Lancs woman welcomes NHS psychological support system for infected blood victims
Thousands of people impacted by the infected blood scandal in England will be able to self refer to a bespoke psychological support NHS service, officials have announced.
Now, a Lancashire woman has welcomed the launch of the new support service.
Nicola Leahey was infected with hepatitis C following blood transfusions in 1975 and/or 1980 and has described the launch of the NHS's Infected Blood Psychological Service as "much-needed."
Ms Leahey, from Chorley, was part of an advisory group that helped to develop the service, which began a phased rollout in September.
Talking therapies, peer support, and psychosocial support will be offered as part of the service to people impacted by the infected blood scandal, which saw more than 30,000 people in the UK infected with HIV and hepatitis C after they were given contaminated blood and blood products between the 1970s and early 1990s.
More than 3,000 people have died as a result, while survivors are living with lifelong health implications, according to a spokesperson.
The new service is open to victims as well as bereaved partners, parents, children, and extended families.
People can self-refer by phone or can be referred to the service by their GP.
Claire Murdoch, national mental health director at NHS England, said: "The contaminated blood scandal and the subsequent long fight for answers have had life-altering physical and psychological impacts for thousands across the country, and the NHS is determined to ensure that anyone infected or affected can receive evidence-based support and treatment.
"It has been so important that the Infected Blood Psychological Service has been co-designed with members of the infected blood community to ensure the best and most personalised care possible, and we are very grateful to all our partners who have helped establish these vital new services."
Ms Leahey said: "After my diagnosis, I felt that my body had been violated, that I had been physically and mentally abused, stripped of my dignity, my self-esteem diminished - I mourned lost opportunities, I felt betrayed.
"So many of us have long awaited the opportunity to have professional support to try to cope with the trauma and life-long effects that we've been subjected to.
"I'm thrilled that this much-needed service is now operational."
READ MORE:
Birds Fish and Chip Shop in Burnley among our top 10
Hundreds attend funeral of hospital imam who died on Eid day
Professor Meghana Pandit, co-national medical director for secondary care at NHS England, added: "Following the recommendations of the inquiry, this new service represents a vital step in ensuring patients and families affected in England can be offered tailored psychological treatment and support, and we are pleased that specialist clinics are now open in all areas of England.
"This bespoke psychological treatment is already making a difference to the lives of the first people to access it, and we now want to ensure everyone eligible is aware of the services provided."
More information is available at https://infectedbloodpsychologicalservice.nhs.uk/
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Karen Millen breastfeeding controversy: ‘Selfish' remark sparks outrage and apology
As you may have seen all over your Instagram feeds yesterday, Karen Millen's comments on breastfeeding have faced huge backlash. Speaking on Channel 5 talk show, Vanessa, hosted by Vanessa Waltz, the designer was asked about her opinion on whether it's OK to breastfeed a three-year-old child. 'There's no benefit, is there, for a child to be breastfed beyond six months really,' she responded. 'I think it's quite a selfish thing on the mother's part.' When asked to explain what she meant, she said: 'I just think that's not good emotionally for that child. I mean, what does that child do later in life? The attachment – like you say it becomes an addiction and an addiction for that child too because they only know the boob. 'It's just not normal is it? I'm sorry, I find it very weird.' The NHS advises that those who can and want to should breastfeed exclusively for the first six months, then continue to breastfeed for two years and beyond, alongside giving their child other foods. It also lists the benefits of breastfeeding as: protecting your baby from diseases and infections; being free, convenient and always ready to use – you don't need to sterilise bottles and teats; being one way of helping you bond with your baby. It can also reduce the mother's risk of breast cancer, ovarian cancer, osteoporosis (weak bones), cardiovascular disease and obesity, it says. However, breastfeeding is a very personal choice, and those who don't breastfeed also have healthy babies and bodies. What's not OK is judging someone elses choice, as the backlash to Millen's comments has made clear. 'I feel more and more furious every time I hear that clip,' wrote Danielle Facey, aka @TheBreastfeedingMentor. 'I loved nursing my son for around three years, despite being shamed by all and sundry. But it was not about me – it was always about him.' Chessie King, content creator and founder of Welcome To Babyhood, also posted about the topic, saying she was 'flabbergated': 'I breastfed [her daughter] Auraelia for 11 months & let me tell you, it was the opposite of selfish. My milkshake makers were pumped with love & *patience*'Whether you did for 1 day, 6 months, 3 years or not at all, breastfeeding is SELFLESS not selfish.' In response, Karen has apologised for her comments. According to The Independent, she posted on social media (in a post that is no longer visible), saying: 'The question was aimed at a three-year-old being breastfed and my thoughts on that and my answers reflected that, not the subject of breastfeeding. And as a woman to women, I do respect your choices and I do want to support you.' Whatever you do, remember you know best about what's right for you and your baby. You Might Also Like 13 Buys To Help You Feel Great From £5 16 Speedo Swimsuits that Won't Flash Your Bum When Getting Swim-fit 11 Best Gym Trainers for Different Types of Workouts
