IT’S been a year since health care reform was signed into law, and since then both Republicans and Democrats have been trying to address one item it left out: medical malpractice reform. In last month’s budget proposal, the Obama administration offered a solution: a plan to encourage evidence-based medicine by limiting the malpractice liability of doctors who follow clinical practice guidelines — in effect, granting them immunity.

Doctors love this proposal, and patients should too: When doctors follow good guidelines they are less likely to order too many or too few tests or to prescribe the wrong treatment.

Unfortunately, the proposal will not achieve the noble goal of providing quality care at a reasonable cost because the current guidelines, written by nonprofit medical groups and for-profit insurance companies, are not good enough.

First, they often conflict with one another. Recommendations for when and how frequently to give women mammograms, for instance, notoriously vary depending on which group is giving them.

In addition, there are conflicts of interest. Guidelines produced by insurance companies sometimes put their interests first. Malpractice insurers, for example, may recommend yearly mammograms, even if they are not necessary, because they bear the costs of lawsuits for late diagnoses of breast cancer — and not the costs or health risks of the extra mammograms. Moreover, the nonprofit groups behind many other guidelines have traditionally depended on pharmaceutical and medical device companies to finance their work. Last year, the Council of Medical Specialty Societies issued a new code of conduct seeking to stop these industries from sponsoring the development of guidelines, but there are still too many loopholes, and thousands of guidelines produced before the reform are still in circulation.

Most troubling of all is that the groups behind the guidelines bear no liability for producing bad ones. No matter how poor the care they prescribe, it is the doctors who depend on them who are punished.

Mr. Obama’s proposal to limit the liability of doctors who follow these flawed guidelines (included in a $250-million plan for overhauling states’ malpractice systems) is clearly not the way to better care. Immunity is a good idea. It’s just that we need to create the incentives necessary for the production of optimal guidelines first.

This is no secret — last week the Institute of Medicine put out a report listing new standards for promulgating guidelines. I was a consultant on the report, which goes a long way toward improving the system, but I worry about the extent to which these standards will be followed. I have a different proposal for improving the guidelines:

Instead of nonprofit groups producing free guidelines, or insurance companies producing ones that serve their own interests, the government should require health care providers to buy or license guidelines from what I call private regulators, for-profit companies with expertise in evidence-based medicine. Doctors would have immunity from malpractice cases if they followed the guidelines. However, the private regulators themselves would be liable if their guidelines were found to deviate from optimal care.

The profit-seeking forces of the market on the one hand and legal accountability on the other would help private regulators strike the right balance between patient safety and cost of care. Private regulators would discourage the overuse of expensive medical procedures because doctors, under pressure from insurance companies to keep costs low, would be unlikely to invest in guidelines recommending unnecessary procedures. But if the guideline-makers failed to recommend an appropriate procedure, they’d be held responsible for the patient’s health.

Just as they can now, doctors could deviate from the guidelines when required. Their discretion and autonomy would be preserved. But in most cases, when guidelines apply, doctors could follow them without having to worry about being held liable, and more important, about getting bad advice.

Such a system may not be too far off: medicine is already moving toward for-profit guidelines. UpToDate, First Consult and eMedicine are just a few new databases compiled by for-profit companies in the business of making technical, evidence-based medicine more accessible to doctors. This is certainly exciting, but to provide doctors with the peace of mind they deserve, these companies need to be held accountable for the advice they give.

Almost every other product Americans encounter is subject to laws that guarantee that the producer suffers when its product is subpar. There’s no reason medical guidelines should be any different. With the proper incentives, these private regulators could help President Obama carry out the health care reform he signed into law a year ago.

Ronen Avraham is a professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/opinion/29Avraham.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

• Next two decades there see 70,000 avoidable deaths from liver disease
• Another 140,000 from drink-related strokes, heart attacks, cancer, violence, suicides and accidents
• Figures show alcohol-related injuries and illness cost the NHS £2.7 billion a year

By
Sophie Borland

Last updated at 7:58 AM on 20th February 2012

Alcohol will cause 210,000 deaths during the next 20 years through illness, violence and accidents, senior doctors warn.

