DOCSLIB.ORG

Explanations to Patients and Citizens About Personal Risk of COVID-19

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Explanations to Patients and Citizens About Personal Risk of COVID-19 EBM opinion and debate Information and rational decision- making: BMJ EBM: first published as 10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111541 on 19 October 2020. Downloaded from explanations to patients and citizens about personal risk of COVID-19 Margaret McCartney ,1,1 Frank Sullivan,2 Carl Heneghan 3 10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111541 Introduction at very high risk of severe illness from coro- On 16th March 2020, the UK government published navirus (COVID-19) because of an underlying health condition, and for their family, friends 1School of Medicine, Medicine “Guidance on social distancing for everyone in 1 and Biological Sciences, the UK”, which asked people in particular groups and carers….This includes the extremely clinically North Haugh, University of St to be “particularly stringent in following social vulnerable people living in long- term care facili- Andrews, St Andrews, UK distancing measures”. These groups included all ties, either for the elderly or persons with special 2Schol of Medicine, Medicine people over the age of 70, and under the age of 70 needs’. This removed some people on the influenza and Biological Sciences, with particular health conditions. People offered vaccine list, or whose only risk factor was age, but North Haugh, University of St influenza vaccines were part of this cohort (which kept others. Andrews, St Andrews, UK includes people with heart disease, chronic respira- These letters were sent to over 2 million 3Centre for Evidence tory disease, obesity and major mental illness) as UK citizens. The ‘extremely vulnerable’ group Based Medicine, Nuffield well as people with chronic kidney disease, multiple included people with organ transplants, haema- Department of Primary Care 2 Health Sciences, University of sclerosis and learning disabilities. Subsequently, tological cancers, severe asthma and chronic st Oxford, Oxford, UK on the 21 March 2020, a subgroup were identified obstructive airways disease. They were advised as recommended to ‘shield’, which entitled them to to shield, which meant staying at home, avoiding food deliveries, priority for supermarket deliveries face- to- face contact with anyone else, for 12 3 Correspondence to: and social care support, if necessary. weeks.8 The duration was subsequently extended Dr Margaret McCartney, Testing for the presence of COVID-19 in the in each nation and paused at the start of August University of St Andrews, UK was initially limited and was undertaken only 2020 (16 August 2020 in Wales). People with School of Medicine, in hospital settings for patients with suspected terminal illnesses and in ‘special circumstances' Medical and Biological disease. Subsequently government expanded this Sciences, North Haugh, St were advised that they may choose to decide not to include any symptomatic person in the UK over to shield and could discuss with their general prac- Andrews, UK; margaret@ nd margaretmccartney. com the age of 5. On 2 April 2020, the government set titioner (GP) or specialist. The nine- page letter to 4 a target of 100 000 tests per day. Patients booked patients stated that “We know that this is a very appointments online at a drive-through centre and worrying time, especially for patients with signifi- 5 the result was communicated by text message. cant underlying illnesses” and shielding “will help http://ebm.bmj.com/ Strikingly, communications from govern- to protect you from coming into contact with the ment to patients and citizens in these scenarios virus, which could be very dangerous for you.”9 contained several definitive statements. Patients Patients being at high risk of death from identified as being in the high risk group were COVID-19 were identified initially via by informed they were at ‘very high risk of severe 6 prescribing patterns, and hospital databases in the illness’ from COVID-19. For symptomatic patients first instance.10 11 GPs were subsequently asked having a test for current infection with COVID-19, to identify further patients who should be added the result by text for negative test results read “A 12 on October 1, 2021 by guest. Protected copyright. and removed from the list. This decreased the negative result means you did not have corona- group of shielded patients by over 100 000.13 GPs virus when the test was done”.7 were advised to carefully consider who should be These claims were examined as they came to added to the list, given the burden incurred by attention during routine work in general practice those advised to shield. Confusion was reported in the early stages of the pandemic. The shielding by patients on professional websites, social media information caused distress and confusion in some and on newspapers and in television, both in the patients. The COVID-19 results were incidentally © Author(s) (or their identification phase, and in the later phase, when and retrospectively noted to be at odds with clin- employer(s)) 2020. No some people were contacted by text message to ical presentation, leading to concerns about the commercial re- use. See tell them that their shielding status had been potential for false reassurance. These pieces of rights and permissions. lifted.14 Some charities produced advice in the information are assessed for quality and evidence. Published by BMJ. identification of high risk groups which was later 15 To cite: McCartney M, withdrawn or altered. Sullivan F, Heneghan C. Key points - shielding identification This created distress for many people, both for BMJ Evidence- Based On the 21st March 2020, the UK Government some who were told they were at increased risk, Medicine Epub ahead of published “Guidance on shielding and protecting and some who were not. It created workload for print: [please include Day people defined on