one pilot son, one medical son
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
one pilot son, one medical son
I thought you guys might like tp read the following "personal view" from todays BMJ.
BMJ 2002;324:1105 ( 4 May )
One pilot son, one medical son
Some time ago two of our sons went "off the payroll"for the last time, I hope. The nature
of lifelong learning is such that our eldest, at the age of 28, is now pursuing his third
career post-university, and is a commercial airline pilot. Our second son started work as a
preregistration house officer eight years after leaving school. He had the obligatory year
out to see the world and did a two year intercalated BSc in sports medicine.
On starting work my pilot son's first 18 flights were always with a third, safety pilot, and
for the next 20 flights he was always with a training captain. He was finally allowed full
operational work after having acquired and demonstrated the appropriate competencies.
He works in a profession where there is a planned programme of professional
development and has regular evaluation. On overnight stops he gets accommodation in
four or five star hotels. He regularly undergoes a health assessment to ensure his fitness.
He is allowed to fly a maximum of 100 hours per four-week period.
My medical son, meanwhile, started his career with a shift lasting 26 hours during which
he had no sleep, rest, or food. During this first night he had some dealings with a sick
drug misuser, who subsequently died from overwhelming infection. Because of a cluster
of such deaths in the region the local public health department, the police, and the
procurator fiscal showed considerable interest in the case. The police interviewed my
son's colleagues aggressively. This was my son's initiation to the stresses of working in
the NHS as a junior doctor.
The intensity of work was high. Shifts of up to 32 hours were a regular feature. While my
pilot son's job has continually enthused and inspired him, my medical son's experience
has been different. After the first three months I thought he was depressedcertainly he
was alienated and worn down. Since then he has adapted and coped, but one of his
contemporaries resigned. There was no locum cover for two months. My son then
developed an acute soft tissue infection that required treatment with intravenous
antibiotics and subsequent surgery. During the two weeks he was off, there was again no
locum. Colleagues had to cover his rota and as a result he felt under considerable pressure
to return to work against medical advice.
In the light of my sons' career development, I have been reflecting on the current interest
in doctors' performance. My impression is that government spin doctors have
orchestrated some of the public concern to feed the media in the hope of distracting the
public from political failures to deliver improvements in health care. The NHS approach
to clinical errors is way behind the system in the airline industry.
The culture of medicine is to respond heroically to patients' needs and the demands of the service.
Ultimately, however, this seems to be resulting inmore and more doctors leaving as soon as their
pension benefits allow, which exacerbates the manpower problem. The BMA, the royal colleges, and the
GMC…are not putting enough effort into defining what is an acceptable workload and what are the
parameters of a safe, healthy working environment.
And what of my sons' futures? My pilot son will continue to have regular health checks, strictly regulated
working hours, and rest periods. He will receive planned retraining and routine evaluation of performance,
and will work in a supportive psychosocial environment. My medical son will continue to work in an environment
that is demonstrably psychotoxic, and for a system that strives to meet political rather than health targets,
where there is limitless demand, and where the concept of a safe working environment is poorly developed.
BMJ 2002;324:1105 ( 4 May )
One pilot son, one medical son
Some time ago two of our sons went "off the payroll"for the last time, I hope. The nature
of lifelong learning is such that our eldest, at the age of 28, is now pursuing his third
career post-university, and is a commercial airline pilot. Our second son started work as a
preregistration house officer eight years after leaving school. He had the obligatory year
out to see the world and did a two year intercalated BSc in sports medicine.
On starting work my pilot son's first 18 flights were always with a third, safety pilot, and
for the next 20 flights he was always with a training captain. He was finally allowed full
operational work after having acquired and demonstrated the appropriate competencies.
He works in a profession where there is a planned programme of professional
development and has regular evaluation. On overnight stops he gets accommodation in
four or five star hotels. He regularly undergoes a health assessment to ensure his fitness.
He is allowed to fly a maximum of 100 hours per four-week period.
