Devon heart attack care trial pulled to review feedback
A proposal to trial changes to heart attack services in part of Devon has been withdrawn to allow time to consider feedback on the plan.NHS Devon's Integrated Care Board (ICB) was due to discuss a "test and learn" process for out-of-hours services in Torbay and Exeter during a meeting on Thursday.As part of the move, the trial could have seen patients driven to hospital in Exeter rather than Torbay to help cut costs and release resources to cut treatment backlogs.However, following concerns raised locally, NHS Devon said it had decided to delay the proposal so comments can be reviewed before an updated plan is presented to the ICB in July.
'Deeply concerning'
A report which formed part of the trial from NHS Devon said it believed consolidating centres might "provide increased value with minimal and clinically acceptable impact on safety and quality".However, the idea was criticised by Liberal Democrat MPs Steve Darling and Caroline Voaden who both raised the issue in the House of Commons.Torbay MP Darling said the proposal put patients at risk of not receiving treatment fast enough while South Devon MP Voaden said it would put people in critical danger.Former Torbay Conservative MP Kevin Foster also raised concerns with the trial, which he described as "deeply concerning".
In a statement on Wednesday, NHS Devon said its chair and chief executive had decided to pull the plans from the board meeting off the back of "wide-ranging" comments from politicians, health professionals and patients."This will enable the feedback to be fully considered and allow time to reflect on whether such a process will lead to clarity on future commissioning arrangements to ensure the long-term sustainability of this important service," NHS Devon said.It added its key priority was to commission "safe, reliable and sustainable" services for the future of healthcare in the county.NHS Devon said: "We will engage with our clinicians and partners to design this and find the most effective solutions for the whole population of Devon."An updated proposal will be presented to the board in July, taking into account the valuable feedback received."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
42 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Doctor warns of 'highly toxic' effect of popular natural remedy - after it puts toddler in a coma
Ingesting tea tree oil could result in life-threatening organ damage, seizures and even a coma, a GP has warned. According to Dr Sermed Mezher, a UK based doctor, swallowing tiny amounts of the essential oil can result in serious poisoning 'within a minute'. In an Instagram video that has so far been viewed over 2.1million times, Dr Mezher explained the risks in response to a video of a young boy who ended up in a coma after swallowing it. Dr Mezher said: 'Swallowing tea tree oil can be highly toxic due to its potent chemical composition, which includes terpinen-4-ol, cineole, and other volatile compounds.' Terpinen-4-ol is the most abundant compound in tea tree oil—extracted from the Melaleuca alternifolia tree—which posses antifungal and anti-inflammatory properties. However when ingested, the oil can rapidly affect the nervous system, leading to drowsiness, loss of coordination and seizures. In 2022 alone, the US poison control centre treated more than 2,200 cases of toxicity linked to tea tree oil. 'One of them was a 23-month-old boy who drank just 10mls which put him in a coma for five hours until he thankfully recovered,' Dr Mezher explained. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Sermed Mezher (@drsermedmezher) He added that its supposed benefits for skin health may also be bogus. 'Tree oil has been sold as a miracle cure to multiple skin conditions, and yet there's very little evidence that it works,' he said. A 2023 study found that tea tree oil has antibacterial, anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties that helped treat teenage and adult acne—though researchers cautioned it was not possible to draw conclusions on its safety. The poison control centre treated twice as many cases of toxicity caused by tea tree oil compared to any other essential oil, including cinnamon, clove and eucalyptus oil. 'I don't know about you, but I am not keeping this at home,' Dr Mezher cautioned. As well as attacking the nervous system, ingesting the 'horrifically toxic' product can also irritate the gastrointestinal tract, causing nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. 'Tea tree oil is also harsh on the liver,' Dr Mezher added. 'The body struggles to metabolise its toxic components, potentially leading to organ damage with repeated or high-dose exposure.' 'Because tea tree oil absorbs quickly into the bloodstream, poisoning symptoms can appear within minutes to a few hours. 'If ingestion occurs, immediate medical attention is essential to prevent serious complications.' The NHS warns against trying to make someone who has swallowed something poisonous and is unconscious sick, and recommends instead putting them in the recovery position until an ambulance arrives. Tea tree oil, a common ingredient in many skincare products, has previously been linked to a number of superbug infections including MRSA—a type of bacteria that is resistant to treatment and causes life-threatening infection. US scientists discovered that repeated low-dose use of the essential oil made the MRSA bacteria, as well as and salmonella, more resistant to antibiotics. Professor David McDowell, from the University of Ulster, warned that people who use tea tree oil on their skin repeatedly to treat acne, could be 'stressing' the bacteria on the skin rather than killing it—increasing their resistance to antibiotics. 'Although tea tree oil may be an effective antimicrobial agent when appropriately used at high concentrations, its application at low concentrations may contribute to the development of antibiotic resistance in human pathogens,' he warned.