medical grounds as extremely primary care teams at a time of increased stress Month Year]. doi:10.1136/ vulnerable from COVID-19”.3 It stated ‘This guid- during the COVID-19 pandemic. However it also bmjebm-2020-111541 ance is for people, including children, who are created a great deal of uncertainty regarding the BMJ Evidence- Based Medicine Month 2020 | volume 0 | number 0 | 1 EBM opinion and debate BMJ EBM: first published as 10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111541 on 19 October 2020. Downloaded from Box 1 Timeline of shielding advice Box 2 Health communication, shared decision- making and uncertainty: critical frameworks ► 16 March 2020 - Government publishes list of conditions where people were told they should be ► 21 April 2020 - Prepublication of systematic review ‘particularly stringent’ to avoid COVID-19. of false negative COVID-19 testing finds rates ► 21 March 2020 - Government publishes list of between 2% to 29% (24). conditions where people should ‘shield’ for 12 ► 15 April 2020 - Symptomatic people able to book weeks and begins to send letters to 2 million test for current COVID-19 infection online in order people. to book appointment at government test sites, mid- ► 9 April 2020 - General practitioners (GPs) contacted May 2020 for Scotland. and asked to check lists of shielded patients and ► 14 April 2020 - Government test centres send add/subtract people by 14 April 2020. negative results saying “you did not have ► 5 May 2020 - GPs reported to have removed 107 coronavirus when the test was done”. 000 patients from shielded patient lists. ► 30 April 2020 - Department of Health via press ► 28 May 2020 - Reports of patients removed from list department states risk of false negatives is ‘a small with no consultation. possibility’. ► 8 June 2020 - Shielding extended to 31 July 2020 in ► 4 June 2020 - Negative test results by government Scotland and Wales and 30 June 2020 in England testing centres via text message states “you are at with review planned. low risk of having coronavirus”. identity of the highest risk groups. The first iteration included, patients attending a testing site by car, or requesting a home test. for example, people using home oxygen . However this included Patients were instructed to take the swab via a 16- page instruction people who use oxygen occasionally for the treatment of cluster booklet inside their vehicle or home. headaches, which is not recognised as being a high risk condi- Subsequently patients were advised of a negative test result via tion. The information that they were in the ‘extremely vulnerable’ text message. The initial message to patients read : “A negative category therefore was incorrect. This is understandable, given result means you did not have coronavirus when the test was the need for swift population-based decision- makingin a rapidly done. You can stop self- isolating if you test negative, as long evolving situation. However there are useful learning points which aseveryone you live with who has coronavirus symptoms also could be incorporated for future communications. tests negative…you feel well—if you still feel unwell you may have The category of shielded patients was initially based on the a different illness that could spread to other people, so stay at risk of morbidity with seasonal influenza. But there are important home until you’re feeling better”. This was subsequently changed, differences between this group and the patients at greatest risk on the 4th June 2020, to “If you get a negative test result, this with COVID-19. International research published on 25th April means you are at low risk of having coronavirus”, before reverting 2020 found that, in comparison to seasonal influenza, patients to the original wording. Each iteration maintained the advice that admitted to hospital with COVID-19 were more likely to be men a negative test meant that they and their household no longer http://ebm.bmj.com/ and with heart disease (ethnicity was not reported.)16 On 7th May needed to self-isolate. 22 (box 2) 2020, UK research identified the highest risk people had diabetes, However, categorically informing the patients with a nega- heart disease, and came from black and asian ethnic groups, male, tive swab result that they do not have COVID-19 is problematic.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Margaret Mccartney: the Social Care System Has Become Inherently Unsafe
    BMJ 2017;357:j2329 doi: 10.1136/bmj.j2329 (Published 2017 May 30) Page 1 of 2 Views and Reviews BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.j2329 on 30 May 2017. Downloaded from VIEWS AND REVIEWS NO HOLDS BARRED Margaret McCartney: The social care system has become inherently unsafe Margaret McCartney general practitioner Glasgow Ellen Ash was an elderly woman with severe dementia, who with many time consuming assessments. The community team lived in Glasgow. She died in 2013 after she was smothered is dissolving, and our district nurses no longer work, long term, and her house was set on fire. Her son, Jeffrey, went to the police from the practice as part of our team but “horizontally,” across the next day to confess to both.1 He was her carer and seems to many. have been under immense stress. This may be “agile,” but it loses the longer term, soft knowledge Social care is under intense pressure but also scrutiny. Over the on which harder decisions are based. No basic record exists past few months this complex case has been discussed at wide between district nurses and GPs, social work, and care agencies http://www.bmj.com/ ranging, interdisciplinary meetings involving health and social to say who’s involved. I can alert social workers to concerns, care staff. In Scotland, social and health care are integrated in but what then? Everyone is working over capacity, in workplaces law. But in practice? not designed to ensure that professionals have the minimum In the months before her death Ash was admitted to hospital information to do the job safely.