My medical son, meanwhile, started his career with a shift lasting 26 hours during which
he had no sleep, rest, or food. During this first night he had some dealings with a sick
drug misuser, who subsequently died from overwhelming infection. Because of a cluster
of such deaths in the region the local public health department, the police, and the
procurator fiscal showed considerable interest in the case. The police interviewed my
son's colleagues aggressively. This was my son's initiation to the stresses of working in
the NHS as a junior doctor.
The intensity of work was high. Shifts of up to 32 hours were a regular feature. While my
pilot son's job has continually enthused and inspired him, my medical son's experience
has been different. After the first three months I thought he was depressedcertainly he
was alienated and worn down. Since then he has adapted and coped, but one of his
contemporaries resigned. There was no locum cover for two months. My son then
developed an acute soft tissue infection that required treatment with intravenous
antibiotics and subsequent surgery. During the two weeks he was off, there was again no
locum. Colleagues had to cover his rota and as a result he felt under considerable pressure
to return to work against medical advice.
In the light of my sons' career development, I have been reflecting on the current interest
in doctors' performance. My impression is that government spin doctors have
orchestrated some of the public concern to feed the media in the hope of distracting the
public from political failures to deliver improvements in health care. The NHS approach
to clinical errors is way behind the system in the airline industry.
The culture of medicine is to respond heroically to patients' needs and the demands of the service.
Ultimately, however, this seems to be resulting inmore and more doctors leaving as soon as their
pension benefits allow, which exacerbates the manpower problem. The BMA, the royal colleges, and the
GMC…are not putting enough effort into defining what is an acceptable workload and what are the
parameters of a safe, healthy working environment.
And what of my sons' futures? My pilot son will continue to have regular health checks, strictly regulated
working hours, and rest periods. He will receive planned retraining and routine evaluation of performance,
and will work in a supportive psychosocial environment. My medical son will continue to work in an environment
that is demonstrably psychotoxic, and for a system that strives to meet political rather than health targets,
where there is limitless demand, and where the concept of a safe working environment is poorly developed.
Last edited by non-newtonian; 3rd May 2002 at 14:07.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "Culture of Blame" is still alive and well in the medical profession. It creeps back into aviation on occasion, but is no longer as welcome as it once was. Various medics are making moves (there are several senior people in the BMA pushing for change) to remove elements of blame from investigations into mis-treatment of patients, but they have a very, very long way to go yet.
Makes you think, dunnit?!
Thanks for posting that.
Makes you think, dunnit?!
Thanks for posting that.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: St Kitts
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While interviewing a doctor for a flying job with Big Airlines, I asked him about training for operations in hospital theatres and how it compared with his flying training. His reply, much to my horror, was: "Watch one- do one"!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Northern England
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that is an interesting parallel / contrast.
A surgeon friend of mine once told me that I could do most of the operations he does after 30 mins training, particularly hip replacements. "See one, do one" appears to be the rule.
He also mentioned that most of the equipment used for hip replacements is avilable from DIY stores....
A surgeon friend of mine once told me that I could do most of the operations he does after 30 mins training, particularly hip replacements. "See one, do one" appears to be the rule.
He also mentioned that most of the equipment used for hip replacements is avilable from DIY stores....
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Mostly Western hemisphere
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure surgeons'philosophy ("Watch one, do one, teach one") would be slightly different if they had to slice people like pizzas in the open, with 25 kts crosswind, freezing snow and CATIIIc visibility.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: The Deep South (Sussex)
Posts: 783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always have a laugh when people like the CAA seek the opinions of the docs on the subject of regulations to prevent flight fatigue.
Given the way they treat their own juniors why on earth do we consider their opinion on the subject as in any way valid?
Now if we asked them about sleep deprivation...
Given the way they treat their own juniors why on earth do we consider their opinion on the subject as in any way valid?
Now if we asked them about sleep deprivation...
