New to Meducation?
Sign up
Already signed up? Log In

Category

Foo20151013 2023 t8n01q?1444774166
7
179

Hypo-Politicosis

Hypo-politicosis = A behavioral condition where political thought and action is dangerously below an optimal range. Leading to the ostrich phenomenon of delusionary belief that there is nothing outside of medicine. In an age of ever great openness, communication and democratic rights, the population of the western world is disengaging with political ideology, political debate and political engagement. This disengagement is nowhere more prevalent than in the UK. The total membership of all the political parties are at the lowest since they were formed. There are less trade unionist today than a century ago. And most importantly the proportion of people that vote regularly is at an all-time low. Surely, this is a sign of a dysfunctional democracy? Can we truly call it a democracy if the state’s citizens have no interest or control over how the state is run? What worries me even more than this dire situation, is the lack of interest in politics from fellow medical students. If you were to sit in a bar in a medical school city, I am sure you would be able to hear groups of medical students unwinding over a pint and discussing some political issues. But those political issues almost always evolve around medicine, such as abortion laws, public health initiatives, doctor’s pay and the re-structuring of the NHS. This insular mind set worries me because there is more to life than medicine! And while so much of our lives may be taken up with the learning and practice of medicine, our lives will be affected by so much more, and before medical school we all had to take an interest in so much more just to get an interview. Do you remember having the time and inclination to take an interest in something that wasn’t medicine? Like reading history or poetry? This insular mindset is detrimental because it means that as a demographic group we may not engage as fully as we should do with the rest of society, this could be bad for us but more importantly bad for the greater society. If medics become too disengaged in the greater political debates then we may find that society decides that doctors are easy targets and easy scapegoats. We may find our working lives extended, our social lives curtailed, our pensions decimated and our earning power diminished because we did not engage with the public and discuss these issues openly. We may also lose influence with the government if medics don’t vote for their local MPs, question their local party officials and fight our corner over important issues via the BMA. The other side of this coin is that medics are selected from some of the brightest in the country, educated at great expense by the state, trained and employed by the state and pay a huge amount of tax to the state. If we engage in politics less then society as a whole may suffer from a lack of highly intelligent, highly educated individuals, who should hopefully have a strong social conscience and interest in well run state, from putting their thinking skills to good use on societal problems. Dr Liam Fox is a conservative back-bench MP and use to be in the shadow cabinet. He has used the skills he developed as a doctor to try and follow an evidence based political career. He recently released a book called “Rising tides” (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rising-Tides-Facing-Challenges-New-ebook/dp/B00CUE0DKQ) which analyses many of the world’s current political issues and I would highly recommend as many people as possible read it. I also hope that in future I can walk into a bar, meet some medical colleagues and talk about an issue that affects more of society than just medics! How about using a scientific approach to discuss how Britain’s education system could be improved? Or how Britain could use its welfare resources better to decreased homelessness (which would also reduce a burden on A and E’s)?  
jacob matthews
over 6 years ago
Foo20151013 2023 bbzum5?1444774186
1
242

