Introduction Mental ill-health is prevalent across all groups of health professionals and this is of great concern in many countries. In the UK, the mental health of the National Health Service (NHS) workforce is a major healthcare issue, leading to presenteeism, absenteeism and loss of staff from the workforce. Most interventions targeting doctors aim to increase their ‘productivity’ and ‘resilience’, placing responsibility for good mental health with doctors themselves and neglecting the organisational and structural contexts that may have a detrimental effect on doctors’ well-being. There is a need for approaches that are sensitive to the contextual complexities of mental ill-health in doctors, and that do not treat doctors as a uniform body, but allow distinctions to account for particular characteristics, such as specialty, career stage and different working environments. Methods and analysis Our project aims to understand how, why and in what contexts support interventions can be designed to minimise the incidence of doctors’ mental ill-health. We will conduct a realist review—a form of theory-driven interpretative systematic review—of interventions, drawing on diverse literature sources. The review will iteratively progress through five steps: (1) locate existing theories; (2) search for evidence; (3) select articles; (4) extract and organise data and (5) synthesise evidence and draw conclusions. The analysis will summarise how, why and in what circumstances doctors’ mental ill-health is likely to develop and what can remediate the situation. Throughout the project, we will also engage iteratively with diverse stakeholders in order to produce actionable theory. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required for our review. Our dissemination strategy will be participatory. Tailored outputs will be targeted to: policy makers; NHS employers and healthcare leaders; team leaders; support organisations; doctors experiencing mental ill-health, their families and colleagues. PROSPERO registration number CRD42017069870.

Technological advances have increased the availability of genomic data in research and the clinic. If, over time, interpretation of the significance of the data changes, or new information becomes available, the question arises as to whether recontacting the patient and/or family is indicated. The Public and Professional Policy Committee of the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG), together with research groups from the UK and the Netherlands, developed recommendations on recontacting which, after public consultation, have been endorsed by ESHG Board. In clinical genetics, recontacting for updating patients with new, clinically significant information related to their diagnosis or previous genetic testing may be justifiable and, where possible, desirable. Consensus about the type of information that should trigger recontacting converges around its clinical and personal utility. The organization of recontacting procedures and policies in current health care systems is challenging. It should be sustainable, commensurate with previously obtained consent, and a shared responsibility between healthcare providers, laboratories, patients, and other stakeholders. Optimal use of the limited clinical resources currently available is needed. Allocation of dedicated resources for recontacting should be considered. Finally, there is a need for more evidence, including economic and utility of information for people, to inform which strategies provide the most cost-effective use of healthcare resources for recontacting.

Objectives To determine the factors contributing to the junior doctor workforce retention crisis in the UK using evidence collected directly from junior doctors, and to develop recommendations for changes to address the issue. Design Integrative review. Data sources Searches were conducted on Ovid Medline and HMIC to locate evidence published between January 2016 and April 2021. This was supplemented by publications from relevant national organisations. Eligibility criteria English-language papers relating to UK junior doctor retention, well-being or satisfaction which contained data collected directly from junior doctors were included. Papers focusing solely on the pandemic, factors specific to one medical specialty, evaluation of interventions, or numerical data with no evidence relating to causation were excluded. Review papers were excluded. Data extraction and synthesis Data were extracted and coded on NVivo by FKL, then thematic analysis was conducted. Results 47 papers were included, consisting of academic (qualitative, quantitative, mixed and commentary) and grey literature. Key themes identified were working conditions, support and relationships, and learning and development, with an overarching theme of lack of flexibility. The outcomes of these factors are doctors not feeling valued, lacking autonomy, having a poor work–life balance, and providing compromised patient care. This results in need for a break from medical training. Conclusion This review builds on findings of related literature regarding working environments, isolation, stigma, and desire for autonomy, and highlights additional issues around learning and training, flexibility, feeling valued, and patient care. It goes on to present recommendations for tackling poor retention of UK junior doctors, highlighting that the complex problem requires evidence-based solutions and a bottom-up approach in which junior doctors are regarded as core stakeholders during the planning of interventions.

