Category: Healthcare News


There are claims that over half of the children taking Tamiflu to cure swine flu suffered side effects such as nausea, insomnia and nightmares. The statistics show that 1 in 5 children had a neuropsychiatric side effect, such as poor concentration, inability to think clearly, problems sleeping, and feeling dazed or confused. The research that was carried out was flawed as there was no control group therefore it is impossible to say whether the symptoms were a result of the drug or the virus; however, there were no serious long term side

Participants for the study were selected differently in the three schools. In two schools (one primary and one secondary school) the researchers selected all the classes who were offered prophylaxis, (age 4-11 years in the primary school), and all of one year group in the secondary school (age 13-14 years). In the other secondary school, the questionnaire was offered only to pupils in four of the classes in the year group (age range 11-13 years). This is a flawed sample as there is no fixed criteria for selecting the participants for the research.

Here are a few of the questions that were asked to the sample:

  • Whether children who had been offered Tamiflu had taken it?
  • How long they took it for?
  • Were they taking any other medication with Tamiflu?
  • Were there symptoms after taking Tamiflu (including specific gastrointestinal and neuropsychiatric symptoms)?

Out of 256 schoolchildren, 103 replied which is 40% of the participants. The number of responses from the secondary school were higher than those from the primary school. The results show that only 48% of the primary schoolchildren in comparison to the 76%of the secondary schoolchildren. The most common side effects were nausea and vomiting, followed by mild neuropsychiatric effects such as difficulty sleeping, nightmares and poor concentration.

It is worth pointing out that Tamiflu has not been withdrawn and is still used to treat swine flu. All drugs come with side effects and not everybody experiences them, thus suggesting that Tamiflu is no different to any other medicine.

The government is planning to ban all private transplants of organs from dead donors in the UK. The ban comes as a result of media reports of patients from countries such as Greece and Italy paying to get on waiting lists for organs from British people, so due to the fact that organs are scarce the general consensus is that to ensure NHS patients don’t miss out no one should be allowed to pay for transplants. At present the ban is only been approved in England but is expected to come into place across the rest of the UK by October.

An enquiry carried out revealed that over 700 transplants, most of which were liver transplants, had been carried out on non-UK patients over the past 10 years. Of the 700 transplants 631 of those transplants used organs from dead donors and, of those, 314 were from outside the EU. It is worth pointing out that the enquiry uncovered no evidence of wrongdoing with regards to the allocation of the organs but came to the conclusion that no one should be able to pay for such operations. According EU law, some patients can receive treatment in other countries, if approved by their healthcare system, which then foots the bill, however the NHS should be more cautious when assessing patients’ eligibility as it is possible that some patients are receiving treatment when they should be refused. Some say that the NHS should work with other EU countries to help develop their own transplant scheme.

The ban only applies to transplants from dead donors private transplants can still be carried out using organs from living donors. Critics of the ban claim that the only reason people pay for transplants is the NHS takes so long that you will probably be dead before you get it. They also point out that it is illegal to sell your organs so why should hospitals be allowed to sell organs to the highest bidder, especially when there are not enough organs available for citizens of the UK. The organs should be allocated on the basis of who is in the greatest need instead of who can afford to pay.

It is reported that a simple saliva test could help to cut the toll of potentially dangerous premature births. The test detects levels of progesterone (which stops the uterus contracting before full term), the lower the level of the hormone the greater the risk of them going into premature labour. To clarify premature labour is any births occurring before 37 weeks gestation.

This is a significant breakthrough as the 48,000 premature babies each year in England and Wales are more at risk of serious health problems, learning difficulties and disabilities. Women who are at risk would be closely monitored and preventive measures could be taken such as hormone supplements to delay delivery.

This study is the first time lower saliva concentrations of progesterone have been investigated in women known to be at higher risk of premature birth. The experts are unable to explain why a low level of progesterone may lead to premature birth.