Dog Fight Against NHS Privatisation

Last Saturday on ITV’s The Jonathon Ross Show, TV personality and comedian Rufus Hound announced that his candidacy for the European Parliamentary elections in May, standing for the single issue National Health Action, NHA, party. This is something that I think we (those of us who value the spirit of the NHS) should all be grateful for. The government is changing the NHS, big business is coming and no one seems that angry. Well at least Rufus is... "David and Jeremy want your kids to die (unless you’re rich)" A provocative title for his accompanying blog post, which of course has helped to fuel discussion. However, I think Mr Hound was right to use this, let’s face it anything that aggravates Toby Young, I am going to look upon gladly. OK, it is dramatised, but based on the evidence we have, it does seem that Misters Cameron and Hunt want an end to the NHS as we know it (an NHS that does indeed do its utmost to prevent any child from dying). We have had top down organisation and privatisation, from parties that promised the opposite pre-election, with an opposition who seem to accept the changes, and had themselves help start the privatisation of the NHS. You can see why Rufus has turned to NHA party, why hasn't everybody else? What will Rufus achieve? To be honest I don’t think a lot. If he actually manages to be elected, as a MEP his campaigning will be in Brussels not Westminster. There is one key piece of legislation that the NHA will be looking to stop, the EU/US free trade agreement, which if passed including the NHS will mean that privatisation will not be reversible. The health and social care act opened up contracting opportunities in the NHS for multinationals and the free trade agreement will mean that future governments will be powerless to reverse the private contracting of these overseas companies. The three main parties are broadly supporting this agreement. Good Luck Rufus. Rufus has already achieved something though. He has brought the issue he feels so strongly about to the public’s attention, in a way that no backbencher, lobbyist or journalist ever could. Since his announcement NHA party has been discussed across national media. People realise the NHS is being changed and are starting to speak up. I hate to think of the NHS going the same way as Britain’s utilities. Shareholders and profit should be nothing to do with the health and well-being of the country. Apparently not all clowns are evil. Rufus Hound: Comedian, Radio 4 presenter, argumentalist, and now would be politician. Some further reading: Rufus's blog http://rufushound.wordpress.com/ Trade secrets: will an EU-US treaty enable US big business to gain a foothold? http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3574 It’s time to get serious about NHS, says comedian Rufus Hound. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/its-time-to-get-serious-about-nhs-says-comedian-rufus-hound-9086435.html  
Joe de Silva
over 6 years ago
Foo20151013 2023 zwf33b?1444774244
5
94

"So are you enjoying it?"

"When did the pain start Mr Smith?" "Ah so do you enjoy it?" 'It' of course refers to your five year medical degree. Patients can be nice can't they. Often it seems that all patients want to talk about is you. I thought the public didn't like students, aren't students lazy drunks who wake up at midday, squander their government hand-outs on designer clothes, and whose prevailing role in society was to keep the nation's budget baked bean industry in the black? Apparently the same isn't thought of medical students, well maybe it is, but god patients are polite. The thing is I have found these questions difficult; it is surprising how they can catch you off guard. Asking if I am enjoying 'it' after I have woken up at dawn, sat on a bus for 40 minutes, and hunted down a clinician who had no idea I was meant to be there, could lead on to a very awkward consultation. But of course it doesn't "yes it is really good thank you". "Do you take any medications, either from your GP or over the counter?" "Are you training to be a GP then?" Medicine is a fascinating topic and indeed career, which surely human nature makes us all interested in. As individuals lucky enough to be studying it, maybe we forget how intriguing the medical profession is? This paired with patients sat in a small formal environment with someone they don’t know could bring out the polite ‘Michael Parkinson’ in anybody. Isn't this just good manners, taking an interest. Well yes. Just because I can be faintly aloof doesn't mean the rest of the world has to me. But perhaps there is a little more to it, we ask difficult personal questions, sometimes without even knowing it, we all know when taking a sexual history to expect the consultation to be awkward or embarrassing, but people can be apprehensive talking about anything, be it their cardiovascular disease, medications, even their date of birth. We often then go on to an examination: inspecting from the end of the bed, exposing a patient, palpating. Given a bit context you can see why a patient may want to shift the attention back to someone like us for a bit, and come on, the medical student is fair game, the best target, asking the consultant whether they enjoys their job, rather you than me. If we can oblige, and make a patient feel a bit more at ease we should, and it certainly won't be doing our student patient relationship any harm. Hopefully next time my answers will be a bit more forthcoming. "Any change in your bowels, blood in any motions?" "How many years do you have left?" It is a good thing we are all polite.  
Joe de Silva
over 6 years ago
Foo20151013 2023 s45v8o?1444774247
2
73

