Latest news with #patientsafety
Yahoo
a day ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Row over NHS doctor strike deepens as poll suggests public support is waning
The row between the British Medical Association (BMA) and health leaders over the upcoming doctor strike has deepened as research suggests public support for the action is waning. NHS Providers, which represents hospital trusts, hit back at BMA claims that health leaders were putting patients at risk, saying it was actually the 'costly' BMA strike that was risking patient care. It comes as Health Secretary Wes Streeting told the House of Commons he 'sincerely hopes the BMA will postpone' the 'unnecessary and irresponsible' strikes to continue talks with the Government, which he said had been 'constructive' in recent days. He said, however, the Government stands 'ready' and 'responsive' if the five-day strike by resident doctors, which is scheduled to start at 7am on Friday, does go ahead. Earlier, the BMA said NHS England plans for managing the strike could put patients at risk owing to the fact it has ordered hospitals to continue with as much pre-planned care as possible. We've written to NHS England with concerns about inadequate planning ahead of possible strike action later this week. Attempts to run non-urgent services with fewer doctors risk patient safety. It's imperative that Trusts postpone work to protect urgent and emergency care. — The BMA (@TheBMA) July 21, 2025 Previous strikes by health workers have seen hundreds of thousands of operations and appointments cancelled, but NHS England is taking a different approach this time to managing the strike. In a letter to hospital trust leaders, it urges the health system to focus on maintaining emergency care, maintaining the flow of patients and 'maintaining elective care to the fullest extent possible' as well as 'priority treatments' such as cancer care. 'It will be important for systems and trusts to try and maintain normal levels of booked activity…' it said, adding: 'Reducing volumes of bookings and rescheduling of appointments and other activity should only happen in exceptional circumstances to safeguard patient safety.' On Tuesday morning, BMA deputy chairwoman Dr Emma Runswick told BBC Radio 4's Today programme this plan risked patient safety. She said: 'We've had proven systems over the last decade that have made sure that where we have to take strike action, senior doctors cover urgency and critical care. 'This time round, NHS England are pushing for the continuation of non-urgent and scheduled care in a way that we think at best is confusing and will create on-the-day cancellations – and at worst could be risky and lead to harm in emergency departments and on wards, because senior doctors cannot physically be in two places at once. 'We think that a notional guidance from NHS England which is saying that basically all scheduled work should continue to go ahead has potential to be seriously risky for patients… 'Senior doctors are needed to be freed up in order to provide urgency and critical care. 'We think the vast majority of planned and unscheduled care should be shifted.' NHS Providers hit back at the BMA's claims, saying it was the strike itself that posed a risk to patients. Its chief executive, Daniel Elkeles, said: 'The NHS, not the BMA, is putting patients' interests first. 'Given that some patients will be caused undoubted harm if the short-notice strike goes ahead, NHS trusts are doing the responsible thing by not cancelling people's care while talks to avert the strike are ongoing. 'Now is a time for cool heads in the BMA because it's not too late to avoid a damaging, costly strike. NHS trust leaders hope for a breakthrough from talks between Government and the union. 'If the strike goes ahead then NHS trusts will do everything they can to avoid any harm to patients and are planning for as many patients as possible to be cared for.' It comes as a new YouGov poll showed about half (52%) of people in the UK either 'somewhat oppose' (20%) or 'strongly oppose' (32%) the idea of resident doctors going on strike over pay. Meanwhile, a third (34%) of the 4,954 adults surveyed either 'somewhat support' (23%) or 'strongly support' (11%) doctor strikes. YouGov said the proportion supporting the strike over pay has dropped five points since it last asked the question in May. Then, 48% opposed resident doctors striking, while 39% supported them taking action. Speaking in the Commons on Tuesday, Mr Streeting said that before he came into office, 'strikes were crippling the NHS'. He added: 'Costs ran to £1.7 billion in just one year, and patients saw 1.5 million appointments rescheduled. 'Strikes this week are not inevitable, and I sincerely hope the BMA will postpone this action to continue the constructive talks my team and I have had with them in recent days. 