Doctors accused of ageism following study

The BMJ published a study of over 8000 patients over 50, which apparently shows that patients with conditions such as osteoarthritis, cataracts and incontinence are not given as good treatment as those with conditions such as heart disease.

A variety of accusations are made from these findings:

1. That doctors are ageist.
2. That GPs are more likely to treat conditions for which they get bonus payments (on the QoF).
3. That 60,000 lives could be saved by putting people on beta blockers.

The accusation of ageism seems strange when the cut off age is 50 years (not a very old age at all). Furthermore, the study doesn’t compare those over 50 with those under 50 so how can we tell that age is the reason for poorer care.

Quality care indicators for each chronic condition are, of course, different. Examples include measuring HbA1c annually in diabetics, performing a dipstick in established urinary incontinence, and offering paracetamol in those with osteoarthritis. Given that they are all different and require varying degrees of time, is it surprising that results vary? Secondly, the evidence base for conditions such as diabetes, and hypertension is far stronger than in so called geriatric conditions. GPs might understandably focus on these conditions more.

The newspapers couldn’t agree on what the main point of the research was and came up with a variety of depressing headlines:

Over 50s being neglected in hospital – The Telegraph

Better care for elderly ‘could save 60,000 lives’ – The Indy

A third of elderly not receiving basic NHS care as campaigners call for laws against ‘ageism’ – The Mail

Over 50s could be losing out as hospitals discriminate on diseases and funding – The Times