Money-back guarantees

Ironically, it seems the health products with the least evidence are coming with the greatest assurances. A few years ago, a package holiday company advertised guaranteed sunny holidays in Queensland (Australia). The deal went something like this: if it rained on a certain percentage of your holiday days, you received a trip refund. An attractive drawcard indeed, but what the company failed to grasp was that the “Sunshine State” is very often anything but sunny. This is especially so where I live, on the somewhat ironically named Sunshine Coast. We had 200 rainy days last year and well over 2 metres of rain, and that was before big floods in January. Unsurprisingly, the guaranteed sunny holiday offer was short-lived. There are some things that really shouldn’t come with guarantees. The weather is one, health is another. Or so I thought… “Those capsules you started me on last month for my nerve pain didn’t work. I tried them for a couple of weeks, but they didn’t do nothin'.” “Perhaps you’d do better on a higher dose.” “Nah, they made me feel kinda dizzy. I’d prefer to get my money back on these ones an’ try somethin’ different.” “I can try you on something else, but there are no refunds available on the ones you’ve already used, I’m afraid.” “But they cost me over 80 dollars!” “Yes, I explained at the time that they are not subsidised by the government.” “But they didn’t work! If I bought a toaster that didn’t work, I’d take it back and get me money back, no problem.” “Medications are not appliances. They don’t work every time, but that doesn’t mean they’re faulty.” “But what about natural products? I order herbs for me prostate and me heart every month and they come with a 100% satisfaction guarantee. You doctors say those things don’t really work so how come the sellers are willing to put their money where their mouths are?” He decided to try a “natural” treatment next, confident of its likely effectiveness thanks to the satisfaction guarantee offered. Last week I had a 38-year-old female requesting a medical certificate stating that her back pain was no better. The reason? She planned to take it to her physiotherapist and request a refund because the treatment hadn’t helped. Like the afflicted patient above, she didn’t accept that health-related products and services weren’t “cure guaranteed”. “My thigh sculptor machine promised visible results in 60 days or my money back. Why aren’t physios held accountable too?” Upon a quick Google search, I found that many “natural health” companies offer money-back guarantees, as do companies peddling skin products and gimmicky home exercise equipment. I even found a site offering guaranteed homeopathic immunisation. Hmmm… In an information-rich, high-tech world, we are becoming less and less tolerant of uncertainty. Society wants perfect, predictable results — now! For all its advances, modern medicine cannot provide this and we don’t pretend otherwise. Ironically, it seems the health products with the least evidence are coming with the greatest assurances. A clever marketing ploy that patients seem to be buying into — literally and figuratively. I think we all need to be reminded of Benjamin Franklin’s famous words: “In this world, nothing can be said to be certain except death and taxes.” We can’t really put guarantees on whether it will rain down on our holidays or on our health, and should retain a healthy scepticism towards those who attempt to do so. This blog post has been adapted from a column first published in Australian Doctor http://www.australiandoctor.com.au/articles/11/0c070a11.asp Dr Genevieve Yates is an Australian GP, medical educator, medico-legal presenter and writer. You can read more of her work at http://genevieveyates.com/  
Dr Genevieve Yates
over 6 years ago
Foo20151013 2023 10r211s?1444774270
5
107

Why can't we have a NICE'er EU?