Plastic PPRuNer
Urrr.. Hate to sound like an old fart but stints on duty from Friday morning to Monday evening (80 hours +) were not that rare when I was a houseman/SHO. Sleep deprivation was endemic - I remember hallucinating on Mondays after a bad weekend. You napped when you could, ate when you could - it was often too much trouble to go back to the doctors quarters and you slept on a trolley in a quiet corridor. Mess food was variable to inedible and often cold when you got to it. Often in the local pub and most of us drank too much. Lots of people smoked. No AIDS so you screwed anything with tits. Getting sick was letting the side and your chums down. Senior backup varied from good to nil. You were expected to make hard decisions alone and mistakes were viewed harshly. "See one, do one, teach one" happened a bit, but you were sometimes paintakingly taught by master craftsmen. You learned from your mistakes and the mistakes of others. There was no job security (no training schemes or training numbers as there are now) and after your six months (sometimes a year) you were on your jack jones. Never knew where you'd be working this time next year. If you didn't get on with your boss you got a cool reference and that was the end of many a career.
Relationships broke up, there were suicides, breakdowns (another career-stopper) occurred, addictions happened. Many dropped out and became GPs (easy in those days - no training required, you just joined a practice). There was no culture of entitlement and you had no rights. It was very hard. Only the tough and cunning survived. It was (of course) not dissimilar to the old style prep and public schools (with fagging but no beatings).
Psychotoxic - yes, I'd say so and I'm still counting the cost. It also bred toughness, independence, survivability and loyalty - only sometimes at the expense of compassion and caring.
Shadows of the cruel old system survive, but at least theoretically the boys and girls now have some rights (still doubt you get much change out of asking for them though). Careers are more structured and less haphazard. Formal training has replaced the haphazard apprenticeships of the past (though I still think it odd when the chaps have more publications than operations under their belts). Consultants are politicians first, surgeons second. The colourful old "characters" of the ward and theatre have been replaced by slick creatures of a Blairean blandness. Sir Lancelot Spratt is dead, killed off by audit and performance assessments, but patronage still reigns. Individual kindnesses has been replaced by committees, social workers watch you for political correctness, patients rights override your own and the lawyers wait to pounce.
Are we better off - patients and doctors? Yes, I suppose so but it's a dam*ed sight duller.
Relationships broke up, there were suicides, breakdowns (another career-stopper) occurred, addictions happened. Many dropped out and became GPs (easy in those days - no training required, you just joined a practice). There was no culture of entitlement and you had no rights. It was very hard. Only the tough and cunning survived. It was (of course) not dissimilar to the old style prep and public schools (with fagging but no beatings).
Psychotoxic - yes, I'd say so and I'm still counting the cost. It also bred toughness, independence, survivability and loyalty - only sometimes at the expense of compassion and caring.
Shadows of the cruel old system survive, but at least theoretically the boys and girls now have some rights (still doubt you get much change out of asking for them though). Careers are more structured and less haphazard. Formal training has replaced the haphazard apprenticeships of the past (though I still think it odd when the chaps have more publications than operations under their belts). Consultants are politicians first, surgeons second. The colourful old "characters" of the ward and theatre have been replaced by slick creatures of a Blairean blandness. Sir Lancelot Spratt is dead, killed off by audit and performance assessments, but patronage still reigns. Individual kindnesses has been replaced by committees, social workers watch you for political correctness, patients rights override your own and the lawyers wait to pounce.
Are we better off - patients and doctors? Yes, I suppose so but it's a dam*ed sight duller.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must show this to my mother!!!! She has got used to the pilot son thing- I've been aviating for about 5 years with the world's favourite (supposedly)- but my little sister qualified about 4 hours ago, after 5 years of work, as a doctor!!!! Does she know what she's letting herself in for I wonder...? I think she thinks that she does! We will see...
It is almost unbelieveable to see what pressure and stress our medical colleagues are put under because of a lack of protection in law.
We don't 'bend' rules (even if our companies try to get us to do so) because at the end of the day it's my license the CAA can take away if I break them. (I refer specifically to areas such as Flight time and limitations)
I think that some similar system of regulation would not go amiss in the medical world....
It is almost unbelieveable to see what pressure and stress our medical colleagues are put under because of a lack of protection in law.
We don't 'bend' rules (even if our companies try to get us to do so) because at the end of the day it's my license the CAA can take away if I break them. (I refer specifically to areas such as Flight time and limitations)
I think that some similar system of regulation would not go amiss in the medical world....
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mid Atlantic
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tony..Aviating with the worlds favourite...well, as a fellow member of the Oneworld bunch you might like to know that my employer is now demanding that I work to legal maximums and minimums.