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
NHS makes major change to cervical cancer screenings for younger women
Women aged 25 to 49 who test negative for human papillomavirus (HPV) will be invited to cervical screening every five years instead of every three, under new NHS guidelines. The change, set to take effect next month in England, follows recommendations from the UK National Screening Committee. According to analysis from King's College London, extending the screening interval to five years for HPV-negative women is just as safe as the current three-year interval, with a similar rate of cancer detection. HPV is a sexually transmitted group of viruses, with around 13 high-risk types known to cause almost all cases of cervical cancer. Most people with HPV don't experience any symptoms. Women who test positive for HPV, or have a history of the virus, will continue to be invited for more frequent screenings to monitor the virus and check for any changes to cells in the cervix. In a written statement to Parliament, health minister Ashley Dalton said the new change 'increases the opportunities to test and recall women and people with a cervix who have HPV, while extending the cervical screening intervals from three to five years in England for individuals who have a negative HPV test. 'This will bring England's cervical screening intervals in line with those of Wales and Scotland.' She said the NHS screening programme in England provides all women between the ages of 25 and 64 'with the opportunity to be screened routinely to detect HPV infection or cervical abnormalities at an early, more treatable stage'. She added: 'The aim of the programme is to reduce the number of women who develop invasive cervical cancer and reduce the number who die from it.' Ms Dalton said testing negative for HPV means the chances of developing cancer within five years are very small, as it can take around 10 years or more from the time HPV is detected to developing cervical cancer. She added: 'Those who test positive for HPV are already being followed up with yearly testing. 'This is important to ensure that individuals are monitored for any early signs of cervical abnormalities and provided the necessary treatment.' Experts have been concerned about falling numbers of women under 50 attending cervical screening, with around a third in England not taking up their invitations. Dr Sue Mann, NHS national clinical director for women's health, said: 'Taking a more personalised approach to cervical screening will help ensure everyone eligible can make the most of these life-saving services, while sparing women appointments that they don't need. 'The NHS is following robust evidence on how often women need to be safely screened, and by putting invitations and reminders straight in women's pockets on their phones, we're making it easier than ever to take up screening appointments. 'Make sure you come forward for your screening when you're invited, even if it was weeks, months or years ago. If you think you are due but have not yet had an invitation, speak to your GP practice.' Michelle Mitchell, chief executive of Cancer Research UK, said: 'We welcome this change to cervical screening in England, which is the result of years of vital research to make screening more effective and has shown it is safe to extend the time between tests. 'Screening, alongside the roll out of the HPV vaccine – which Cancer Research UK scientists helped develop – have seen cervical cancer rates drop by around a quarter since the early 1990s, and we look forward to even more progress. 'If you notice any unusual changes for you, do not wait for a screening invitation – speak to your doctor.' Athena Lamnisos, chief executive of the Eve Appeal, said: 'We want every eligible person to feel empowered to attend a vaccination and cervical screening appointment when they are invited so we can achieve the brilliant ambition of eliminating cervical cancer.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Reeves's public sector obsession will crush the economy
Rachel Reeves has cemented 'historic changes' to enlarge the British state, according to one of the nation's leading economists, with the battered private sector now looking at permanently higher taxes to support it. Paul Johnson, the head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, says it is hard to overstate the scale of the shift taking place in the economy this decade, as government spending mounts on public services, welfare and debt interest – and taxes rise to match. 'These are historic changes in the size of the state and the size of taxation in this country,' says Johnson. 'Over all of my lifetime up until 2020, taxes hovered around 33pc of national income. By the end of this decade they will be 38pc of national income. I cannot see them coming down. 