    [Show full text]
  • Covid-19: People Are Not Being Warned About Pitfalls of Mass Testing
    NEWS BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.n238 on 26 January 2021. Downloaded from The BMJ EXCLUSIVE Cite this as: BMJ 2021;372:n238 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n238 Published: 26 January 2021 Covid-19: People are not being warned about pitfalls of mass testing Elisabeth Mahase Only a third of local authorities that are rolling out local authorities in communicating such public health lateral flow testing have made the test’s limitations messages. clear to the public—including that it does not pick However, Mike Gill, former regional director of public up all cases and that people testing negative could health for the South East region, highlighted that the still be infected, an investigation by The BMJ has government’s community testing guidance4 for local found. authorities did not make the limitations clear. A search of the websites of the 114 local authorities He said, “It is absolutely appropriate that local rolling out lateral flow testing1 found that 81 provided authorities shape the messaging surrounding testing information for the public on rapid covid-19 testing. to suit local circumstances and cultural groups, but Of these, nearly half (47%; 38) did not explain the all messaging should fulfil basic minimum standards. limitations of the tests or make it clear that people needed to continue following the restrictions or safety “Unfortunately, this range of approaches across the measures even if they tested negative, as they could country is predictable. The recently published still be infected. government guide to community testing,4 for all its length, is entirely silent on the issue of standards of Although 53% (43) did advise people to continue to messaging.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for First Do No Harm and the British Medical Journal
    Joint meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for First Do No Harm and the British Medical Journal Venue and time 10:00am, Friday 21st May 2021 Via Zoom virtual conferencing Parliamentarians attending • Baroness Cumberlege, Co-Chair • Emma Hardy MP, Vice-Chair Panellists • Fiona Godlee, Editor-In-Chief, British Medical Journal • Kath Sansom, Sling the Mesh • Margaret McCartney, general practitioner, writer and broadcaster • Professor Neil Mortensen, President, Royal College of Surgeons • Professor Colin Melville, Medical Director and Director of Education and Standards, General Medical Council • Sir Cyril Chantler, Vice-Chair of the IMMDS Review Additional guests • Simon Whale, panel member, IMMDS Review • Dr Sonia Macleod, senior researcher to the IMMDS Review • Dr Chris van Tulleken, Infectious disease doctor, broadcaster and academic • Rebecca Coombes, Head of Journalism, British Medical Journal Apologies • The Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP, Co-Chair • Cat Smith MP, Vice-Chair • Dr Valerie Brasse, Secretary to the IMMDS Review Introduction Baroness Cumberlege began by welcoming fellow parliamentarians, patient group campaigners, her fellow panellists, members of the media and other attendees to the launch event. She also introduced the team from the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review, who were on-screen: 1 • Sir Cyril Chantler • Simon Whale • Dr Sonia Macleod Baroness Cumberlege provided attendees with background to the joint meeting, referencing the work of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review, which she Chaired, and which published its report, First Do No Harm, last July. The report stated that transparency of payments made to clinicals needs to improve and it recommended (Recommendation 8) that the register of the General Medical Council should be expanded to include a list of financial and non-pecuniary interests for all doctors, as well a specialisms.