The days of 'hallucinating' pilots may not be far off.
You're probably next.
The days of 'hallucinating' pilots may not be far off.
You're probably next.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are certain elements within the CAA who have intimated to me that, with some airlines having cut back on pilot numbers and with significant numbers of pilots still looking for work, more attention than usual will be paid to airlines' FTL, PDH and roster records this summer. I understand a briefing has been provided to FOI Inspectors.
It was news I was very glad to hear. They will, I am told, be coming down like the proverbial ton of bricks upon anyone who appears to be treating the CAP371 "limits" as targets. If the answer is that they can't do anything else because they don't have enough pilots, they will be told to hire more, or cut the schedule.
If told that they need to stay competitive, then they have cut their own throats. Safety must never be subordinated to commercial concerns.
At more than one airline for whom I have worked, I have queried a roster I was given and was told "It's legal, so you'll have to work it." My answer to that is the catch-all clause in CAP371 which states that a pilot, if he knows that he is, or suspects that he may be suffering from fatigue, he MAY NOT FLY.
Disrupted sleep patterns, positioning, dead-heading, taxi rides, use of hotel instead of being able to go home etc. etc. all add to fatigue.
After querying a roster, I generally provide a written note of my reservations and ask for the explanation and justification to be given to me in writing. You'd be surprised at how often the roster is quickly changed!
Remember that, in law, the safety of the flight does not rest in the Rostering or Crewing Departments' hands. It is down to the Captain. Ultimately it is his head on the block.
It was news I was very glad to hear. They will, I am told, be coming down like the proverbial ton of bricks upon anyone who appears to be treating the CAP371 "limits" as targets. If the answer is that they can't do anything else because they don't have enough pilots, they will be told to hire more, or cut the schedule.
If told that they need to stay competitive, then they have cut their own throats. Safety must never be subordinated to commercial concerns.
At more than one airline for whom I have worked, I have queried a roster I was given and was told "It's legal, so you'll have to work it." My answer to that is the catch-all clause in CAP371 which states that a pilot, if he knows that he is, or suspects that he may be suffering from fatigue, he MAY NOT FLY.
Disrupted sleep patterns, positioning, dead-heading, taxi rides, use of hotel instead of being able to go home etc. etc. all add to fatigue.
After querying a roster, I generally provide a written note of my reservations and ask for the explanation and justification to be given to me in writing. You'd be surprised at how often the roster is quickly changed!
Remember that, in law, the safety of the flight does not rest in the Rostering or Crewing Departments' hands. It is down to the Captain. Ultimately it is his head on the block.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: The Deep South (Sussex)
Posts: 783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be nice (and rather suprising) to see the CAA at last take a more proactive role with the companies who use CAP 371 as a target and base their crewing levels on the hours that are possible under that set of rules.
I know of at least one company who, following "9-11", cancelled their scheduling agreement without any discussion or reference to the FTLC. Their pilots are still operating to CAP 371 some seven months later.
Perhaps the CAA wheels grind slowly...
I know of at least one company who, following "9-11", cancelled their scheduling agreement without any discussion or reference to the FTLC. Their pilots are still operating to CAP 371 some seven months later.
Perhaps the CAA wheels grind slowly...
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strange how both medics and pilots, both of whom have others lives in their hands, have been "exempted" from the European Working Time Directive, ie are not limited to the recommended maximum amount of time they can be contracted to work per week. Any politicians/union officials/airline management out there care to explain why? Just curious.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FS - Not only is a doctor's job for life they have VERY VERY protected working environment. You and I the paying public have no say in what a doctor can and connot do. To whom do they report? The average GP for example works to a contract with the local NHS and the details of that contract are never allowed into the public domain. So we the paying public have to go to someone who holds life and death over us, can not see what the terms and conditions are and are expected to accept without question the treatment given. Some comparison with the average pilot!!!!!!! Not only that BUT a good doctor cannot even set up in practice where he pleases. He has to get permission from the appropriate body controlled by thye GPs and will not be allowed to set up where it might be competition to an existing.
Who would rather be a GP than a pilot?