Reuters
4 hours ago
- Reuters
US judge rules health insurers, MultiPlan must face price-fixing lawsuits
June 3 (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Tuesday said healthcare providers can pursue claims that technology provider MultiPlan and a group of insurers conspired to underpay them billions of dollars in reimbursements for out-of-network health services. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly in Chicago ruled, opens new tab that doctors and other providers who filed the proposed class action had plausibly alleged a price-fixing conspiracy that relied on insurers collectively sharing sensitive information with MultiPlan to set reimbursement rates. MultiPlan, which rebranded as Claritev in February, processes payments for out-of-network healthcare services. Major insurers, including defendants UnitedHealth, Aetna and Cigna, have contracts with the company and use its software. In a statement on Tuesday, MultiPlan said it was 'confident in the strength of our legal position' and that the lawsuits have no merit. Aetna parent CVS in a statement said, 'we stand ready to argue the substantive facts of the case and defend ourselves vigorously in this matter.' UnitedHealth and Cigna did not immediately respond to requests for comment. All of the defendants have denied any wrongdoing. Kennelly is presiding over consolidated, opens new tab lawsuits that were first filed in 2023. MultiPlan processes more than 80% of out-of-network claims across the country, or abut 370,000 daily claims, according to the plaintiffs. In a statement, attorneys for the health providers said MultiPlan and the insurance defendants 'orchestrated a cartel through the sharing of competitively sensitive confidential pricing information to illicitly coordinate on out-of-network reimbursements.' MultiPlan and the insurers have argued that health providers are free to reject an insurance company's payment and instead seek full compensation from patients. MultiPlan told the court its services provide industry more flexibility, lowering costs to insurers and patients. Kennelly in his ruling said "whether or not MultiPlan's calculated rates are labeled as 'recommendations,' the plaintiffs plausibly allege that they are more akin to mandates." The U.S. Justice Department submitted a court filing in March backing claims in the health providers' case. The case is In re MultiPlan Health Insurance Provider Litigation, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, No. 1:24-cv-06795. Read more: US Justice Department backs medical providers' lawsuit over data analytics software Hospital sues data analytics company MultiPlan in US court antitrust case
Reuters
5 hours ago
- Reuters
Trump administration scraps Biden-era policy on emergency abortions
June 3 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's administration on Tuesday rescinded guidance issued during his Democratic predecessor Joe Biden's tenure requiring hospitals to provide abortions to women in medical emergencies regardless of various state bans on the procedure. The U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said the 2022 guidance, which interpreted a federal law that ensures patients can receive emergency "stabilizing care" as preempting state abortion bans, did not reflect the policy of the Trump administration. The agency, which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, said it "will work to rectify any perceived legal confusion and instability created by the former administration's actions." The Biden administration issued the guidance in July 2022 weeks after the 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court overturned its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that had recognized a nationwide right of women to obtain abortions. The 2022 guidance reminded healthcare providers across the country of their obligations under a 1986 federal law called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure Medicare-participating hospitals offer emergency care stabilizing patients regardless of their ability to pay. Medicare is the government healthcare program for the elderly. Hospitals that violate EMTALA risk losing Medicare funding. The 2022 guidance aimed to make clear that under EMTALA, physicians must provide a woman an abortion if needed to resolve a medical emergency and stabilize the patient even in states where the procedure is banned and that the federal law preempted any state laws that offer no exceptions for medical emergencies. After issuing the guidance, the U.S. Department of Justice sued the state of Idaho in a bid to stop it from enforcing its near-total abortion ban in medical emergencies. A federal judge at the Justice Department's urging blocked the Idaho from enforcing the ban during medical emergencies, but the Trump administration in March dropped that lawsuit, resulting in that injunction being lifted. The ban still remains blocked in emergencies due to a similar lawsuit brought by a hospital system.
