Helen Webberley

Can you explain what it means?

Additional links within the links:

However, here in the UK in 2021 government statistics suggest that 17 million adults – 49 per cent of the working-age population of England – have the numeracy level that we expect of primary school children.

feweek.co.uk/2021/03/27/why-are-numeracy-skills-in-adults-still-so-low/

www.nationalnumeracy.org.uk/about/what-numeracy/what-do-adult-numeracy-levels-mean

healthliteracy.geodata.uk/

I really don’t want to derail but @FlyingOink that is a gross generalisation. All doctors, including GPs have to demonstrate ongoing CPD and those of us who have taken additional exams/diplomas after completing our GP training and membership exams have to demonstrate our ongoing competency in those areas through regular audit.
I’m now going to present a talk to GPs on Long Covid (having set up a service for patients with this that didn’t exist 12 months ago) then do a teaching session with my trainee before working late to provide Covid vaccinations to my patients.

Sorry for the derail but I’m getting really fed up of all the GP bashing generally at the moment. The vast majority of us are working our arses off and the constant narrative that we’re lazy, overpaid and don’t stay up to date is really getting to me.

@OldCrone I would read that as the level of numeracy expected for a 9 year old according to the national curriculum. There's also an issue in the UK that many people who pass GCSE Maths at grade C (or above) actually don't have sufficient functional maths skills for daily living. So the content of the GCSE maths syllabus isn't relevant or helpful to daily numeracy requirements. And that children are often pushed very hard to scrape a grade C and then never do any kind of maths/numeracy ever again after the age of 16.

The adult average level of numeracy in the UK is that of a 9 year-old.

Sorry about this derail, but this is the second time I've seen this posted recently. It makes no sense to me. Can you explain what it means?

I read it as "The adult average level of numeracy in the UK is that of the average 9 year-old." Because presumably the 'level of numeracy of a 9 year old' refers to the average level of children of that age.

So in that case, to compensate for the fact that the numeracy of many adults is greatly superior to that of a 9 year old, there must also be a great number of adults whose numeracy actually regresses after the age of 9.

Or is the 'level of numeracy of a 9 year old' referring to something other than the average level? If so what does this actually mean?

I read it as poor knowledge

Part of the current examination relates to whether or not Webberley followed the best practice guidance etc. and her (documented?) rationale for her actions where these are not in accordance with the guidance that existed at the time.

OK I read it as poor knowledge as well as an inability to understand statistics. I know GPs rarely get involved in research and rarely attend conferences, and have heard anecdotally that they (tend to) take less of an interest in keeping up to date with developments. But I don't want to go further off - topic. Thanks for the link.

That's just incompetence isn't it? Are we saying that GPs are effectively guessing when treating long term conditions?

In the context of this thread, I'm offering this survey as a feasible insight into Webberley's lack of understanding of statistics, outcomes, and what constitutes reasonable standards of evidence.

No - GPs aren't guessing as they are following well-researched guidelines (NICE's, those from relevant professional organisations or the best practice guidance put out by them etc.). The deficit turns up in the way that they share that information as part of the clinical shared decision making process in which they and the patient discuss which treatment option should suit them and any relevant outcomes, side-effects etc.

The adult average level of numeracy in the UK is that of a 9 year-old. An adequate, or decent knowledge of statistics is rare even among professionals when it's not part of their academic course.

Gender incongruence is similar to a request for birth control. Do they fulfil the criteria for medical intervention. It's not my job to diagnose their gender identity.
That's genuinely shocking

EmbarrassingAdmissions
That's just incompetence isn't it? Are we saying that GPs are effectively guessing when treating long term conditions? Are they any better at acute conditions? I wonder if consultants are better or if a condition enters another specialist's territory they resort to guessing too? Or are they better at processing data at least?

Just goes to show a lot of GPs don't bother keeping their knowledge up to date. They often make way more money than specialists too.

Background GPs prescribe multiple long-term treatments to their patients. For shared clinical decision-making, understanding of the absolute benefits and harms of individual treatments is needed. International evidence shows that doctors’ knowledge of treatment effects is poor but, to the authors knowledge, this has not been researched among GPs in the UK.

Aim To measure the level and range of the quantitative understanding of the benefits and harms of treatments for common long-term conditions (LTCs) among GPs.

Design & setting An online cross-sectional survey was distributed to GPs in the UK.

Method Participants were asked to estimate the percentage absolute risk reduction or increase conferred by 13 interventions across 10 LTCs on 17 important outcomes. Responses were collated and presented in a novel graphic format to allow detailed visualisation of the findings. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed.

Results A total of 443 responders were included in the analysis. Most demonstrated poor (and in some cases very poor) knowledge of the absolute benefits and harms of treatments. Overall, an average of 10.9% of responses were correct allowing for ±1% margin in absolute risk estimates and 23.3% allowing a ±3% margin. Eighty-seven point seven per cent of responses overestimated and 8.9% of responses underestimated treatment effects. There was no tendency to differentially overestimate benefits and underestimate harms. Sixty-four point eight per cent of GPs self-reported ‘low’ to ‘very low’ confidence in their knowledge."

GPs’ understanding of the benefits and harms of treatments for long-term conditions: an online survey
Julian Stephen Treadwell, Geoff Wong, Coral Milburn-Curtis, Benjamin Feakins, Trisha Greenhalgh BJGP Open 2020; 4 (1): bjgpopen20X101016. DOI:10.3399/bjgpopen20X101016

bjgpopen.org/content/early/2020/03/03/bjgpopen20X101016

Fascinating evidence from HW today. She seems to keep comparing medical intervention for GD with adolescents asking for birth control medication.

Thanks for keeping this going. I saw today's Twitter thread but it is hard to keep up with what's what. I hope if this ever ends it will be written up clearly!

What's the reason for the dropping? Not seeing that anywhere.

Are there any other charges besides dishonesty ones?

And thank you for updating us on this, I am finding this difficult to follow on Twitter.