Background: Mental ill-health in health professionals, including doctors, is a global and growing concern. The existing literature on interventions that offer support, advice and/or treatment to sick doctors has not yet been synthesised in a way that considers the complexity and heterogeneity of the interventions, and the many dimensions of the problem. We (1) reviewed interventions to tackle doctors’ and medical students’ mental ill-health and its impacts on the clinical workforce and patient care—drawing on diverse literature sources and engaging iteratively with diverse stakeholder perspectives—and (2) produced recommendations that support the tailoring, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of contextually sensitive strategies to tackle mental ill-health and its impacts. Methods: Realist literature review consistent with the RAMESES quality and reporting standards. Sources for inclusion were identified through bibliographic database searches supplemented by purposive searches—resulting also from engagement with stakeholders. Data were extracted from included articles and subjected to realist analysis to identify (i) mechanisms causing mental ill-health in doctors and medical students and relevant contexts or circumstances when these mechanisms were likely to be ‘triggered’ and (ii) ‘guiding principles’ and features underpinning the interventions and recommendations discussed mostly in policy document, reviews and commentaries. Results: One hundred seventy-nine records were included. Most were from the USA (45%) and were published since 2009 (74%). The analysis showed that doctors were more likely to experience mental ill-health when they felt isolated or unable to do their job and when they feared repercussions of help-seeking. Healthy staff were necessary for excellent patient care. Interventions emphasising relationships and belonging were more likely to promote wellbeing. Interventions creating a people-focussed working culture, balancing positive/negative performance and acknowledging positive/negative aspects of a medical career helped doctors to thrive. The way that interventions were implemented seemed critically important. Doctors and medical students needed to have confidence in an intervention for the intervention to be effective. Conclusions: Successful interventions to tackle doctors’ and students’ mental ill-health are likely to be multidimensional and multilevel and involve multiple stakeholders. Evaluating and improving existing interventions is likely to be more effective than developing new ones. Our evidence synthesis provides a basis on which to do this. Study registration: PROSPERO CRD42017069870. Research project webpage http://sites.exeter.ac.uk/cup/

Background: High rates of poor mental health in healthcare staff threatens the quality and sustainability of healthcare delivery. Multi-factorial causes include the nature and structure of work. We conducted a critical review of UK NHS (England) data pertaining to: doctors, nurses, midwives and paramedics.Sources of data: Key demographic, service architecture (structural features of work) and well-being indicators were identified and reviewed by a stakeholder group. Data searching prioritized NHS whole workforce sources (focusing on hospital and community health services staff), which were rated according to strength of evidence.Findings: Key differences between professions were: (i) demographics: gender (nursing and midwifery female-dominated, doctors and paramedics more balanced); age (professions other than doctors had ageing workforces); ethnicity (greater diversity among doctors and nurses); (ii) service architecture: despite net staffing growth, turnover and retention were problematic in all professions; 41.5% doctors were consultants but smaller proportions held high grade/band roles in other professions; salaries were higher for doctors; (iii) well-being: all reported high job stress, particularly midwives and paramedics; sickness absence rates for nurses, midwives and paramedics were three times those of doctors, and presenteeism nearly double.Growing points: Sociocultural factors known to increase risk of poor mental health may explain some of the differences reported between professions. These factors and differences in service architecture are vital considerations when designing strategies to improve well-being.Areas timely for developing research: Multi-level systems approaches to well-being are required that consider intersectionality and structural differences between professions; together with inter-professional national databases to facilitate monitoring.

Advances in genomics often lead healthcare professionals (HCPs) to learn new information, e.g., about reinterpreted variants that could have clinical significance for patients seen previously. A question arises of whether HCPs should recontact these former patients. We present some findings interrogating the views of patients (or parents of patients) with a rare or undiagnosed condition about how such recontacting might be organised ethically and practically. Forty-one interviews were analysed thematically. Participants suggested a 'joint venture' model in which efforts to recontact are shared with HCPs. Some proposed an ICT-approach involving an electronic health record that automatically alerts them to potentially relevant updates. The need for rigorous privacy controls and transparency about who could access their data was emphasised. Importantly, these findings highlight that the lack of clarity about recontacting is a symptom of a wider problem: the lack of necessary infrastructure to pool genomic data responsibly, to aggregate it with other health data, and to enable patients/parents to receive updates. We hope that our findings will instigate a debate about the way responsibilities for recontacting under any joint venture model could be allocated, as well as the limitations and normative implications of using ICT as a solution to this intractable problem. As a first step to delineating responsibilities in the clinical setting, we suggest HCPs should routinely discuss recontacting with patients/parents, including the new information that should trigger a HCP to initiate recontact, as part of the consent process for genetic testing.