Who would rather be a GP than a pilot?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to correct you, Scottie, on a few points. A doctor's job is not for life. As Mac the Knife pointed out, the contracts for junior doctors are all short term, and making Consultant grade is in no way guaranteed. You have to have all of the ticks in the box, plus the "necessary" research papers under your belt (hence Mac's comment about surgeons with more papers to their name than operations), then you have to find someone within the NHS who will employ you. There are still more junior doctors aspiring to consultant jobs than there are consultant posts available. If you miss out, then you're in the doldrums for the rest of your career. A permanent first or second officer so to speak, with no chance of switching companies and trying afresh.
The NHS has plenty of jobs, hence no redundancies, but many are quite dire and consequently are filled by locums, many of whom are "passed over" career hospital doctors. All tend to be short term contracts, so no job security there, or job satisfaction.
As for salaries, the starting salary for a hospital consultant in the NHS is not that great bearing in mind the time and effort he or she has put in to get there. It equates to senior FO level in most decent airlines, and you do not have the pick of your work. You do as you are contracted to do, just like the airlines. You can pick up private work later, but only if you work to make a name for yourself, and all UK private health insurers insist their consultant has been appointed as a consultant within the NHS. Their way of keeping up standards.
I also take issue with the rather macho " see one do one" approach to operations as stated by some. (We all exaggerate a bit for effect.) In reality it was rarely like this as the senior surgeons (or physicians or whatever) ultimately carried the can for their team, just like the aircraft captain. Usually you had seen and practised a particular surgical procedure plenty of times before you were let lose solo, and then the boss tended to be not very far away for your first few goes, just in case. That's how it was in the UK at least. On this note bear in mind medical training, at least in the UK, was and still is extremely thorough, even compared to flying training. By that I mean before a doctor qualifies he has really been at the front line of real emergencies, not simulations. There lies the difference when pilots occasionally whinge about "continuity training" for doctors. Every patient a doctor sees has a problem, some serious, and in hospital medicine many are very serious or dire emergencies. Very few pilots see real emergencies, hence the 6 monthly proficency checks. I think flying is the better career these days, but that's just my personal opinion as a guy who has done both.
The NHS has plenty of jobs, hence no redundancies, but many are quite dire and consequently are filled by locums, many of whom are "passed over" career hospital doctors. All tend to be short term contracts, so no job security there, or job satisfaction.
As for salaries, the starting salary for a hospital consultant in the NHS is not that great bearing in mind the time and effort he or she has put in to get there. It equates to senior FO level in most decent airlines, and you do not have the pick of your work. You do as you are contracted to do, just like the airlines. You can pick up private work later, but only if you work to make a name for yourself, and all UK private health insurers insist their consultant has been appointed as a consultant within the NHS. Their way of keeping up standards.
I also take issue with the rather macho " see one do one" approach to operations as stated by some. (We all exaggerate a bit for effect.) In reality it was rarely like this as the senior surgeons (or physicians or whatever) ultimately carried the can for their team, just like the aircraft captain. Usually you had seen and practised a particular surgical procedure plenty of times before you were let lose solo, and then the boss tended to be not very far away for your first few goes, just in case. That's how it was in the UK at least. On this note bear in mind medical training, at least in the UK, was and still is extremely thorough, even compared to flying training. By that I mean before a doctor qualifies he has really been at the front line of real emergencies, not simulations. There lies the difference when pilots occasionally whinge about "continuity training" for doctors. Every patient a doctor sees has a problem, some serious, and in hospital medicine many are very serious or dire emergencies. Very few pilots see real emergencies, hence the 6 monthly proficency checks. I think flying is the better career these days, but that's just my personal opinion as a guy who has done both.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are no sinecures. If doctors seem to have it tough, take a look back at pilots' conditions in the early days of commercial aviation just after the war. It was easy to get pilots to fly like that, for at least no-one was shooting at them any more, but it was hardly conducive to safety. The present environment was born out of an appalling safety record at a time when the dismembered and charcoaled passenger victims were usually from the international elite. If the doctors want better conditions then they need to negligently bump off a few Ministers, MPs and Captains of Industry and make sure the press have plenty of shock-horror 'crash and burn' type stories to frighten the public.