Two of Britain’s foremost alcohol specialists, Professor Ian Gilmore and Dr Nick Sheron, are calling on the Government to act quickly to avert this ‘shameful, preventable loss of life’ by outlawing cheap alcohol.

They have calculated that in the next two decades there will be 70,000 avoidable deaths from liver disease and another 140,000 from drink-related strokes, heart attacks, cancer, violence, suicides and accidents.

Health cost: Senior doctors want to see the outlawing of cheap alcohol, which can be sold for less than water in some supermarkets

Ministers had hoped that introducing 24-hour drinking laws in 2005 would stop revellers binge-drinking in the run-up to closing time.

But police say that round-the-clock opening, in combination with supermarkets selling some alcohol cheaper than water, has left town centres resembling the Wild West.

Health Service figures show there were 1.2 million hospital admissions related to alcohol last year, which has doubled in just eight years.

In a BBC Panorama programme on Monday, liver specialist Dr Sheron says that liver disease is now the only major cause of death continuing to rise.

He adds: ‘We have adopted the Mediterranean drinking pattern, so people will frequently drink with meals, but we haven’t lost our “feast” drinking pattern, so everyone likes to go out and get caned on a Friday night as well.’

Warning: Regular drinking could be seriously detrimental to your health, according to experts. (File picture)

He also reveals that half the people
he treats for cirrhosis of the liver are female, reflecting a rise in
alcoholism and binge-drinking among women.

The
stark warning that cheap alcohol needs to be banned comes days after
the Prime Minister promised to ‘stamp out’ binge drinking by bringing in
a minimum price for alcohol.

David
Cameron said he wanted to follow Scotland’s proposal to make
supermarkets and pubs charge a minimum of 45p per unit of alcohol.

Writing in the Lancet medical journal, Prof Gilmore, chairman of the UK

Battle: Former Number 10 spin doctor Alastair Campbell talks about his combating years of heavy drinking

Alcohol Health Alliance, a group of
health campaigners and medical bodies which aims to tackle alcohol
misuse, said: ‘We are at a potential tipping point in the UK in taking
on the shameful, preventable loss of life caused by alcohol.

‘The peak age for
alcohol-related deaths is in people aged 45-65, and alcohol is a factor
in 26 per cent of deaths in men aged 16-24 years.’

Figures show that alcohol-related injuries and illness cost the NHS £2.7 billion a year. On top of this, a recent Government report estimated that alcohol costs society between £17 billion and £22billion annually as a result of crime, sickness absence, and unemployment.

In the Panorama edition, Alastair Campbell, Labour’s former communications director, talks of his own years of excessive drinking, but also questions whether the relaxation of licensing hours in 2005 contributed to the problem.

He said: ‘I never bought the argument that Britain would suddenly become a continental-style drinking nation.

‘We have always had this tendency to drink to excess.’

Panorama: Britain’s Hidden Alcoholics, is on BBC1 Monday at 8.30pm.
 

Share this article:

Article source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2103464/Drinking-kill-210-000-20-years-unless-outlaw-cheap-booze-senior-doctors-warn.html?ITO=1490

The drug laws are counter-productive, and David Cameron knows it

Let’s play a game of make-believe. Pretend you’re a Home Office minister. One of your European neighbours employs a radical public health policy and, 10 years later, has seen huge improvements in the measurements of all the relevant health outcomes. The evidence for the efficacy of that health policy is widespread; the British Medical Journal and World Health Organisation have both issued major pieces of research, along with one of the leading journals in the field, which say that in general the policy has positive effects. Further, the proposed policy is significantly cheaper than the existing one, and has the added bonus of giving more responsibility and freedom to individual citizens. What do you do?