The book of the week this week has been Chris Patten’s “Not quite the diplomat” – part autobiography, half recent history and a third political philosophy text. It is a fascinating insight into the international community of the last 3 decades. The book has really challenged some of my political beliefs – which I thought were pretty unshakeable – and one above all others, the EU. I read this book to help me decide who I should vote for in the upcoming MEP elections. I have to make a confession, my political views are on the right of the centre and I have always been quite a strong “Eurosceptic”. Although recently, I have found myself drifting further and further into the camp of “we must pull out of Europe at all costs” but Mr Patten’s arguments and insights have definitely made me question this stance. With the European Parliamentary elections coming up, I thought it might be an interesting time to put some ideas out there for discussion. From a young age, I have always been of the opinion that Great Britain is a world leading country, a still great power, one of the best countries in the world - democratic, tolerant, fair, sensible - and that we don’t need anyone else’s “help” or interference in how our country is run. I believe that British voters should have a democratic input on the rules that govern them. To borrow an American phrase “No taxation without representation!” I believe that democracy is not perfect but that it is the best system of government that humans have been able to develop. For all of its faults, voters normally swing back to the centre ground eventually and any silly policies can be undone. This system has inherently more checks and balances than any meritocracy, oligarchy or bureaucracy (taking it literally to mean being ruled by unelected officials). This is one of my major objections to how the European Union currently works. For all intents and purposes, it is not democratic. Institutions of the EU include the European Commission, the Council of the European Union, the European Council, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank, the Court of Auditors, and the European Parliament. Only one of these institutions is elected by the European demos (the parliament) and that institution doesn’t really make any changes to any policies – “the rubber stamp brigade”. The European Council is made up of the President of the European Council (Unelected), President of the European commission (Unelected) and the heads of the member states (elected) and is where quite a lot of the "major" policies come from but not all of the read tape (the European Commission and Parliament). I am happy to be proved wrong but it just seems that the EU, as a whole, is made up of unelected officials who increasing try to make rules that apply to all 28 member states without any consent from the voters in those states – it looks like the rule of “b-euro-crats” (bureaucrats – this version has far too many vowels for a dyslexic person to use). A beurocratic rule which many of us do not agree with but seemingly have to succumb to, a good example for medics is the European Working Time Directive (EWTD) which means that junior doctors only get paid for working 48h a week when they may spend many, many more hours in work. The EWTD has also made training a lot more difficult for many junior doctors and has many implications for how the health service is now run. Is it right that this law was imposed on us without our consent? If we imposed a treatment on a patient without their consent then we would be in very big trouble indeed! I cannot deny that the EU has done some good in the world and I cannot deny that Britain has benefited from being a member. I just wish that we could pay to have access to the markets, while retaining control over the laws in our lands. I want us to be in Europe, as a partner but not as a vassal. In short, I would like us to stay within the EU but with major reforms. I know that any reforms I suggest will not be read by anyone in power and I know they are probably unrealistic but I thought I would put it out there just to see what people think. I would like to see a NICE’er European Union. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is a Non Departmental Public Body (NDPB), part of the UK Department of Health but a separate organisation (http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/whoweare/who_we_are.jsp). NICE’s role is to advise the UK health service and social services. It does this by assessing the available evidence for treatments/ therapies/ policies etc and then by producing guidelines outlining the evidence and the suggested best course of action. None of these guidelines are enforced by law, for example, as a doctor you do not have to follow the NICE recommendations but if you ignore them and your patient suffers as a consequence then you are likely to be in big trouble with the General Medical Council. So, here would be my recommendations for EU reform: First, we all pay pretty much the same as we do now for access to the European market. We continue with free movement and we keep the European Council but elect the President. This way all the member states can meet up and decide if they want to share any major policies. We all benefit from free movement and we all benefit from a larger free trade area. Second, we get rid of most of the rest of the EU institutions and replace them with an institute a bit like NICE. The European Institute for Policy Excellence (EIPE) would be (hopefully) quite a small department that looks at the best available evidence and then produces guidance on the policy. A shorter executive summary would hopefully also be available for everyday people to read and understand what the policy is about - just like how patients can read NICE executive summaries to understand their condition better. Then any member state could choose to adopt the policy if their parliaments think it worthwhile. This voluntary opt-in system would mean that states retain control of their laws, would probably adopt the policies voluntarily (eventually) and that the European citizens might actually grow to like the EU laws if they can be shown to be evidence based, in the public’s best interests, in the control of the public and not just a law/red tape imposed from above. The European Union should be a place where our elected officials go to debate and agree policies in the best interests of their electorates. There should therefore be an opt-out of any policy for any member state that does not think it will benefit from a policy. This looser union that I would like to see will probably not happen and I do worry that one day we will wake up in the undemocratic united federal states of Europe but this worry should not force us to make an irrational choice now. We should not be voting to "leave the EU at all costs" but we should be voting for reform and a better more co-operative international community. I would not dare suggest who any of you should vote for but I hope you use your vote for change and reform and not more of the same.  
jacob matthews
over 6 years ago
Foo20151013 2023 xzilvf?1444774307
1
312