BTW, the pilot community have a lot for which to thank newsmen of the "Monty Orangeballs" genre. Their sensationalist reporting of aviation accidents is at least partly resonsible for the conditions that exist in aviation today - at least for the pilots.
**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
BTW, the pilot community have a lot for which to thank newsmen of the "Monty Orangeballs" genre. Their sensationalist reporting of aviation accidents is at least partly resonsible for the conditions that exist in aviation today - at least for the pilots.
**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flt Time Limitations
To: Capt. Stable
Many years ago I flew for a company where one was often asked to overlook duty rest cycles. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink it will be okay.
The Union asked a lawyer to look at the consequences of an accident if the flight deck crew were in breach of the regs.
The answer was startling to say the least:
*The Captain was responsible for ensuring he & his crew were within the regs ( NOT the company)
* The Captain or his estate could be sued by all the pax or their
next of kin, the crew or their next of kin & the company!!
I wonder if this still applies ??
Many years ago I flew for a company where one was often asked to overlook duty rest cycles. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink it will be okay.
The Union asked a lawyer to look at the consequences of an accident if the flight deck crew were in breach of the regs.
The answer was startling to say the least:
*The Captain was responsible for ensuring he & his crew were within the regs ( NOT the company)
* The Captain or his estate could be sued by all the pax or their
next of kin, the crew or their next of kin & the company!!
I wonder if this still applies ??
Plastic PPRuNer
Scottie - "Most competent Doctors are able (sooner or later) to move onwards and upwards into very well paid..." Depends what you mean by "very well paid" and where you are. Very few of us are as wealthy as you suggest.
"..and very secure positions for the last 3rd of their working careers."
Physical fitness requirements are naturally less than for pilots, but your implication of a universal sinecure is far from correct.
"...a flick through the UK tabloids will unearth story after story of malpractice / negligence / incompetence in the medical profession."
Yup. But how many of these turn out to be true and are properly substantiated? How many complaints does the General Medical Council [GMC] receive yearly (many thousands) and how many result in disciplinary measures (very few). This is not a reflection on the zeal of the GMC [which has been restructured to include a large proportion of lay persons] to protect the public (this is now their motto, as if all doctors were intrinsically venal or incompetent), but rather a true figure for the number of unfit doctors.
Some sort of system of revalidation of doctors is currently in place and under very active development in most 1st World countries.
So much for "...since the medical profession will never allow such testing..." !!!
Currently one technique is the system of "Continuing Professional Development" (CPD) points. In order to continue in practice, doctors must rack up X number of CPD points per year. Points are awarded for attending conferences or seminars or filling in MCQ questionnaires at the end of journals to show that one has at least read the article or articles in question. Getting the required number of points is ludicrously easy and proves nothing at all. CPD rewarded drug company sponsored "seminars" (with snacks) have become an industry in themselves. This is not a criticism of a good concept but of it's implementation (quite difficult if it is to be meaningful).
"Performance Assessment" is difficult when the long-term results of a treatment or operation only become apparent years in the future. Proper auditing is expensive, extremely labour intensive and requires not only real actuarial skills but also an in-depth knowlege of medicine and the disease process and procedures in question [this isn't to say that it can't or shouldn't be done]. The long training and stringent recruitment culls all but a microscopic proportion of the truly incompetent. We can all recognise gross incompetence when we see it, but marginal performers are more difficult - for by whose standards do you judge? Of course we all aspire to the impeccable results produced by the handful of academic world experts in whatever it is we do, but are we coalface workers to be reprimanded if we fall short? When the well-funded international expert (who often does little else) boasts a 0.5% complication rate for a procedure, when are we considered derelict? 2%? 5%? 10%? It all depends which of the myriad of available procedures we are talking about and where and under what circumstances it was performed.
"free from the worries of.....testing of his professional skills." Come on now. We are all tested every single day of the week (and often at weekends) whereas pilots are tested only when they are flying or in a sim(which is a lot less than that).
Unfortunately we don't have simulators of sufficient sophistication to allow genuine testing of our abilities and decision making skills. I wish we did - it would make my life as a trainer a great deal easier and allow me to do "dry-runs" of procedures that I perform infrequently.
