Releases Saturday 29 September 2001
No 7315 Volume 323

Please remember to credit the BMJ as source when publicising an
article and to tell your readers that they can read its full text on the
journal's web site (http://bmj.com).

If your story is posted on a website please include a link back to
the source BMJ article (URL's are given under titles).



(1) GREATER VIGILANCE NEEDED ON SAFETY
OF OVER THE COUNTER DRUGS

(2) HOME VISITING TO OLDER PEOPLE REDUCES
DEATH RATES AND THE NEED FOR
LONG-TERM INSTITUTIONAL CARE

(3) NATIONAL GUIDANCE AGENCIES DO NOT
ENHANCE THE NHS BUT DISTORT THE
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES, SAY
ACADEMICS

(4) SICK GPs FAIL TO PRACTICE WHAT THEY
PREACH



(1) GREATER VIGILANCE NEEDED ON SAFETY
OF OVER THE COUNTER DRUGS

(Editorial: Monitoring the safety of over the counter
drugs)
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/323/7315/706

It is currently rare for pharmacists to record the details
of patients to whom they sell over the counter medicines
but an editorial in this week's BMJ argues that it would
be in the public health interest for pharmacists to do so.

David Clark of the Department of Pharmacology,
University of Otago, New Zealand and Layton and
Saad Shakir of the Drug Safety Research Unit at
Southampton argue that consumers believe that
non-prescription medicines are safe because they are
freely available over the counter. However, the trend to
self medication and the switch from prescription only to
pharmacy only status means that more and more
powerful medications are becoming available over the
counter.

These products are not always used correctly, so the
use of over the counter medicines should be monitored
and quantifed. The authors argue that spontaneous
reporting of adverse reactions is inadequate and a more
rigorous system of recording by pharmacists is now
indicated.

Contact:

Dr Saad Shakir, Director, Drug Safety Research Unit,
Southampton, UK
Email : saad.shakir@dsru.org

(2) HOME VISITING TO OLDER PEOPLE REDUCES
DEATH RATES AND THE NEED FOR
LONG-TERM INSTITUTIONAL CARE

(Effectiveness of home based support for older people:
systematic review and meta-analysis)
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/323/7315/719

(Commentary: When, where, and why do preventive
home visits work?)
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/323/7315/719

(Editorial: Preventive home visits to elderly people)
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/323/7315/708

Home visits to older people appear to reduce their risk
of death and admission to long term institutional care,
reports a study in this week's BMJ.

Given the shortcomings and inconsistencies of previous
studies the research team at the University of
Nottingham's Faculty of Medicine decided to review
and compare the results of 15 previous studies of home
visiting to establish whether these programmes are
beneficial to the health of older people.

The results of the research show that by visiting older
people in their homes and offering health promotion and
preventive care, death rates and admission to long-term
institutional care are significantly reduced. However, the
research also concluded that there were no significant
reductions in admissions to hospital.

The results of this very large study is all the more
important given that previous smaller research projects
have concluded that home visits to older people should
be discontinued because they were not effective.

Although the research did not aim to assess the quality
of different home visiting projects, it is clear that some
programmes were more successful than others. The
authors suggest that what is required is a greater focus
on the process of delivering care and on attempting to
identify which components of home visiting work.

Contacts:

[Paper]: Ruth Elkan, Research Fellow, School of
Nursing, Postgraduate Division, University of
Nottingham, UK
Email: ruth.elkan@nottingham.ac.uk

[Commentary]: Matthias Egger, Senior Lecturer in
Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Social Medicine,
University of Bristol, UK Email: m.egger@bristol.ac.uk

(3) NATIONAL GUIDANCE AGENCIES DO NOT
ENHANCE THE NHS BUT DISTORT THE
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES, SAY
ACADEMICS

(Wrong SIGN, NICE mess, is national
guidance distorting allocation of resources?)
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/323/7315/743

In a report in this week's BMJ, the NHS guidance
agencies come under fire for distorting the allocation of
resources and not contributing to the performance and
effectiveness of the Health Service.

The system in Scotland is criticised for having two
competing agencies, the Scottish Intercollegiate
Guidelines Network (SIGN) and the Health
Technology Board for Scotland. And another agency,
the Scottish Medicines Consortium is soon to be set up.

In England and Wales one agency exists, the National
Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE).

The remit of the above agencies includes ensuring that
patients receive the highest levels of care, that postcode
rationing is reduced and that the NHS performs as
cost-effectively as possible.

However, SIGN has not even started to consider cost
effectiveness. NICE has done this but is reluctant to
advise against funding many costly new drugs. Neither
agency is up to the job of informing the public and
government about the 'hard choices' about the rationing
of scarce health resources.

The authors of the paper make various suggestions to
improve the current ' muddle' and find a way forward:

NICE should become a national healthcare rationing
agency, with SIGN and the other Scottish agencies
complementing this activity. NICE needs to start saying
'no' to costly and relatively cost ineffective new drugs
and devices. NICE should prioritise national guidance
within a fixed growth budget for new technologies.
NICE should be given the option that national guidance
is inappropriate for some technologies, if reducing
postcode prescribing would compromise other goals
relating to equity or efficiency.

All those involved in rationing health care in the UK, be
they politicians who promise more than can reasonably
be delivered or practitioners who deal with such
choices in their everyday work, need to be more
focused and explicit if this ambitious rationing agenda is
to avoid muddle and damage to patients, they conclude.

Contact:

Professor Alan Maynard, Director, York Health Policy
Group, University of York, York, UK
Email: akm3@york.ac.uk

(4) SICK GPs FAIL TO PRACTICE WHAT THEY
PREACH

(Challenge of culture, conscience, and contract to
general practitioners' care of their own health: qualitative
study)
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/323/7315/728

Family doctors - burdened with a sense of duty of not
letting down their patients or partners - fail to
acknowledge their own ill health and attempt to work
through their symptoms, says a report in this week's
BMJ.

Thompson and colleagues in Belfast studied 27
Northern Ireland GPs about the effects of their
profession and training on their attitudes to illness in
themselves and their colleagues.

Their report says "A sense of conscience towards
patients and colleagues and the working arrangements
of the practice were cited as reasons for continuing to
work through illness and expecting colleagues to do
likewise." They found GPs felt a need to portray a
healthy image to both patients and colleagues. This
hindered them from taking part in health screening or
acknowledging personal illness.

GPs talked about the pressure to appear physically
well. They reported a perception that patients believed
a doctor's health somehow reflected his or her medical
competence. Several reported that the GPs' medical
knowledge made them prone to swing between panic
and denial when they experienced potentially serious
symptoms.

Family doctors were concerned about the current level
of illness within the profession and the report concludes
that steps must be taken to promote appropriate care of
their own health among doctors. The authors make a
number of recommendations in relation to education
and occupational health support.

Contact:

Dr Margaret Cupples, Senior lecturer, Dept of General
Practice, School of Medicine, Queen's University,
Belfast.
Email: m.cupples@qub.ac


FOR ACCREDITED JOURNALISTS

Embargoed press releases and articles are available from:

Public Affairs Division
BMA House
Tavistock Square
London WC1H 9JR
(contact: pressoffice@bma.org.uk)

and from:

the EurekAlert website, run by the American Association for the
Advancement of Science
(http://www.eurekalert.org)