This is a huge breakthrough however, this is simply a test to identify women who are at risk of delivering prematurely. It can’t eliminate premature births but measures can be taken in some cases, at present this test is not readily available to women, hopefully it will be soon

According to analyst Roy Lilley unregulated pharmaceuticals may be permitted to increase the NHS drugs bill with little benefit to patients. He claims that the drugs will become more and more expensive; but we will by them regardless he says that we are essentially writing the pharmaceutical companies a blank cheque which is rather worrying, considering that at present, drug companies are reluctant to launch new drugs in the UK at prices below “global market value” because much of that market is influenced by UK prices.

The aim is to fast track new medicines that could be blocked by NICE on the basis of cost and effectiveness. A former drug company boss, Lord Drayson, has been given the task of promoting life sciences as potential big earners for Britain with the backing of Lord Mandelson, who sees pharmaceuticals as key to the revival of the UK economy.Reports suggest that Lord Drayson favours a system where NICE would appraise the drug after 3 years in the hope that the company would have made substantial profits and so may be willing to drop the price.

Based on the evidence, if Lord Drayson is successful we could see pharmaceutical companies rushing drug after drug in quick succession without them being thoroughly tested. Another big concern is that the prices of these drugs will have very little regulation, these costs are likely to be passed on to patients by taxes being raised which would make them experience even more financial hardship. So the theory that they could be the revival of the UK economy is flawed. Granted they may make more money but that doesn’t really help the general public.

The Social Market Foundation claims that forcing patients to pay for appointments would help the NHS to cope in times of financial hardship. Both the government and doctors are against such a move, one doctor says: “All patients have a right to free healthcare that is based on their clinical needs, not the size of their bank balance.”

The Social Market Foundation base their argument on the fact that while funding is guaranteed until 2011, many are expecting the budget to be frozen or cut after that. They state that the only way for the NHS to cope was to raise taxes to put more money into the system, limit demand or work more effectively. Those who support this idea say that charging people would make them think twice about whether their visit was essential, they argue that the move is not about making money but a small charge like this could help reduce appointments by about 5%. They also say that children and those receiving tax credits should not be charged and said the think-tank was opposed to fees being levied on any form of emergency care.

Those who oppose the scheme claim that charging for appointments would undermine the doctor patient relationship and may put some people who need the care from coming to the surgery. They also argue that it is against the founding principles of the NHS, which is free healthcare for all. However there is a flaw in this argument as the NHS already charges for prescriptions and dental treatment.

If the movement to charge patients is introduced are we not simply privatising healthcare? In many other countries there is no free healthcare, but there is help for those on low wages so it could work. It seems to me that we are merely shifting the financial burden to the public. It also means that those who have to see the doctor on a regular basis as a result of an existing conditions such as diabetes would end up spending a fortune

Top health officials for the UN have started a forum in Mexico on combating swine flu by saying the spread of the virus is now unstoppable. Current statistics show over 100 countries reporting cases of the virus, Dr Chan from the WHO claims; “….once a fully fit pandemic virus emerges, its further international spread is unstoppable.”

The UK is predicting more than 100,000 new cases of H1N1 a day in the UK alone by the end of the summer.
Whilst Mexico swine flu cases have decreased. In South America the peak of the flu season is approaching, as a result some areas have declared a public health emergency. However it is worth mentioning that in the 2 months since the outbreak of swine flu it has only killed approximately 300 people worldwide which when you put it into context isn’t really that many, obviously it is a tragedy for those who knew these people. In the UK the latest figures show only 26 people have died from the virus, which is minimal when regular flu claims the lives of around 6,000 people a year.

