Did I just hear this? GPs can't be expected to "specialise" in women's health?

[CheeseDreamz]

Listening to Women's Hour on Radio 4 - discussion on the HRT panorama programme now. Speaker was Paula something. Can someone confirm that is what she actually said? 51% of the population is not a specialism.

50% of the population has female hormones, periods, and will go through the menopause. Something that affects every single biological woman on the planet is hardly a specialism, is it?

It's because women are treated as little men and their biology has been ignored for centuries. Many women are over medicated because dose is based on men's body weight.

More women than men get dementia but that's dismissed as women living longer. More women get autoimmune conditions but no one really knows why.

There's a lot of unconscious bias against women in medicine. Women aren't taken seriously and it takes longer to get a diagnosis and they aren't given appropriate pain relief.

Women experience heart problems and attacks in a vastly different way to men but that's often not taken into account. There are many medical trials that use men but no women.

General Practitioner - they don’t specialise in any body part.

To expect all GPs to specialise in any particular condition, including women's health, is lunacy.

Give me strength.

But some GPs do have a special interest in children’s health. Some have a special interest in men’s health.

I get the feeling that a term that means something to medical professionals might have been taken to mean something else by the general public here. Seems like a bit of a storm in a teacup.

I think what's causing disagreements on this thread is the use of the word "specialise".

No, GP's shouldn't specialise in women's health. That would mean they're then neglecting important knowledge on the other 49% of the population.

What GPs should have is a good GENERAL knowledge of both men's and women's health. That's what is lacking at the moment, the fact that male is treated as the default rather than both sexes being separate and equal.

GP's aren't 'specialised' in areas of medicine, that's not what they're for.

I think actually most people are agreeing that GP’s shouldn’t be specialised in any area of health. Women’s health is not a specialism it makes up 50% of all health. 50% of the population will have periods, hormonal fluctuations and go through menopause. The specialism would be required if a woman didn’t have periods (unusual), if their hormone fluctuations go to extremes, but menopause symptoms should be well known by gps, as should general women’s health. Pregnancy is a specialism due to the potential dangers. It isn’t just that GP’s should be more aware, it’s that they should take women seriously when they say something is wrong.

Whenever I ring for a GP appointment, they ask what it's about and refer you to the appropriate person for an appointment.

I see one GP for mole checks and any issues with my skin, another for when I need to go for my scoliosis, and one of the nurse practitioners for anything to do with my PCOS. They all specialise in different areas and have different areas of expertise - that's always been the case.

Yes, they're the "gatekeepers" but you can request who you see at the practise (though it may mean waiting a little longer) and I've never had a single issue requesting a specific doctor for whatever I need to discuss.

It took my 10 years to get diagnosed with endometriosis, and I only got the referral in the end because I fortunately I had a job that included private medical insurance.

10 years before I was allowed to try HRT, one doctor even told me that ‘I didn’t seem too bad’. Every 3 months they make me go back in and justify why I need a prescription. But menopause is hardly niche, it happens to every single woman.

I understand they don’t know everything, but you can’t get to see the people who do know, without the referral.

Yes, they're the "gatekeepers" but you can request who you see at the practise (though it may mean waiting a little longer) and I've never had a single issue requesting a specific doctor for whatever I need to discuss

you’re lucky that your surgery works like that.

I've no idea who specialises in what, last time I went I saw a locum, who gave me some frankly dangerous advice about HRT. And you can’t book appointments in advance.

Mine told me that he didn’t know that endometriosis caused pain!
He got a hard stare for that!

You're lucky. Our surgery don't have any permanent doctors, they get ones from other surgeries in on a part time basis. You have to either wait 6 weeks or agree to be shipped out to some random surgery with some GP you've never met before and probably won't again. Luckily the nurse has the power to prescribe stuff like hrt.

Maybe you should count your blessings while you've still got them.

A GP isn't a specialist in anything other than hopefully knowing how to identify minor/non urgent ailments or illnesses and prescribe for them, then refer to specialist if first type of treatment isn't successful.
I would go to a women's sexual health clinic or gynae for specialist advice or treatment for anything genital/repro organs related.

I don't know (off the top of my head) who specialises in what, either, but I do know that when I rang for a dodgy mole, they wanted me to wait to see a certain GP rather than just take the first available appt, for example. Similarly when I rang for issues with my periods.

From reading threads on here I think we're incredibly lucky with our surgery, though - we can always get a same day appointment, or we can ring and book in advance, or go online and book in with whichever nurse/doctor we'd like.

I sent an e-consult over the weekend for an irritated skin growth - nothing major - they rang me at 8.10 on Monday with an telephone appointment for that afternoon - the GP then said he wanted to see me in person to see if it needed medication or removal, and I have an appointment for Thursday morning.

The NHS can work so well when it wants to, it's such a shame that so many areas can't seem to deliver decent treatment.

I'm not sure I should "count my blessings" - it's how it should be for everyone.

We should be fighting for everyone to get high quality care, not saying that those who do are lucky or should be grateful.

50% of people get cancer but GPs aren’t expected to be oncologists either.

Doesn't matter. It's happening anyway. More will retire and won't be replaced. Feel free to kick up a stink any time you want.

What's "kicking up a stink" meant to achieve?

No of course GPs aren't expected to be specialists.

They are however expected to be effective and informed gatekeepers who are capable of referring to the appropriate specialist (without multiple repeat appointments for the same condition etc). Would be even better if there wasn't a year long waiting list for the specialist too.

There is training available to GPs on menopause - not all choose to take it up.

I've seen GPs about lung problems, and gut problems, and heart problems, and joint problems, and mental health problems. They weren't specialised in any of those, but some they could manage, and others they referred on as appropriate. So why should I suddenly demand that they must be specialised in gynae problems, if I ever need to see a GP about one of those? GPs are by definition generalists.

50% of the population has female hormones, periods, and will go through the menopause. Something that affects every single biological woman on the planet is hardly a specialism, is it?

Yet we have gynaecologists. A specialism in something 50% of the population experience

So why do they think they know it all and go against consultant advice?

For example on another thread there is a comment from someone who needs HRT - her consultant has written to the GP to explain this, but still the GP stops it every 12 months and requires her to have an elusive telephone appointment - elusive because of course they don't phone when they say they will, even though they know people are taking time off for appointments.

The title says specialise to be fair and I don't think it gives much context.