    [Show full text]
  • Charges for Scoring Systems May Change Practice
    PERSONAL VIEW Charges for scoring systems may change practice Much medical knowledge is copyrighted, but charges to reproduce clinical scoring criteria such as the Mini Mental State Examination may see them disappear from guidelines, writes Hugo Farne small but important change is number of titles—when previously the bulk quietly taking place in academic of article citations were accounted for by publishing, to the detriment of a few papers in the top journals10—and authors and readers alike. falling library budgets have been met with The National Institute rises in subscription charges in excess of Afor Health and Care Excellence (NICE) inflation (the “serials crisis”).11 Aggressively recommends using the Wells score to assess pursuing publishers who quote their content, patients with a suspected pulmonary particularly scoring systems that are often embolus, for example, and it recommends reproduced, can provide additional revenues the CHA2DS2-VASc score to identify which for journals. patients with atrial fibrillation are at high risk of stroke and should start prophylactic Intellectual property anticoagulation. However, if you wish It is only right that journals should seek to publish an article, book, smartphone to protect the intellectual property of their application, or website that reminds readers authors against plagiarism. However, scoring of these scoring systems, it will cost you systems were intended to be used as widely dearly—as much as $750 (£486; €690) goes as possible. By charging such high fees, these to the Annals of Internal Medicine for the Royalties for reproduction: room for improvement scoring systems will inevitably be less widely Wells score and $360 to the journal Chest read and used, much as articles incurring a for the CHA2DS2-VASc score (see table).
    [Show full text]
  • Why Evidence Matters to Dr Mark Porter
    HEALTHWATCH NEWSLETTER Issue 100, Winter 2015-16 Contents NEWS Dr Mark Porter’s AGM talk; student prizewinners; homeopathic prescription ban news; and News in Brief ...............................................................................................................................................................full text 1-4 HEALTHWATCH AGM 2015 James May sums up our busiest year so far ..................................................full text 4-5 JOHN MADDOX AWARD Why Edzard Ernst was a perfect fit for “standing up for science” award, by Nick Ross ..................................................................................................................................................................intro only 6 PHARMACEUTICALS Leonore Tiefer tells the story of the hunt for the pink Viagra ...................................intro only 6 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Margaret McCartney responds to Nick Ross on confidentiality; Frank Odds on mixing religion with evidence ..........................................................................................................................intro only 7 MEETING REPORT Michael Baum pays a memorable visit to our counterparts in the Netherlandsintro ......... only 8 to read the newsletter in full, join HealthWatch HERE NEWS FEATURE Why evidence matters to Dr Mark Porter The 23rd HealthWatch Award was presented to Dr Mark Porter MBE; GP, journalist, media doctor and presenter of BBC Radio 4’s ‘Inside Health’. Receiving his award at the Medical Society of London, Dr Porter gave an insight into his unique career, and explained that his listeners, readers, and patients are why evidence matters. “For me, it’s not about the data, but how it influences clinical practice—what difference is made to the man or woman sitting in front of me in my consulting room. Like most, I was a naïve young doctor who did what his boss told him, whose boss did what his boss told him because it was what his boss did, and that’s how we based a lot of our practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Gps to Convene Crisis Summit
    this week GPs to convene crisis summit The chair of the BMA’s General sustainability is in serious question, and Chaand Nagpaul said the Practitioners Committee has warned the the ability of GPs to continue with their current crisis in general government that the future sustainability current workload and current pressures practice “can no longer be ignored by politicians” of UK general practice is “in serious is unsustainable. This conference has question,” ahead of a crisis summit later been called because we are in a desperate this month. situation with regards to general practice.” Chaand Nagpaul said that the first Nagpaul added, “The conference is special meeting of local medical bringing to the fore an issue that can no committees (the statutory bodies that longer be ignored by politicians. But it represent GPs locally) in 13 years—due is also about ensuring clear action is to take place on 30 January—highlighted taken to enable general practice to get the severity of the current crisis in general back on its feet.” practice and would bring to the fore “an Peter Holden, a member of issue that can no longer be ignored by Derbyshire Local Medical Committee politicians.” and a former negotiator on the BMA The meeting has been organised by General Practitioners Committee, NEWS ONLINE the BMA in response to growing concern has proposed a motion warning the Wider group of among members of local medical government that industrial action • health professionals committees that rising demand from from GPs was “on the cards” unless should be located patients, stretched resources, and over- the government acted to support the in emergency regulation were harming the care of beleaguered primary care system.