Why doesn’t the NHS make money?

The NHS provides care free at the point of us to British citizens and anyone who needs emergency care while in the UK. It tries to provide every kind of service and treatment that it can but obviously there are limits. The NHS gets its money mainly from governments taxes, charities, research grants, some payment for services and from renting out retail space etc. Healthcare is a financial blackhole, any money put in the budget will get spent, efficiently and effectively or not. The NHS is constantly being expected to provide a better, more efficient service and new treatments, without a comparable increase in government funding. So, why doesn’t the NHS set up services that could make it money? Some money making suggestions Gift shops and NHS clothing brand – The American hospital I went to for elective had quite a large shop near the entrance that sold hospital branded goods. People love the NHS and it could make itself a brand, “I love the NHS” t-shirts, “I was born here” ties, “I gave birth at Blah hospital” car stickers, hats, jackets, tracksuits, teddy bears in white coats and so many more things could be sold in this shops to raise money for the NHS. Patients in a hospital are a captive market and their visitors are semi-captive. The captives get very bored! Why not provide opportunities for these people to spend their money and relieve the boredom while they are in hospital with some retail therapy? For instance, new hospitals should be built with a shopping mall in them and a cinema. A couple of clothes shops would give people something to do and raise money from rent. While we are on the subject of new hospitals, they should be designed with the input of the clinical staff who know how to maximise the flow of patients through the "patient pathway". Hospitals should be built like industrial conveyor belts: patients enter through ED, get stabilised, get fixed in theatre, stabilised again in ITU, recover on the wards and out the exit to social services and the outpatient clinics. New hospitals should be designed to sit on top of HUGE underground multi-story car parks. If shopping centres can do this then so can hospitals. Almost all hospitals are short of parking spaces and most car parks are eye sores. So, try to plan from the beginning to get as many car parking spaces as possible. Estimate how many are needed for staff and visitors - then double it! Also, design a park and ride system so additional parking is available off site. If costa can make money from a coffee shop in an NHS hospital, why isn’t the NHS setting up its own brand of high quality coffee shops in the hospitals and cutting out Costa the middle man? “NHS healthy eating” – NHS branded diet plans or ready meals could be produced in partnership with a supermarket brand. Mixing public heath, profit and the NHS brand. “Good for you and good for the NHS” The NHS could set up hospitals abroad that are for profit institutions that use the NHS structures, or market our services to foreigners that they then pay for. Health tourism is a thing, why not make the most of it? “NHS plus” – the NHS should be a two tier system. Hours of 8am til 6pm should be for elective procedures free at the point of use and free emergency care. Between 6pm and 11pm the hospitals currently only do emergency care, so there is loads of rooms and kit lying about unused. Why not allow hospitals to set up systems where patients can pay for an evening slot in the MRI scanner and cut the queue? Allow surgeons to pay to use the facilities for private procedures in the evenings. Allow physicians to pay to use the outpatients clinics for private work after hours. An “NHS Journal” could publish research and audits conducted within and relevant to the NHS. “NHS pharma” – the NHS buys a huge amount of off patent drugs, why not produce them itself? Set up a drug company that produces off patent medication, these can be given to the NHS at cost price and sold to other healthcare providers for profit. NHS pharma could also work with British universities and researchers to produce new drugs for the British market that would be cheaper than new Drug company drugs because they wouldn’t need huge advertising budgets. There are so many ways the NHS could make more money for itself that could then be used to deliver newer and better treatments. Yes, it is a shift in ideology and culture, but I am sure it would have positive outcomes for the NHS and patients. If you have any ideas on how the NHS could produce more money then please do leave a comment.  
jacob matthews
about 6 years ago
Foo20151013 2023 oc5kji?1444774310
0
294

