The health-related quality of life of junior doctors

<p><b>INTRODUCTION</b>It is reported that junior doctors experience a large amount of work related stress and fatigue which has detrimental effects on their well-being and patient safety. We seek to determine the health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) of junior doctors using the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) and compare their HR-QoL with that of populations of norms and senior doctors.</p><p><b>MATERIALS AND METHODS</b>The SF-36v2 (Singapore version) was self-administered to a convenience sample of 213 doctors from a large tertiary teaching hospital. Junior doctors were defined as those less than 30 years of age (48%). Adjusted normative values were derived from the SF-36 Norms for the Singapore General Population Calculator for all 8 scales. The mean score differences between junior doctors and their adjusted normative values as well as that for senior doctors were computed and contrasted.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>One hundred and eighty-fi ve doctors fully responded. Their mean age was 33.6 years (SD 8.1). Also, 45% were female and 88% were Chinese. Junior doctors had lower scores than senior doctors in all scales except Physical Functioning. After adjustment for gender and race, junior doctors had statistically significant lower Mental Health scores than senior doctors (P = 0.01). Compared with the normative population, junior doctors scored lower in all domains except for Physical Functioning. For Vitality, the difference is - 14.9.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>Junior doctors have poorer mental health scores compared to senior doctors. Also, the lower vitality scores suggest that junior doctors are more likely to be fatigued than their normative population. More studies and efforts will be needed to identify factors that affect the quality of life in junior doctors and to evaluate the most appropriate measures to improve the efficiency of their work.</p>

Consequences of right siting of endocrinology patients--a financial and caseload simulation

<p><b>INTRODUCTION</b>Right siting has been actively advocated to mitigate rising healthcare costs as well as to free up tertiary resources for the provision of care to more complex patients, research and education. There are, however, concerns that in a block budget setting right siting will reduce patient volumes, thus impacting on subsequent funding allocations and also patient revenues. We sought to determine through modelling and simulation the financial and volume impacts of right siting of endocrinology outpatients in a large tertiary hospital in Singapore.</p><p><b>MATERIALS AND METHODS</b>Data were collected prospectively on patient casemix including complexity (complex defined as requiring specialist care), time required for consultations and revenues garnered. The data were used to simulate 2 scenarios: right siting of all simple cases with freed up resources directed to research and teaching (research scenario) and right siting of all simple cases with replacement by complex cases (service scenario).</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>The department sees an estimated 33,000 outpatients per year with a total annual outpatient revenue of $8.6 million. The research scenario would see a decline in patient volume to 11,880 cases per year which would result in a corresponding decrease in revenue of $5 million and freeing up of 2.8 hours/ week for each staff. The service scenario yields a drop in patient volume of 9500 per annum and a drop in revenue of $1.9 million.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>Right siting reduces tertiary care patient volumes and revenues and may discourage right siting efforts. A viable business model for the tertiary institutions is needed to facilitate support for right siting.</p>