Electronic Letters to:
|
|
E-letters: Electronic letters published:
-
![[Read eLetter]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
General practitioners and research
- Sir Denis Pereira Gray, Philip H Evans (3 August 2007)
|
|
|||
|
Sir Denis Pereira Gray, Emeritus Professor St Leonard's Research Practice, EX1 1SF, Philip H Evans
Send e-letter to journal:
|
The Editor Family Practice 3 August 2007 Sir General practitioners and research Your important editorial and the interesting article by Salmon et al. ought to start a major debate. First, general practice became an academic discipline in the 1960s not the 1970s (Pereira Gray, 1989). McConaghey got the College Journal into Index Medicus in 1961, Edinburgh appointed a Professor of General Practice in 1963, and Hope-Simpson (1965), in the only piece of general practice research approaching Nobel prize level in the last 100 years, showed shingles and chicken pox were caused by a single virus in 1965. The central problem in UK general practice was the rejection by the Department of Health of the Recommendations of the Royal Commission on Medical Education (1968) of three years general professional training and two years specific training for general practice. This has disadvantaged British patients and general practice ever since. Every consultant at some point in their training will work alongside enthusiastic colleagues, researching whilst working clinically. General practice is the only specialty in which only occasional registrars have this experience. Worse still, vocational training courses are separated from university departments and the vast majority of GP courses organisers have no research training and cannot communicate either the scope or the excitement of research in general practice (Pereira Gray, 1993). A key objective for our discipline is to get future general practitioners into intellectually stimulating practices where research and teaching are a normal part of the practice. We should not be surprised if many general practitioners who have never seen research ideas developed in the setting of what they see as their job fail to respond to external research initiatives. Research general practices, which England is soon to lose, play a double role as researchers and as models for both undergraduate and postgraduate students. We agree finances are important. Of course time should be fairly paid for. But far more important in our view is securing opportunities for GP registrars to meet GP researchers and see research initiated and conducted in general practices. Denis Pereira Gray Philip H Evans St Leonard’s Research Practice 34 Denmark Road, Exeter EX1 1SE References Delaney B. Engaging practitioners in research; time to change the values of practice rather than the way research is carried out? Fam Pract 2007; 24 (3):207-208. Hope-Simpson RE. The nature of herpes zoster: a long-term study and a new hypothesis. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 1965; 58:9- 20. Pereira Gray DJ. The College Journal and the emergence of the discipline of general practice. J R Coll Gen Pract 1989; 39:228-233. Pereira Gray DJ. Two sides of the coin. Postgraduate Education of General Practice 1993;4:85-88. Royal Commission on Medical Education. Report. Paras 119-120. London: HMSO, 1968. Salmon P, Peters S, Rogers A et al. Peering through the barriers to GPs’ explanations for declining to participate in research the role of professional autonomy and the economy of time. Fam Pract 2007; 24:269-75. Declaration of Interest The SLRP is an NHS funded research general practice. Conflict of Interest:NHS funded research general practice |
|||