'Regardless, our priority is to keep patients safe, and we will do everything we can to mitigate the impacts of strikes on patients and the disruption that will follow should these totally unnecessary and avoidable strikes go ahead.' Quizzed by MPs, he said the 'approach we're taking is different from that taken in previous periods of strike action'. He added: 'NHS leaders have been clear to me that previous rounds of strike action caused much wider levels of harm than previously realised, and there is no reason why planned care in issues like cancer, for example, cancer appointments, as well as other conditions should be treated as somehow less important or second fiddle to other NHS services. 'That is why the chief executive of NHS England has written to NHS leaders asking them to keep routine operations going to the fullest extent possible, as well as continuing priority treatments. 'It will be for local leaders to determine what's possible given staffing levels. 'That's why it's really important that resident doctors do engage with their employers about their determination or not to turn up at work this week, and why again, I just spell out the serious consequences for patients that means that these avoidable and unnecessary strikes should not go ahead.' Consultants and SAS doctors in England – look out for your indicative ballot email from @TheBMA today! Wes Streeting called pay restoration "a journey, not an event" – so why have we stopped? Are you prepared to stand up to demand your value is recognised by the government? — Tom Dolphin🏳️🌈 🏳️⚧️ (@thomasdolphin) July 21, 2025 Elsewhere, the BMA has also issued strike guidance for consultants regarding the extra pay they can seek for covering work that is not in their contracts. The BMA 'rate card' says consultants can ask for £188 per hour on weekdays from 7am-7pm and £250 an hour from 7pm to 11pm. At weekends, the pay claim can rise to £250 per hour from 7am to 11am and £313 per hour for overnight work from 11pm to 7am. Resident doctors, formerly known as junior doctors, were awarded an average 5.4% pay increase this financial year, following a 22% rise over the previous two years. However, the BMA says real-terms pay has still fallen by around 20% since 2008, and is pushing for full 'pay restoration'. Resident doctors are qualified doctors in clinical training. They have completed a medical degree and can have up to nine years of working experience as a hospital doctor, depending on their specialty, or up to five years of working and gaining experience to become a GP.
The Guardian
a day ago
- Health
- The Guardian
BMA warns NHS its plans for doctors' strikes put patients at risk
The British Medical Association (BMA) has warned the NHS that its plan for dealing with forthcoming resident doctors' strikes puts patient safety at risk. Up to 50,000 resident doctors in England, formerly known as junior doctors, are set to join the industrial action from 7am on Friday 25 July to 7am on Wednesday 30 July. They are demanding a 29% pay rise. Days before the strikes are due to start, the BMA, the trade union for doctors, has criticised changes to way the health service is preparing. During previous strikes, urgent and emergency services have been staffed by senior hospital doctors, including consultants, and pre-planned work was largely postponed. But the BMA said hospital leaders have been told to continue with scheduled non-urgent care during the forthcoming dispute. In a letter to the NHS chief executive, Sir Jim Mackey, the BMA council chair, Dr Tom Dolphin, and the deputy council chair, Dr Emma Runswick, said: 'Your decision to instruct hospitals to run non-urgent planned care stretches safe staffing far too thinly, and risks not only patient safety in urgent and emergency situations, but in planned care, too. 'Consultants cannot safely provide elective care and cover for residents at the same time. We therefore strongly urge you to reconsider your instructions to hospitals, which should be preparing now to postpone non-urgent planned activity in order to provide a safe urgent and emergency service in keeping with the levels of staff available.' The last round of strikes, which included walkouts by other health workers, came at an estimated cost of £1.5bn to the NHS in England, with 1.5m appointments, procedures and operations postponed as a result of the stoppages. During previous strikes, a 'derogation' process was in operation whereby hospitals could request striking doctors return to work if there was a risk to patient safety. The BMA said it was 'committed' to the process but not to facilitating non-urgent work. Prof Meghana Pandit, NHS England's co-national medical director for secondary care, said: 'The safest thing for patients is for the NHS to maintain as much urgent and planned care as possible during strikes, and we would encourage the BMA to work with us constructively to achieve this in the event industrial action goes ahead.' The previous strikes ended last September when resident doctor members voted to accept a government pay deal worth 22.3% on average over two years. Under the 2025-26 pay deal, resident doctors were given a 4% increase plus £750 'on a consolidated basis', which worked out as an average rise of 5.4%. Government officials said these two increases equated to a 28.9% pay BMA said resident doctors needed a 29.2% increase to reverse pay erosion since 2008-09.
