Stephen A Martin, Minna Johansson, Iona Heath, Richard Lehman, Christina Korownyk
{"title":"为预防而牺牲病人护理:扭曲全科医生的作用","authors":"Stephen A Martin, Minna Johansson, Iona Heath, Richard Lehman, Christina Korownyk","doi":"10.1136/bmj-2024-080811","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Expansion of preventive clinical recommendations in primary care has had the unintended consequence of destabilising this foundation of the healthcare system, argue Minna Johansson and colleagues For thousands of years, clinicians cared exclusively for people who were sick. Only over the past five decades has primary care’s focus been increasingly redirected towards risk, not symptoms.1 The change to medical prevention was ushered in during the late 1960s, when diuretic treatment of diastolic blood pressures of 115-129 mm Hg was found to prevent cardiovascular events with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 6 people a year.234 This beneficial intervention was targeted at a high risk population. However, today primary care is increasingly asked to prevent disease in lower risk populations that, at times, compose the majority of the population. Lower baseline risk leads to higher numbers of patients needed to screen and treat—ranging from the hundreds to infinity.5 Although the principle of “prevention is better than cure” is intuitively appealing, it is also empirically limited and distorts clinical relationships: the expansion of and focus on primary prevention interventions for low risk patients is incongruous for a profession dedicated to the relief of suffering. This expansion of medical territory—without a commensurate benefit or an impossible expansion of time—is a major contributor to the primary care crisis in many high income countries. To save primary care from collapse, the enthusiasm for minimally beneficial clinical preventive services in asymptomatic, low risk populations must be curbed and responsibility for primary disease prevention returned or reassigned to public health. Each new prevention activity or expanded target population exacts an unacknowledged opportunity cost on primary care.6 Because time cannot proportionally increase, each extra act of prevention should create improved health outcomes beyond the status quo of caring for sick people. …","PeriodicalId":22388,"journal":{"name":"The BMJ","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sacrificing patient care for prevention: distortion of the role of general practice\",\"authors\":\"Stephen A Martin, Minna Johansson, Iona Heath, Richard Lehman, Christina Korownyk\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmj-2024-080811\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Expansion of preventive clinical recommendations in primary care has had the unintended consequence of destabilising this foundation of the healthcare system, argue Minna Johansson and colleagues For thousands of years, clinicians cared exclusively for people who were sick. Only over the past five decades has primary care’s focus been increasingly redirected towards risk, not symptoms.1 The change to medical prevention was ushered in during the late 1960s, when diuretic treatment of diastolic blood pressures of 115-129 mm Hg was found to prevent cardiovascular events with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 6 people a year.234 This beneficial intervention was targeted at a high risk population. However, today primary care is increasingly asked to prevent disease in lower risk populations that, at times, compose the majority of the population. Lower baseline risk leads to higher numbers of patients needed to screen and treat—ranging from the hundreds to infinity.5 Although the principle of “prevention is better than cure” is intuitively appealing, it is also empirically limited and distorts clinical relationships: the expansion of and focus on primary prevention interventions for low risk patients is incongruous for a profession dedicated to the relief of suffering. This expansion of medical territory—without a commensurate benefit or an impossible expansion of time—is a major contributor to the primary care crisis in many high income countries. To save primary care from collapse, the enthusiasm for minimally beneficial clinical preventive services in asymptomatic, low risk populations must be curbed and responsibility for primary disease prevention returned or reassigned to public health. Each new prevention activity or expanded target population exacts an unacknowledged opportunity cost on primary care.6 Because time cannot proportionally increase, each extra act of prevention should create improved health outcomes beyond the status quo of caring for sick people. …\",\"PeriodicalId\":22388,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The BMJ\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The BMJ\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2024-080811\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The BMJ","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2024-080811","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
Minna Johansson及其同事认为,初级保健中预防性临床建议的扩大产生了意想不到的后果,破坏了医疗保健系统的基础。数千年来,临床医生只照顾生病的人。只是在过去的五十年里,初级保健的重点才越来越多地转向风险,而不是症状医学预防的改变是在20世纪60年代末开始的,当时发现对舒张压115-129毫米汞柱进行利尿剂治疗可以预防心血管事件,每年需要治疗的人数(NNT)为6人这种有益的干预措施针对的是高危人群。然而,今天越来越多地要求初级保健在低风险人群中预防疾病,这些人群有时占人口的大多数。较低的基线风险导致需要筛查和治疗的患者数量增加——从数百到无限尽管“预防胜于治疗”的原则在直觉上很有吸引力,但它在经验上也有局限性,并扭曲了临床关系:扩大和关注针对低风险患者的初级预防干预措施,与致力于减轻痛苦的职业是不协调的。这种医疗领域的扩张——没有相应的利益或不可能的时间扩张——是许多高收入国家初级保健危机的主要原因。为了使初级保健免于崩溃,必须遏制对无症状、低风险人群提供最低限度有益临床预防服务的热情,并将初级疾病预防的责任归还或重新分配给公共卫生部门。每一项新的预防活动或目标人群的扩大,都会在初级保健方面造成未被承认的机会成本由于时间不能按比例增加,每一项额外的预防行动都应在照顾病人的现状之外创造更好的健康结果。…
Sacrificing patient care for prevention: distortion of the role of general practice
Expansion of preventive clinical recommendations in primary care has had the unintended consequence of destabilising this foundation of the healthcare system, argue Minna Johansson and colleagues For thousands of years, clinicians cared exclusively for people who were sick. Only over the past five decades has primary care’s focus been increasingly redirected towards risk, not symptoms.1 The change to medical prevention was ushered in during the late 1960s, when diuretic treatment of diastolic blood pressures of 115-129 mm Hg was found to prevent cardiovascular events with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 6 people a year.234 This beneficial intervention was targeted at a high risk population. However, today primary care is increasingly asked to prevent disease in lower risk populations that, at times, compose the majority of the population. Lower baseline risk leads to higher numbers of patients needed to screen and treat—ranging from the hundreds to infinity.5 Although the principle of “prevention is better than cure” is intuitively appealing, it is also empirically limited and distorts clinical relationships: the expansion of and focus on primary prevention interventions for low risk patients is incongruous for a profession dedicated to the relief of suffering. This expansion of medical territory—without a commensurate benefit or an impossible expansion of time—is a major contributor to the primary care crisis in many high income countries. To save primary care from collapse, the enthusiasm for minimally beneficial clinical preventive services in asymptomatic, low risk populations must be curbed and responsibility for primary disease prevention returned or reassigned to public health. Each new prevention activity or expanded target population exacts an unacknowledged opportunity cost on primary care.6 Because time cannot proportionally increase, each extra act of prevention should create improved health outcomes beyond the status quo of caring for sick people. …