Pennyless Med Students: Medical student finance FARCE

There are roughly 7000 medical students graduating each year from 33 medical schools in the UK. Medical degrees take either 4, 5 or 6 years depending on the route you take. The government via the Student Finance Company will pay for your tuition fees for the first 4 years of any undergraduate degree. After this the NHS will pay for the last year or 2 years of the undergraduate medical tuition fees. The maintenance loan depends on family income. The figures aren’t easy to find for the background of most UK medical students but a ‘guestimate’ based on my medical school is that 50% went to a private school, 30% went to selective state schools and 20% went to a comprehensive. Of the private school kids probably about half had a scholarship or bursary. So, a rough guess would be that 70% of med students come from a “middle class” family who have a decent income but not huge wealth and are therefore eligible for a ‘maintenance loan’ above the minimum. This majority therefore rely on there loan to get through the year. An average student income is between £1000 and £1500/term (£1200 average-ish). Most university terms are 10 weeks, hence average income is about £120/week. As a preclinical medical student this is fine and we are on par with everyone else. As soon as we become clinical med students the game changes! Clinical years are far longer, more like 40 weeks a year rather than 30. Students are on placement, have to dress professionally and travel to placement daily. This adds additional costs and requires the money to stretch further. Doubly bad! Once, the NHS starts paying the tuition fees, the Student Loans Company starts reducing the maintenance loan, by half! Why? A final year student or a 4th year who has intercalated now has to survive at University for one of their course’s longest years with half the money they had previously. >40 weeks on a loan of roughly £1500/year. This situation is pretty much unique to medical students. Some students are lucky enough to have parents who can afford the extra couple of thousand pounds required for the year. Some students get selected into the military and get a salary. A greater proportion find part time jobs to help cover the cost and the rest have to resort to saving money where they can and taking out loans. When I was a member of the BMA medical student committee I did a project as part of the finance sub-committee investigating the loans available for medical students. Many banks used to “professional development loans” which allowed medical and law students to borrow money for a year before they had to start repaying the loan. Hardly any banks now offer this service, so the only loan available is an overdraft or a standard loan that requires you to have a regular income. This means that final year medical students with limited family support may have to live for a year on less than £2000. Does this seem fair? Does this seem sensible government policy? Medical students are 99% guaranteed to be earning over £25 thousand pounds within a year. We will be able to repay any loans. So why isn’t the Student Loan Company allowing us to continue having a ‘normal’ maintenance loan? And why aren’t banks giving us the benefit of the doubt and helping us out in our time of need? When I was on the BMA MSC there was talk of having a campaign to lobby government and the banks to rectify this situation but I can’t say I’ve been aware of any such campaign. Are the NUS, BMA, UKMSA or anyone else doing anything about this? Please do leave a comment if you do know if there has been a progress and if there hasn’t why don’t we start making a fuss about this!  
jacob matthews
about 6 years ago
Preview
1
2

Welcome to GOV.UK

GOV.UK - The place to find government services and information - Simpler, clearer, faster  
gov.uk
over 5 years ago
Preview
1
52

Next government should take 'immediate action' to boost nurse numbers - BBC News

Immediate action must be taken by the next government to increase the number of NHS nurses, a report warns.  
bbc.co.uk
over 5 years ago
Preview
0
11

School rugby plan 'too dangerous' - BBC News

A government drive to increase participation in rugby within English schools is ill-conceived and risks children getting hurt, doctors warn.  
bbc.co.uk
over 5 years ago
Preview
0
7