    [Show full text]
  • We Need Better Evidence on Non-Drug Interventions for Covid-19 Follow Margaret on Twitter at @Mgtmccartney Non-Drug Interventions Should Be Based on Evidence
    VIEWS AND REVIEWS Glasgow, UK BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.m3473 on 7 September 2020. Downloaded from [email protected] We need better evidence on non-drug interventions for covid-19 Follow Margaret on Twitter at @mgtmccartney Non-drug interventions should be based on evidence. We need to generate this to inform the covid-19 Cite this as: BMJ 2020;370:m3473 and future pandemics, argues Margaret McCartney http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3473 Published: 07 September 2020 Margaret McCartney GP partner Almost 1300 controlled trials have been registered Observation of the use of face coverings, in real life, for drug interventions for covid-19.1 Among them finds that they are commonly worn incorrectly.5 Nor have been large, well powered, international trials have we considered enough the broader societal that have assessed the effectiveness of treatments impact. People with histories of trauma, or who have such as dexamethasone and hydroxychloroquine. hearing difficulties, are placed at disadvantage.6 Yet But why have non-drug interventions not been those who do not wear face coverings are categorised, subject to the same interrogation? by proponents of face coverings, as “deviants from the new norm.”7 Societal cohesion is risked by The BESSI Collaboration (Behavioural, dividing rather than understanding behaviour. These Environmental, Social, and Systems Interventions are all harms. Nor do we have a clear “end” strategy. (for pandemic preparedness)) is currently being We need less panic and more practical, pragmatic developed. But so far only 10 controlled trials of research. non-drug interventions have been registered, with three reported.
    [Show full text]
  • Opinion on Benchmarking Access to Healthcare in the EU
    BENCHMARKING ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE IN THE EU Report of the Expert Panel on effective ways of investing in Health (EXPH) Health Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of the following information. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018 © European Union, 2018 Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. The reuse policy of European Commission documents is regulated by Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the EU copyright, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders. Print ISBN 978-92-79-77055-5 doi:10.2875/593839 EW-07-17-153-EN-C PDF ISBN 978-92-79-77054-8 doi:10.2875/781739 EW-07-17-153-EN-N EXPERT PANEL ON EFFECTIVE WAYS OF INVESTING IN HEALTH (EXPH) Opinion on Benchmarking Access to Healthcare in the EU The EXPH adopted this opinion by written procedure on 13.12.2017 after public hearing on 11.10.2017 Benchmarking Access to Healthcare in the EU About the EXpert Panel on effective ways of investing in Health (EXPH) Sound and timely scientific advice is an essential requirement for the Commission to pursue modern, responsive and sustainable health systems. To this end, the Commission has set up a multidisciplinary and independent Expert Panel which provides advice on Effective Ways of Investing in Health (Commission Decision 2012/C 198/06). The core element of the Expert Panel’s mission is to provide the Commission with sound and independent advice in the form of opinions in response to questions (mandates) submitted by the Commission on matters related to health care modernisation, responsiveness, and sustainability.
    [Show full text]
  • The Worldwide Clinical Trial Research Response to the COVID
    F1000Research 2020, 9:1193 Last updated: 09 SEP 2021 RESEARCH ARTICLE The worldwide clinical trial research response to the COVID- 19 pandemic - the first 100 days [version 1; peer review: 2 approved] Perrine Janiaud 1,2, Cathrine Axfors1,3, Janneke van't Hooft1,4, Ramon Saccilotto1, Arnav Agarwal5, Christian Appenzeller-Herzog 6, Despina G. Contopoulos-Ioannidis7, Valentin Danchev1,8, Ulrich Dirnagl 9, Hannah Ewald 6, Gerald Gartlehner10,11, Steven N. Goodman 1,12,13, Noah A. Haber1, Angeliki Diotima Ioannidis14, John P. A. Ioannidis1,8,12,13,15, Mark P. Lythgoe 16, Wenyan Ma2, Malcolm Macleod17, Mario Malički1, Joerg J. Meerpohl18,19, Yan Min1,12, David Moher 20, Blin Nagavci18, Florian Naudet 21, Christiane Pauli-Magnus2, Jack W. O'Sullivan1,22, Nico Riedel 9, Jan A. Roth2,23, Mandy Sauermann23, Stefan Schandelmaier2,24, Andreas M. Schmitt2,25, Benjamin Speich2,26, Paula R. Williamson27, Lars G. Hemkens1,2,15 1Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University,, Stanford, California, USA 2Department of Clinical Research, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland 3Department for Women’s and Children’s Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden 4Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 5Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada 6University Medical Library, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland 7Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA 8Stanford Prevention
    [Show full text]
  • Reflections on the Debate Around Face Coverings for the Public During COVID-19
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Nottingham Trent Institutional Repository (IRep) Critical Public Health ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccph20 Science, society, and policy in the face of uncertainty: reflections on the debate around face coverings for the public during COVID-19 Graham P. Martin , Esmée Hanna , Margaret McCartney & Robert Dingwall To cite this article: Graham P. Martin , Esmée Hanna , Margaret McCartney & Robert Dingwall (2020): Science, society, and policy in the face of uncertainty: reflections on the debate around face coverings for the public during COVID-19, Critical Public Health, DOI: 10.1080/09581596.2020.1797997 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2020.1797997 © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. Published online: 10 Aug 2020. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 345 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ccph20 CRITICAL PUBLIC HEALTH https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2020.1797997 COMMENTARY Science, society, and policy in the face of uncertainty: reflections on the debate around face coverings for the public during COVID-19 Graham P. Martina, Esmée Hannab, Margaret McCartneyc and Robert Dingwalld aThe Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; bSchool of Allied Health Sciences, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK; cGeneral Practitioner, Glasgow, UK; dDingwall Enterprises Ltd and School of Social Sciences, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY The COVID-19 pandemic has had enormous effects on health, wellbeing, Received 21 May 2020 and economies worldwide.