The problem with this discussion is that although there are superficial resemblances between the life and work of doctors and pilots, they really are very different. We are not perfect,but some members seem to have (doubtless through no fault of their own) rather worrying views about our morals and attitude to our work. Obviously that we don't project too well.
Having said that, I think that we have a great deal to learn from the aviation industry. In particular, we have no formal training in CRM and indeed the term is unfamilar to most doctors. PPRuNe has stimulated me to read and learn about techniques of CRM and attempt to put them into place in my environment with some success, so perhaps Danny has achieved more than he bargained for.
"..and very secure positions for the last 3rd of their working careers."
Physical fitness requirements are naturally less than for pilots, but your implication of a universal sinecure is far from correct.
"...a flick through the UK tabloids will unearth story after story of malpractice / negligence / incompetence in the medical profession."
Yup. But how many of these turn out to be true and are properly substantiated? How many complaints does the General Medical Council [GMC] receive yearly (many thousands) and how many result in disciplinary measures (very few). This is not a reflection on the zeal of the GMC [which has been restructured to include a large proportion of lay persons] to protect the public (this is now their motto, as if all doctors were intrinsically venal or incompetent), but rather a true figure for the number of unfit doctors.
Some sort of system of revalidation of doctors is currently in place and under very active development in most 1st World countries.
So much for "...since the medical profession will never allow such testing..." !!!
Currently one technique is the system of "Continuing Professional Development" (CPD) points. In order to continue in practice, doctors must rack up X number of CPD points per year. Points are awarded for attending conferences or seminars or filling in MCQ questionnaires at the end of journals to show that one has at least read the article or articles in question. Getting the required number of points is ludicrously easy and proves nothing at all. CPD rewarded drug company sponsored "seminars" (with snacks) have become an industry in themselves. This is not a criticism of a good concept but of it's implementation (quite difficult if it is to be meaningful).
"Performance Assessment" is difficult when the long-term results of a treatment or operation only become apparent years in the future. Proper auditing is expensive, extremely labour intensive and requires not only real actuarial skills but also an in-depth knowlege of medicine and the disease process and procedures in question [this isn't to say that it can't or shouldn't be done]. The long training and stringent recruitment culls all but a microscopic proportion of the truly incompetent. We can all recognise gross incompetence when we see it, but marginal performers are more difficult - for by whose standards do you judge? Of course we all aspire to the impeccable results produced by the handful of academic world experts in whatever it is we do, but are we coalface workers to be reprimanded if we fall short? When the well-funded international expert (who often does little else) boasts a 0.5% complication rate for a procedure, when are we considered derelict? 2%? 5%? 10%? It all depends which of the myriad of available procedures we are talking about and where and under what circumstances it was performed.
"free from the worries of.....testing of his professional skills." Come on now. We are all tested every single day of the week (and often at weekends) whereas pilots are tested only when they are flying or in a sim(which is a lot less than that).
Unfortunately we don't have simulators of sufficient sophistication to allow genuine testing of our abilities and decision making skills. I wish we did - it would make my life as a trainer a great deal easier and allow me to do "dry-runs" of procedures that I perform infrequently.
The problem with this discussion is that although there are superficial resemblances between the life and work of doctors and pilots, they really are very different. We are not perfect,but some members seem to have (doubtless through no fault of their own) rather worrying views about our morals and attitude to our work. Obviously that we don't project too well.
Having said that, I think that we have a great deal to learn from the aviation industry. In particular, we have no formal training in CRM and indeed the term is unfamilar to most doctors. PPRuNe has stimulated me to read and learn about techniques of CRM and attempt to put them into place in my environment with some success, so perhaps Danny has achieved more than he bargained for.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again I agree with Mac the Knife but would like to add a few more points in reply to Scottie's last but one post. Many competent, and thoroughly decent doctors don’t move into the higher grades because of what Mac mentioned in his first post, ie they have not worked for the “right” people, been seen to do the “right research” etc. Many are sidelined into areas they do not wish to work in, and their career in their chosen specialty is essentially finished from that point on. I have witnessed interviews with competent doctors at registrar or senior registrar grade, with 10 or more years of good experience behind them, applying for lower graded posts just to stay in paid employment. They will never, ever, make Consultant, the equivalent of “Captain” if you like.