Scientists want guidelines on wholegrain consumption - BBC News

Scientists from Newcastle University are urging the government to introduce guidelines on daily consumption of wholegrain foods.  
bbc.co.uk
over 5 years ago
Preview
0
2

Procurement and competition rules

In this briefing, The King’s Fund seeks to clarify whether a new government could extract the NHS from European Union procurement and competition rules. In this briefing, The King’s Fund seeks to clarify whether a new government could extract the NHS from European Union procurement and competition rules.  
kingsfund.org.uk
over 5 years ago
Preview
0
2

The NHS under the coalition government

This report looks at how well the NHS has performed under the coalition government. Using routinely available data, the report creates a conventional 'production path' – describing the financial inputs to the NHS before detailing its outputs, such as hospital admissions and A&E attendances. This report, the second part of 'The NHS under the coalition government', looks at how well the NHS has performed under the coalition government. The report acknowledges that assessing the performance of any health service is an inexact science for many reasons, but using routinely available data, the report creates a conventional ‘production path’ – describing the financial inputs to the NHS before detailing its outputs, such as hospital admissions, or A&E attendances.  
kingsfund.org.uk
over 5 years ago
Preview
0
2

Labour pledges to raise NHS wages in line with inflation

Labour’s shadow health secretary, Andy Burnham, has committed to make no real terms cuts in NHS pay under a future Labour government—a pledge that the health secretary for England, Jeremy Hunt, and the Liberal Democrat health minister Norman Lamb refused to match.  
feeds.bmj.com
over 5 years ago
Preview
0
8

Patients need safer hospitals, every day of the week

In the United States, efforts to improve patient safety have focused, in part, on reducing hospital acquired conditions, or HACs. Hospital acquired conditions include healthcare associated infections, iatrogenic complications, and other adverse events occurring during treatment for another condition. Historically, the additional costs incurred by these adverse events led to greater payments by the government.1 To encourage a reduction in these potentially preventable conditions, the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in 2008 decided not to pay for the higher costs of care resulting from 14 specific hospital acquired conditions.2 Starting this year, the CMS’s HAC Reduction Program will levy considerable financial penalties on hospitals scoring poorly on a composite measure of performance regarding hospital acquired conditions, which is derived from a review of administrative claims and medical record data.3 4  
feeds.bmj.com
over 5 years ago
Www.bmj
0
6

Dementia team award

Dementia care today has a higher profile, helped by the government’s dementia strategy and driven by the enthusiasm of clinicians to seize the moment and make a difference. Nigel Hawkes presents the shortlisted teams  
feeds.bmj.com
over 5 years ago
Www.bmj
0
7

Coalition cuts have had toxic effect on UK mental health, say therapists

More than 400 psychotherapists, counsellors, and academics have condemned the coalition government’s cuts and policies, saying that they have had a profoundly disturbing effect on people’s psychological wellbeing and quality of life.  
feeds.bmj.com
over 5 years ago
Www.bmj
0
13

Minister rules out use of Avastin over Lucentis for wet AMD

A UK government minister has ruled that it is illegal and against the wider public interest to use the cheaper drug bevacizumab (Avastin) to treat wet age related macular degeneration (AMD) instead of the more expensive ranibizumab (Lucentis).  
feeds.bmj.com
over 5 years ago
Preview
0
1

England launches programme to prevent type 2 diabetes

The government has announced the first phase of a new evidence based NHS diabetes prevention programme, which will target up to 10 000 patients at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes.  
feeds.bmj.com
over 5 years ago
Preview
0
7

UK government apologises for contaminated blood scandal

An inquiry into why thousands of people in Scotland contracted hepatitis C and HIV in the 1970s and ’80s from NHS blood and blood products has concluded that there were “few aspects in which matters could, or should, have been handled differently.”1  
feeds.bmj.com
over 5 years ago