Press releases Saturday 19 June 2004
Online First articles may not be available until 09:00 (UK time) Friday.
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) ALCOHOL
PARTLY TO BLAME FOR RISING RATES OF PANCREATITIS
(2) HOW SHOULD WE COMBAT RACISM IN
THE NHS?
(3) DUMMIES DO NOT AFFECT SUCCESS OF
BREAST FEEDING IN PREMATURE BABIES
(1) ALCOHOL PARTLY TO BLAME FOR RISING RATES OF
PANCREATITIS
(Hospital admission for acute
pancreatitis in an English population, 1963-98: database study of incidence
and mortality)
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/328/7454/1466
Rates of acute pancreatitis (inflammation of the pancreas) have doubled over the past 30 years, particularly among younger age groups, finds a study in this week's BMJ. Increasing alcohol consumption may be partly to blame, say the authors.
Acute pancreatitis is mainly caused by alcohol abuse and gall stones. It produces a sudden attack of severe upper abdominal pain, often accompanied by nausea and vomiting. An attack usually lasts for about 48 hours.
They analysed trends in hospital admissions for pancreatitis from 1963 to 1998 in the Oxford region. Admission rates for acute pancreatitis rose in both men and women from 1963 to 1998, particularly among the younger age groups.
This partly reflects an increase in alcoholic pancreatitis, related to increasing use of alcohol in the community, suggest the authors, although an increase in the occurrence of gall stones may have also contributed to the rise.
Death rates in the first month after admission were 30 times higher than in the general population of the same age.
Overall, pancreatitis remains a disease with a poor prognosis. Death rates have not improved since the 1970s because no major innovations in treatment have been introduced, they conclude.
Contact:
Michael Goldacre, Professor of Public
Health, Department of Public Health, University of Oxford, UK
Email: michael.goldacre@dphpc.ox.ac.uk
(2) HOW SHOULD WE COMBAT RACISM IN THE NHS?
(Editorial: The prejudices
of good people)
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/328/7454/1448
Why are ethnic minority doctors over-represented in lower grades of the profession?
Why are more complaints made against ethnic minority doctors, and why are there more suspensions? Are our present curriculums teaching all students about cultural sensitivity and awareness?
Ethnic minority doctors form nearly one third of the NHS workforce, yet research has shown that they are disadvantaged throughout their careers.
Why do these problems continue to exist in the NHS, asks an editorial in this week's BMJ?
The most important point about understanding what institutional racism means in an organisation such as the NHS is how processes, structures, and values operate to disadvantage black and ethnic minority patients and staff, writes Aneez Esmail of Manchester University.
For the medical profession, the problem is one of recognition that, just because individuals are not racist, this does not mean that institutional racism cannot exist. In that respect, the medical profession has a long way to go.
So what should be done? Leadership is critical, argues the author, and the reality is that not a single leader of the medical profession has taken on the task of lancing this festering abscess.
Every head of a medicopolitical organisation, every president of a royal college, and every dean of a medical school must ask themselves if ethnic minority staff and patients are receiving the service they are entitled to.
But with virtually no ethnic minorities in these influential positions, and with only 1% of trusts' chief executives from black and ethnic minorities, the challenges are huge. Exhortations and good intentions abound but action is virtually non-existent, he concludes.
Contact:
Aneez Esmail, Vice-President, Medical
Practitioners Union, London, UK
Email: aneez.esmail@man.ac.uk
Online First
(3) DUMMIES DO NOT AFFECT
SUCCESS OF BREAST FEEDING IN PREMATURE BABIES
(Effect of bottles, cups, and
dummies on breast feeding in preterm infants: a randomised controlled trial)
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/bmj.38131.675914.55
Using a dummy does not affect the success of breast feeding in premature babies, finds a new study available on bmj.com. Dummies are widely used for pre-term infants in hospital but, so far, their effect on breast feeding is unknown.
Researchers analysed the effect of artificial teats (bottles and dummies) and cups on breast feeding in 319 infants born at 23-33 weeks' gestation at the Women's and Children's Hospital, Adelaide and the Mercy Hospital for Women, Melbourne.
Dummies had no effect on breast feeding and did not reduce hospital stay. Cup feeding increased the proportion of infants discharged home fully breast feeding, but was associated with longer stays in hospital.
This trial is the largest to evaluate the effect of dummies and provides no evidence for withholding dummies from infants less than 34 weeks' gestation as a strategy to increase the success of breast feeding, say the authors.
The study adds some support to the theory that avoiding bottles increases the success of breast feeding, though more research is needed, they conclude.
Contact:
Media Office, Women's and Children's Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia Kirsty Mudge
FOR ACCREDITED JOURNALISTS
Embargoed press releases and articles are available from:
Public Affairs DivisionBMA HouseTavistock
SquareLondon WC1H 9JR
(contact: pressoffice@bma.org.uk)
and from:
the EurekAlert website, run by the American Association for theAdvancement of Science(http://www.eurekalert.org)