culture by an independent team. Incidents are rarely found to have occurred due to a single factor; almost invariably a host of contributing factors are identified.

In summary, the aviation industry enables their staff to report in utter confidence and rewards staff for good reporting. I think it would be hard to deny that healthcare still has a long way to go to meet these standards. Perhaps the contention then, is not Jeremy Hunt’s point but his target audience: does he expect NHS emergency nurses and doctors to implement these changes? Unlikely. Telling staff working in underfunded services to achieve the safety levels seen in aviation will only engender frustration, the sense that they are not understood and that the impossible is being asked. As with the RAF, these changes will require leadership support, resource and buy-in from the highest levels.