'In economic history terms I think this decade will be seen as the decade in which the British state grew.' An older and sicker population suggests the state will only get bigger. Analysis by the Resolution Foundation, a think tank, shows that Reeves has put health spending on course to gobble up half of all the money spent on day-to-day services by the end of the decade. This is up from a third in 2010 and roughly a quarter in 1999. 'That is a huge increase. Everything else pales a bit in significance,' says James Smith, an economist at the Resolution Foundation. 'We are becoming ever more a health state.' The proportion may rise even more after Labour publishes its 10-year plan for the NHS later this year. Previous proposals outlined by the Tories suggested that making the health service fit for the future would require a 50pc rise in the number of staff to 2.4m by 2037. Such an increase would mean one in 11 workers in England would be employed by the NHS, compared with one in 17 in 2021, according to the IFS. Ruth Curtice, the Resolution Foundation chief executive, said the clear shift towards higher health spending constituted a 'major reshaping of the state'. Labour is using its gigantic parliamentary majority to push through such seismic change. Yet at the same time the economy is weakening, undermining Reeves's ability to pay for her grand spending plans. GDP dropped by 0.3pc between April and March, suggesting the strong growth seen during the first three months of the year was not the start of a sustained recovery. The Chancellor has blamed Donald Trump's trade war for knocking Britain off course, and it undoubtedly had an effect. However, there is no sense that Reeves has adapted her plans to cope with Trump's crusade, which has been known about for months. Furthermore, April's GDP numbers also show clear signs that it was Reeves, not Trump, who was to blame for the slowdown. The services sector performed particularly poorly, with retail struggling amid the sharp rise in employers' National Insurance contributions, the tax bosses pay on workers' wages, and the minimum wage. Unemployment is up and the number of people in work is down, another sign that this 'jobs tax' is weighing on hiring. Worryingly, Britain is relying more and more on public spending to keep the economy afloat. Recent analysis by the Bank of England shows that activity has essentially been driven by the public sector over the past two years. That's not a sustainable model for growth, particularly given the dire productivity in the public sector. Businesses are increasingly frustrated. Simony Emeny, the chief executive of pub group Fuller's, argues the private sector is being forced to work far harder than the public sector. 'Because of what the Chancellor announced last year, we have had to work really hard to make our businesses as efficient as possible and use technology well and to make sure that we are in a position where we can absorb some of these cost increases,' he says. 'If I look at the Government, I don't see that same drive to improve efficiency coming through.' He cited the rise in the number of civil servants, which has soared from below 420,000 in 2016 to 550,000 today. 'The [hospitality] sector is having to be forensic about costs just to navigate the challenges we face and I'm not seeing that same scrutiny from the Government. [They] need to be consistent about this,' says Emeny. 'They're putting a lot of pressure on business with extra costs. We're having to absorb that this year, and so is everybody else.' Fuller's and other businesses may have to absorb even more costs later this year. With pressure to spend yet more on healthcare and benefits, and amid scepticism that many of the plans set out in the spending review are realistic, economists believe more tax rises await in the autumn. Johnson, at the IFS, suspects the long freeze on income tax thresholds will be extended – a classic stealth tax, as workers end up paying more tax even if their pay only rises in line with inflation – meaning they become worse off over time. But that alone may not be enough. Andy King, a former senior official at the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the Government's spending watchdog, says it is almost certain to slash its growth forecasts at the Budget in the autumn, in part because of Reeves's own policies. 'The immigration policy looks net negative for growth, employment rights need to be scored, the employer NICs and national living wage rises look to have done much more damage to employment than was allowed for,' he says. 'The writing seems to be on the wall for another fiscal hole in the autumn.' That points to yet another tax raid, despite the record-breaking £40bn of tax increases in the Budget last October, which was supposed to put the finances back on an even keel for the rest of this parliament. King suspects the Chancellor will have to ramp up the big taxes she has promised not to touch: VAT, National Insurance or income tax. 'Now that the spending plans have been inked in, it leaves fewer levers for restoring fiscal headroom. So it looks like a rock and a hard place for the autumn. Something important may have to give if there is a material fiscal hole to fill,' he says. 'That means either loosening the fiscal targets, which look very risky given the way the bond market is viewing the UK relative to its peers. Or it means breaking manifesto tax commitments which looks, as Sir Humphrey might say, brave, bordering on courageous.' Whatever form tax rises end up taking, it will extend what has become a well-established pattern under Labour: raid the private sector to pay for ever higher state spending. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