Daily Mail
2 days ago
- Health
- Daily Mail
There was no risk… Peggie would not have treated trans patients differently, boss tells tribunal
A hospital manager said she had no concerns for the safety of patients being treated by Sandie Peggie and details of the row which led to her being suspended was just 'she said/she said' hearsay. Sandie Peggie, 51, is suing NHS Fife and Dr Beth Upton after being made to change next to the born-male medic at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy. She was suspended after confronting the 30-year-old resident doctor in the female-only changing room. Yesterday service manager Lottie Myles told the landmark employment tribunal brought by the veteran nurse that the dispute was a 'she said/she said' situation where there was 'nobody who could provide evidence'. And the witness, who started work at NHS Fife just six months before the changing room incident, said there were no patient safety concerns and that Ms Peggie would not have treated trans patients differently to any others. The tribunal in Dundee entered its second week of the latest string of hearings yesterday. Just days after the changing room incident Mrs Peggie was suspended. Ms Myles reviewed the suspension later in 2024. The tribunal heard claims that Mrs Peggie was 'homophobic and there were elements of racism in her beliefs' but Ms Myles dismissed them as 'hearsay' and claims which 'haven't been documented or there's little evidence of'. The Accident and Emergency nurse had told the manager she would not treat a transgender patient any differently to anybody else, the tribunal heard. Ms Myles said: '[Mrs Peggie] has been a nurse for 30 years, I'm sure in that time she has dealt with transgender patients. 'I felt confident and reassured there were no patient safety concerns.' When patient safety concerns were raised, the tribunal heard, 'nobody could confirm' them and Ms Myles branded them 'hearsay'. Ms Myles, who made the decision to lift the suspension on March 7, told the tribunal two senior consultants and two senior nurses 'weren't happy' at the decision. But those expressing their concern were not able to give an 'accurate response' regarding the alleged patient safety concerns. The tribunal was told that Dr Kate Searle had 'expressed unhappiness' at bringing Mrs Peggie back to work. It was told: '[Dr Searle] made a comment saying there had been patient safety issues, there had been other behaviours towards a doctor. 'I asked if this had been investigated and reported appropriately, and she said no. 'I said that if these events had happened and they had not been reported, you were culpable.' Ms Myles had been asked to help oversee Mrs Peggie's return to work and had proposed she work in a different hospital. But this was rejected by the nurse. It was eventually agreed to put the pair on opposite shifts in what was described as a 'compromise'. On Friday NHS Fife published a statement online which critics have said was an attempt to 'smear' the veteran nurse and the charity supporting her. Yesterday Mrs Peggie's legal team said they have now asked the embattled health board to confirm the names of those who signed off on the statement. MSP Tess White, of the Scottish Conservatives, said: 'Senior officials should come clean over who authorised the outrageous statement issued last Friday, so that those responsible are made to carry the can.' The tribunal continues.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Major HRT supplier sanctioned after whistleblowers raise concerns over patient safety
A major UK supplier of menopause drug HRT has been sanctioned after whistleblowers claimed patients were being put at risk, it has emerged. A group of employees from Theramex, which supplies HRT treatments to millions of patients in the UK, wrote a letter to the pharmaceutical regulator Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry over allegations the company was not following regulatory standards and may 'jeopardise' patient safety. The whistleblowers claimed some products featured inaccurate prescribing information and failed to highlight common side effects. They claimed they had been forced to contact the regulator after their attempts to raise issues internally were brushed off. The company has now admitted it breached regulatory codes, amounting to 'bringing discredit upon, and reducing confidence in the pharmaceutical industry', according to an interim case report from the ABPI. It also failed to maintain high standards and provide accurate and up-to-date prescribing information, the report said. Theramex is a global pharmaceutical company specialising in women's health products, such as hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and fertility treatments. Theramex UK is its London-based arm. It supplies common HRT therapies including Evorel, Bijuve and Intrarosa. From April to June 2025, there were 760,000 prescriptions of Evorel and 2,748 prescriptions of Bijuve, according to data from the NHS Business Services Authority. In 2023-24, there were 2.8 million prescriptions of Evorel. One employee wrote the complaint on behalf of a group, according to the complaint published by the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority, which is part of the ABPI. The complaint, filed in October 2024, said: 'We are a group of employees from various cross-functional teams at Theramex, and we are writing to express our growing concerns regarding the company's adherence to regulatory standards and the accountability of its leadership. 'While we have attempted to escalate these issues internally on numerous occasions, there has been a consistent lack of action or meaningful response, which leaves us with no choice but to seek external guidance and support.' The complaint alleged that some of Theramex's products, such as Intrarosa and Evorel, had not had their prescribing information updated. In the case of Evorel, information for health professionals was 'incomplete' and did not include information on common side effects such as uterine spasms and vaginal infection, the letter claimed. For another drug, the letter alleged that prescribing information had not been updated for five years. The complaint warned: 'This oversight can lead to healthcare professionals (HCPs) not being fully informed of potential risks, which could jeopardise patient safety.' The PMCPA panel found Theramix's 'failure to provide accurate and complete prescribing information was unacceptable'. The employees also alleged the company failed to comply with regulators for clinical trial compliance warning. 'The lack of resources within Theramex's global headquarters to ensure compliance with these standards is alarming,' it said. Finally, the letter alleged the company has a 'blame culture' that was 'deeply concerning.' In response to the complaint, Theramex UK said it took its obligations under the ABPI code of practice 'very seriously' and launched an internal investigation. It said that, although it had a process to update prescribing information, this was not sufficiently robust to ensure prescribing information was immediately updated. The pharma company acknowledged it did not meet standards concerning this allegation and admitted that, at the time of the complaint, it did not have a process in place for clinical studies. The employees' letter claimed it had tried to escalate matters to senior leaders within Theramex. The company claimed it was not aware of any of the matters having been escalated internally prior to them being reported to the regulator. As part of the sanction, Theramex must provide written confirmation that it will cease practices that breach codes, pay a charge and advertise details of the case. Theramex UK said it 'absolutely acknowledges' the recent ruling and 'respects the [regulator's] decision'. 'Of course, we remain fully committed to ensuring our practices align with the highest ethical standards and necessary steps and corrective measures have been taken,' it said.