Well, obviously, if the policy is the decriminalisation of drug use, then you reject it out of hand.

The AFP reported, back in last July, that Portugal has reported a 50 per cent drop in “problem” drug users in the decade since they decriminalised all drugs. Dr Joao Goulao, the president of the country’s Institute of Drugs and Drug Addiction, says that “There is no doubt that the phenomenon of addiction is in decline in Portugal,” although he is quick to point out that other factors, including “treatment and risk reduction policies”, have played their part as well as legalisation. Of course, as the AFP story notes, those treatment and risk policies are part of Portugal’s health-based approach to drug use, and taken together the policies have led to a “spectacular” drop in infections like HIV and hepatitis among intravenous drug users, and a significant drop in crime. And a report by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction praised the Portuguese approach, saying it, unlike other drug policies, is or at least attempts to be “internally consistent…  pragmatic and innovative… transparent, coherent and well-structured”, and saying that its success in reducing use is a blow to the theory that “decriminalisation, or a less punitive approach, leads to increased use” of drugs.

I write a close variant of this piece about once every three months. Some new piece of research is published suggesting that drug prohibition laws do more harm than good, or some high-profile former politician or policeman or lawyer comes out saying that police resources are being wasted on an unwinnable war, or yet another triumphant statistic gets trumpeted out of Portugal. I’ve written about a major BMJ piece, backed by the Transform Drugs Policy Foundation, which says “prohibition on production, supply, and use of certain drugs has not only failed to deliver its intended goals but has been counterproductive”; a WHO report saying “countries with stringent user-level illegal drug policies did not have lower levels of use than countries with liberal ones”, and a systematic review in the International Journal of Drug Policy last year which found that “increasing drug law enforcement is unlikely to reduce drug market violence. Instead, the existing evidence base suggests that gun violence and high homicide rates may be an inevitable consequence of drug prohibition and that disrupting drug markets can paradoxically increase violence.”

But every time, the Home Office deadbats with bland statement on the lines of: drugs are bad, mmmkay. This time it’s: “We have no intention of liberalising our drugs laws. Drugs are illegal because they are harmful – they destroy lives and cause untold misery to families and communities. Those caught in the cycle of dependency must be supported to live drug free lives, but giving people a green light to possess drugs through decriminalisation is clearly not the answer. Through the cross-government drug strategy, we are taking action through tough enforcement, both at home and abroad, alongside introducing a temporary control power and robust treatment programmes that lead people into drug free recovery.”

If you managed to read all the way through that, you’ll notice it says nothing whatsoever about the evidence, despite my specifically asking for a response to the BMJ, WHO and IJDP studies and the Portugal experience. The Home Office, and the Government, is deliberately ignoring the reality of the drug laws’ failure.

No one claims that decriminalisation, or rather a cleverly instituted, multi-layer regulation of drug policy as suggested by Transform, will be a magic bullet. But the evidence, at least all the evidence I’m aware of, suggests that it will improve matters, or at the very least not make them worse, if carried out intelligently. What’s more, David Cameron knows this, or at least he knew this in 2005, when as a contender for the Conservative Party leadership he called for “alternative ways – including the possibility of legalisation and regulation – to tackle the global drugs dilemma”. He said: “Politicians attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator by posturing with tough policies and calling for crackdown after crackdown. Drugs policy has been failing for decades.” Nick Clegg in 2002 also called for “decriminalising the use of certain substances” and “partially decriminalising the sale of cannabis”, and “legalis[ing] the use of drugs for purposes other than medical or scientific ones”, ie recreational use.

But, as we’ve seen, once politicians get in power they get scared. Like their predecessors, this Government is a bunch of political cowards.

Article source: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100137480/david-cameron-knows-the-drug-laws-arent-working-his-failure-to-change-them-is-simple-cowardice/

By
Richard Shears and Julian Gavaghan

Last updated at 1:24 PM on 13th February 2012

• Marny Cringle couldn’t have leg fitted before because stump was too short
• Left leg amputated above the knee after falling under an Underground train

A woman who lost a leg when she fell under a London underground train is to receive a bionic limb  in a remarkable world-first operation after successfully growing bone.