In the UK Health Secretary,Andy Burnham has come under fire from the Liberal Democrats who claim fighting within government departments led to the hotline which offers information on the virus and what to do to avoid catching it and what to do if you suspect that you have the virus being launched six months late. Although this claim is flawed as the outbreak of the virus was only announced 2 months ago. It was hoped that the hotline would take the pressure off frontline NHS staff and enable them to deal with other illnesses

Before everyone starts to panic the WHO says most cases of H1N1 (swine flu) are mild, with recovery within a week and often without any medical treatment. The exceptions, she said, were pregnant women and people with underlying health problems, who were at higher risk from complications from the virus and should be monitored if they fall ill.

Scientists claim that they have uncovered a reason why obese people have a raised risk of health complications such as type 2 diabetes. The cause seems to be a specific protein – pigment epithelium-derived factor (PEDF) – which is secreted by fat cells hence the reason people who are obese have higher levels of the protein in their blood. Scientists claim that this can be treated by blocking the protein.

It seems that the protein triggers tissue in the muscle and the liver to develop an insulin resistance, PEDF levels are also believed to release fats into the bloodstream, raising the risk of complications such as heart disease. Therefore tackling insulin resistance directly, even in the absence of weight loss, could potentially strengthen our ability to help obese patients reduce their risk of life-shortening disease

These findings mean that a drug can be developed which blocks blocks the protein. This is believed to reduce the number of obese people suffering from the life threatening conditions but this does not cure the obesity therefore wouldn’t it make more sense to deal with the obesity which would in turn reduce the health risks?

A study in London gave 200 children pedometers to see how far they walked or ran. The researchers only realised that some of the children were cheating when they were surprised by the activity level of some of the obese children, it was then that they discovered that they had been attached to dog collars.

The researchers claim that it is not uncommon for participants to manipulate the findings. In psychology this is known as social desirability bias, in other words the participants want to been seen in a positive light so they think that if they can make the results higher that the researchers will be pleased with them.

This is a classic example of one of the biggest flaws in research if the participant is aware of the experiment, thus raising the question how accurate is any medical research?

Health Secretary Andy Burnham announced that the days of NHS junior doctors working 80 hour weeks have gone for good and that the “overwhelming majority” of junior doctor rotas will comply with the European working time directive by 1 August.

Due to the fact that the NHS is seriously understaffed it means that junior hospital doctors are working an 80-hour week often unsupervised. It is believed that scrapping this system will be a long-awaited boost to their morale. One reason that the system was reviewed was because of the number of reports of serious, potentially fatal, mistakes or near-misses, made while coping alone and exhausted on a ward late at night and their consultant bosses were tucked up in bed.

This is made worse when junior doctors complain to their consultants about the excruciatingly long hours, the clerical work, the endless list of minor tasks are still told: ‘We did it, so can you.’ Do consultants not realise that things are changing all the time? The number of staff has decreased due to the economic climate meaning that jobs have been cut and the amount of paperwork has increased due to various policies put in place by those higher up the ladder, some are a result of Government policy and others are a result of media coverage of errors in practice.

The number of NHS trusts who claim that they are following the child protection guidelines has declined. According to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) there has been a 3.1% decline in reporting compliance, but the vast majority of those were meeting these and many other standards. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) found a 3.1% decline in those reporting compliance, but the vast majority were meeting these and many other standards. Half of all trusts report that they are meeting all measures concerning issues ranging from hygiene to patient confidentiality. In the period 2005-2006 only 1 in 3 trusts were meeting the the measures.

The child protection guidance includes making sure staff are trained in recognising children who may be at risk, those who fail to meet these standards could lose their licence.

Those who defend the NHS argue that “The NHS has delivered steady improvements in compliance and that should be commended. But it remains concerning that all trusts aren’t meeting core standards on safety and quality, five years after they were introduced. They also argue that anyone reading all of the report cannot fail to come to the conclusion that there is a great deal that is improving in the NHS. However there is still considerable room for improvement and the service recognises that.”

There has been a greater focus in recent years on the areas of child protection and employment checks. Statistics show that standards in these areas are not improving but it should be emphasised that in these cases trusts are both being expected to deliver more and are asking more of themselves.