Medical Doctor

Purpose-Drawing from the work-home resources model and the conservation of resources theory, this study examines the potential of family incivility in instigating burnout and reduced job satisfaction. Design/methodology/approach-This study employed structured questionnaires to collect data from a sample of 290 doctors working in tertiary care hospitals across India. Measurement modeling was done using IBM AMOS 23.0 and PROCESS macro was employed for hypothesis testing. Findings-The study revealed that family incivility has a positive spillover effect on burnout, subsequently leading to lowered levels of job satisfaction. Furthermore, burnout mediated the aforementioned relationship. Research limitations/implications-This study is cross-sectional, and a longitudinal study will help test more rigorously; the causal relationships between the focal variables are recommended. Self-report data pose limitations concerning common method bias. Data collected from different occupations and cultures would help with further generalizability of the results. Practical implications-This study establishes that incivility within the family can negatively affect various vital work outcomes. Accordingly, it is recommended for organizations to support employees to achieve improved work-family integration. Further research should explore various coping strategies that will help with mitigating these spillover effects. Social implications-This study offers a new perspective on the negative effect of family interactions on work-domain outcomes. Originality/value-The paper extends the scholarly literature on stress and work-family interface by demonstrating that family incivility has spillover effects. This is the pioneering study that examines family incivility as a home demand causing long-term severe damages at work.

Background: Patient registration with a primary care providers supports continuity in the patientprovider relationship. This paper develops a framework for analysing the characteristics of patient registration across countries; applies this framework to a selection of countries; and identifies challenges and ongoing reform efforts. Methods: 12 jurisdictions (Denmark,

Objectives This study aims to assess the prevalence of health problems (eg, insomnia, binge-eating, substance use and ill health) among UK doctors and to investigate whether occupational distress increases the risk of health problems. Design This study reports the analysis of data collected at the baseline stage of a randomised controlled trial (protocol #NCT02838290). setting Doctors were invited through medical Royal Colleges, the British Medical Association's research panel and a random selection of NHS trusts across various UK regions. Participants 417 UK doctors with an equivalent split of gender (48% males) and seniority (49% consultants). Main outcomes and measures Outcomes were sleep problems (eg, insomnia), alcohol/drug use (eg, binge-drinking), ill health (eg, backache) and binge-eating (eg, uncontrollable eating). Predictor variables were occupational distress (psychiatric morbidity, burnout, job effort, work-life imbalance, coping with stress through self-blame or substances) and work factors (workplace and years practising medicine). results 44% of doctors binge-drank and 5% met the criteria for alcohol dependence; 24%-29% experienced negative emotions after overeating and 8% had a binge-eating disorder; 20%-61% had some type of sleep problem and 12% had severe/moderate insomnia; 69% had fatigue and 19%-29% experienced other types of ill health problems. The results show that occupational distress and job factors increase the odds of doctors using substances, having sleep problems, presenting with frequent symptoms of ill health and binge-eating. For example, burnout increased the risk of all types of sleep problems, eg, difficulty falling/staying asleep, insomnia (OR ≥1.344; p≤0.036). Even taking into consideration whether or not a doctor works in a hospital, the risk of health problems still rises when doctors have signs of occupational distress. Conclusion Early recognition of occupational distress can prevent health problems among UK doctors that can reduce the quality of patient care because of sickness-related absence.

On April 1, 2019, in Bucklew v. Precythe, the United States Supreme Court rejected a  Missouri death-row inmate’s claim that executing him by the State’s lethal injection protocol would violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment” because blood-filled tumors in his head, neck, and throat could rupture, causing him to choke and suffer “‘prolonged’” and “‘excruciating pain.’”  In essence, the Court found that Bucklew failed to establish “a feasible and readily implemented alternative method” of execution because he provided so few facts about nitrogen gas, the alternative that Bucklew suggested.  In its argument against Bucklew’s claim, the State emphasized that experienced medical personnel, including a board-certified anesthesiologist, would be utilized during the execution to ensure  that Bucklew would not face a “substantial risk of severe pain.”  Bucklew’s medical expert countered strongly with compelling evidence that Bucklew would suffer greatly.  Bucklew is far from the first capital case to rely on physicians’ contributions in the execution process.  Indeed, physicians have been participating in executions for more than a century. This participation is particularly troublesome given the wide range of unresolved problems created by lethal injection, including drug shortages and untested drugs and protocols. The American Medical Association and other medical organizations have turned a blind eye to this reality or they have blamed the legal system for the current state of affairs.  This commentary contends that whatever moral or professional credibility the medical community fears it will lose by engaging in a discussion of physician involvement in lethal-injection executions is already imperiled by the increasingly apparent divergence between the community’s words and its actions.