I agree aviation is sometimes a precarious industry employment wise, but so are many other jobs, and the people in those jobs also have similar problems regarding the transfer of their skills. Pilots are in no way unique in this. If, however, 90% of Captains remain as one under whatever salaries and working conditions they achieve, then arguably that is not bad. My experience of Captains is that most do not wish to be promoted to management grade, or even into training. The same is true for Consultants.
I am not a nit picker but, as Mac said, you can’t base a profession’s competence on what you read in tabloids (except, perhaps, the profession of journalism). To play devil’s advocate here, if so many aircrew were that competent then would we need to have publications such as Feedback or procedures like CHIRP? I actually think most people in most professions are very competent and professional, and quite conscientious, and I certainly believe this to be the case in both medicine and aviation. On the point of professional testing Mac has said it all, I would only add that the human body and psyche is far, far more complex to deal with than anything I’ve come across in aviation.
An interesting aside on Scottie’s final point about the pilot dying when he screws up. A respected aviation psychologist studied the similarities between the two professions (he used anaesthetists) and concluded that the stress experienced by either the doctor or pilot was actually very similar, ie it made little difference to the stress experienced as to who was actually going to die as a result of your mistakes, yourself or your patient. Surprising, but I think he’s probably correct. (I’d quote the reference if I could find it amongst my old papers but I, too, have to go to work).
You've posted again since I drafted this, Scottie, and of course one can't argue against your personal experiences or those of your consultant friend. Many guys do make it, there's no argument against that, but I am only recounting my experiences within the UK's NHS system and aviation set up. That pilot's have to pay for thier own training is another issue and I sympathise with your feelings on this. There are, however, always people willing to do this. I too have children and I would not encourage them to go into medicine as it is today, or has been for the 20 plus years I've known it. I would recommend commercial flying, though, and I don't know too many aviation colleagues who would follow a different career if they could turn the clock back. Again, it depends on our own relevant experiences doesn't it?
I agree aviation is sometimes a precarious industry employment wise, but so are many other jobs, and the people in those jobs also have similar problems regarding the transfer of their skills. Pilots are in no way unique in this. If, however, 90% of Captains remain as one under whatever salaries and working conditions they achieve, then arguably that is not bad. My experience of Captains is that most do not wish to be promoted to management grade, or even into training. The same is true for Consultants.
I am not a nit picker but, as Mac said, you can’t base a profession’s competence on what you read in tabloids (except, perhaps, the profession of journalism). To play devil’s advocate here, if so many aircrew were that competent then would we need to have publications such as Feedback or procedures like CHIRP? I actually think most people in most professions are very competent and professional, and quite conscientious, and I certainly believe this to be the case in both medicine and aviation. On the point of professional testing Mac has said it all, I would only add that the human body and psyche is far, far more complex to deal with than anything I’ve come across in aviation.
An interesting aside on Scottie’s final point about the pilot dying when he screws up. A respected aviation psychologist studied the similarities between the two professions (he used anaesthetists) and concluded that the stress experienced by either the doctor or pilot was actually very similar, ie it made little difference to the stress experienced as to who was actually going to die as a result of your mistakes, yourself or your patient. Surprising, but I think he’s probably correct. (I’d quote the reference if I could find it amongst my old papers but I, too, have to go to work).
You've posted again since I drafted this, Scottie, and of course one can't argue against your personal experiences or those of your consultant friend. Many guys do make it, there's no argument against that, but I am only recounting my experiences within the UK's NHS system and aviation set up. That pilot's have to pay for thier own training is another issue and I sympathise with your feelings on this. There are, however, always people willing to do this. I too have children and I would not encourage them to go into medicine as it is today, or has been for the 20 plus years I've known it. I would recommend commercial flying, though, and I don't know too many aviation colleagues who would follow a different career if they could turn the clock back. Again, it depends on our own relevant experiences doesn't it?
Last edited by SRB; 5th May 2002 at 17:58.