The Independent
2 days ago
- Health
- The Independent
Major HRT supplier sanctioned after whistleblowers raise concerns over patient safety
A major UK supplier of menopause drug HRT has been sanctioned after whistleblowers claimed patients were being put at risk, it has emerged. A group of employees from Theramex, which supplies HRT treatments to millions of patients in the UK, wrote a letter to the pharmaceutical regulator Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry over allegations the company was not following regulatory standards and may 'jeopardise' patient safety. The whistleblowers claimed some products featured inaccurate prescribing information and failed to highlight common side effects. They claimed they had been forced to contact the regulator after their attempts to raise issues internally were brushed off. The company has now admitted it breached regulatory codes, amounting to 'bringing discredit upon, and reducing confidence in the pharmaceutical industry', according to an interim case report from the ABPI. It also failed to maintain high standards and provide accurate and up-to-date prescribing information, the report said. Theramex is a global pharmaceutical company specialising in women's health products, such as hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and fertility treatments. Theramex UK is its London-based arm. It supplies common HRT therapies including Evorel, Bijuve and Intrarosa. From April to June 2025, there were 760,000 prescriptions of Evorel and 2,748 prescriptions of Bijuve, according to data from the NHS Business Services Authority. In 2023-24, there were 2.8 million prescriptions of Evorel. One employee wrote the complaint on behalf of a group, according to the complaint published by the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority, which is part of the ABPI. The complaint, filed in October 2024, said: 'We are a group of employees from various cross-functional teams at Theramex, and we are writing to express our growing concerns regarding the company's adherence to regulatory standards and the accountability of its leadership. 'While we have attempted to escalate these issues internally on numerous occasions, there has been a consistent lack of action or meaningful response, which leaves us with no choice but to seek external guidance and support.' The complaint alleged that some of Theramex's products, such as Intrarosa and Evorel, had not had their prescribing information updated. In the case of Evorel, information for health professionals was 'incomplete' and did not include information on common side effects such as uterine spasms and vaginal infection, the letter claimed. For another drug, the letter alleged that prescribing information had not been updated for five years. The complaint warned: 'This oversight can lead to healthcare professionals (HCPs) not being fully informed of potential risks, which could jeopardise patient safety.' The PMCPA panel found Theramix's 'failure to provide accurate and complete prescribing information was unacceptable'. The employees also alleged the company failed to comply with regulators for clinical trial compliance warning. 'The lack of resources within Theramex's global headquarters to ensure compliance with these standards is alarming,' it said. Finally, the letter alleged the company has a 'blame culture' that was 'deeply concerning.' In response to the complaint, Theramex UK said it took its obligations under the ABPI code of practice 'very seriously' and launched an internal investigation. It said that, although it had a process to update prescribing information, this was not sufficiently robust to ensure prescribing information was immediately updated. The pharma company acknowledged it did not meet standards concerning this allegation and admitted that, at the time of the complaint, it did not have a process in place for clinical studies. The employees' letter claimed it had tried to escalate matters to senior leaders within Theramex. The company claimed it was not aware of any of the matters having been escalated internally prior to them being reported to the regulator. As part of the sanction, Theramex must provide written confirmation that it will cease practices that breach codes, pay a charge and advertise details of the case. Theramex UK said it 'absolutely acknowledges' the recent ruling and 'respects the [regulator's] decision'. 'Of course, we remain fully committed to ensuring our practices align with the highest ethical standards and necessary steps and corrective measures have been taken,' it said.