    [Show full text]
  • Margaret Mccartney: What Hunt Did Next
    BMJ 2016;355:i5980 doi: 10.1136/bmj.i5980 Page 1 of 1 Views and Reviews BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.i5980 on 9 November 2016. Downloaded from VIEWS AND REVIEWS NO HOLDS BARRED Margaret McCartney: What Hunt did next Margaret McCartney general practitioner Glasgow Jeremy Hunt has pinned his NHS badge back on. “Let’s not that he would order newly graduated doctors to work for the argue about statistics,” he said recently.1 NHS for four years, resulting in “more home grown doctors.” In his Conservative Party conference speech, however, the health Where’s the evidence? We have no idea whether this will result secretary was talking about four key standards that the Academy in more doctors bailing out to the city sooner, though I suspect of Medical Royal Colleges recommends. One was that, that it will damage morale. But don’t fear: Hunt, we’re told, “whatever day of the week it is, highly vulnerable patients intends to improve morale by using the lure of honours.6 should be checked by a consultant twice a day.” Hunt said that Seriously? The NHS is in meltdown, but the Empire strikes this happens “in just one in 20 hospitals.” He added that back. “patients should be checked by a senior doctor within 14 hours And he claimed, “When you look at our safest hospitals . it’s of being admitted,” which was happening “in just one in 10 http://www.bmj.com/ 2 not about the level of funding but the quality of leadership.” hospitals.” Please don’t tell us that catastrophic cuts to social care, small Let us, indeed, argue about statistics.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hague Fighting Crime with Science!
    the // Issue 02 // Spring 2013 GlasgGow Insight inIto ScSience and TTechnology CSI: The Hague Fighting crime with science! Homeopathy // Emotional Recognition // The Glasgow Effect // Medical Reporting // INSIDE THE GIST TEAM GIST EDITORIAL MANAGING Alan Boyd & Adam Stock We made it! Thanks for picking up The GIST's sophomore issue, EDITORS once again bringing you the finest science writing this side of Falkirk. ASSISTANT Craig McInnes EDITOR WHAT NOW? WRITERS Paul McCool, Craig McInnes, Due to the work of science communicators, starting with Carl Johnny Stormonth Darling, Sagan in the 1970's, through the BBC's Horizon documentaries, the Emilie Steinmark, Timothy Naked Scientists, Brian Cox, Alice Roberts and Richard Dawkins to Revell, Robert Hallam, David name a few, scientific research (in the UK at least) has the public's Iain Houston, Felicity Carlysle, full attention. There are now no less than 10 student science Luke Dicken, Scott McKellar, magazines in the UK, with React (Newcastle), Spark (York) and Steven Davies, Victoria Smith, Synergy (Lancaster) all starting in the last year. Science blogs are Joy Leckie, Jenny Ferguson too numerous to count. My question is this: Now that we have the EDITORS Robert Hallam, Steven Davies, public's attention, what do we do with it? David Houston, Yulia Revina Journalism's highest moral function is to hold to account the LAYOUT Emilie Steinmark, Yulia Revina, industries and sectors it reports on. In this respect, a large amount Ryan Imrie & Johnny of science journalism has been 'soft' journalism, and with good Stormonth-Darling. reason, as simply taking academic papers and giving the non- expert reader the gist (sorry) of the work is important and difficult COPY- Sophie Brennan-Jones & to do well.
    [Show full text]