Marny Cringle 42, of New South Wales, Australia, lost her left leg in the accident in 1996 but because the remaining stump was too short she could not be fitted with a prosthetic one.

She faced the rest of her life on crutches or in a wheelchair – until doctors carried out a special treatment that lengthened the bone in her leg by two inches.

Help: Marny Cringle, 42, poses on crutches – but in a few months time she will have a bionic limb after doctors were able to grow as before the stump had been too short

The painful procedure works by attaching tiny screws and periodically adjusting them to encourage the bone to stretch and grow by just a fraction
of an inch at a time.

Now surgeons want to fit a bionic limb to her femur, allowing muscle and bone to grow around it.

The artificial limb will become an
extension of her body – the first time someone will have had a bone
stump lengthened and a bionic limb fitted to it.

BRIGHTER FUTURE FOR THOUSANDS

Until now, many of those who had their legs amputated above the knee could not be fitted with a prosthetic limb because the remaining bone stump was too short.

But thanks to Marny Cringle – who grew her femur two inches through a painful process of having screws fitted and then gradually adjusting them to lengthen the bone – thousands more amputees could now one day walk again.

When she undergoes an operation in April at Macquarie University Hospital (pictured above) in Sydney, Australia, the 42-year-old will be the first person in the world to have a bionic limb fitted after growing bone.

Recent advancements in bionic limbs mean Miss Cringle – and many others like her – could live a relatively normal life with almost complete mobility.

Bone and muscle will grow around the artificial leg, which is powered by batteries and can detect small changes in movement and direction using motion and speed sensors.

Also, Using hydraulics, valves close and lock the knee in place when standing upright.

And,
despite being fitted with hi-tech gadgets and lithium batteries, bionic
legs, which cost around £50,000, can weigh as little as 2.9lb.

Orthopaedic surgeon Dr Munjed Al Muderis, who will head the operation to fit the artificial limb, told Sydney’s Daily Telegraph that the procedure was ‘the future for amputee patients worldwide.’

Thanks to modern surgery and her agreement to put up with painful procedure, Miss Cringle hopes to have the bionic leg attached to her leg stump as soon as April – and then surgeons and scientists will monitor it as tissue grows around the top of it.

‘Just to be able to walk with two hands free is something I’m really looking forward to,’ she told the paper at her home in Bolwarra, north of Sydney.

‘And to be able to cuddle someone without having to have crutches hanging off me – it’s those minor things.’

A former Australian wheelchair tennis champion, Miss Cringle added: ‘I’ve beaten the odds with growing the bone as much as it has and so I know it is going to happen now. I’ve come too far for it not to.’

Miss Cringle was following her dream of overseas travel and working in London when she was hit by the train, her injuries so severe that she was not expected to live.

She had suffered severe head injuries, broken ribs and spinal discs and pierced lungs – in addition to losing her leg which was amputated above the knee when she was rushed to St Thomas’ Hospital, London.

An accomplished violin player, she said that music had helped her with her recovery.

In an interview with the Catholic newspaper Aurora five years ago, Miss Cringle said that people had often doubted her capabilities ‘but just because my circumstances have changed it doesn’t mean I have changed.’

She believed the reason she was still alive was to allow her to continue achieving.

‘There must be a good purpose to be here, something left for me to still do. I just haven’t found it yet.’

Now she and surgeons hope that she and her new limb will give hope to many others who have suffered similar injuries.

The new generation of bionic limbs are an enormous improvement on old prosthetic ones.

The combination of motion and speed sensors and advanced computing mean they can detect small changes in movement and direction.

Also, Using hydraulics, valves close and lock the knee in place when standing upright.

And despite being fitted with hi-tech gadgets and lithium batteries bionic legs, which cost around £50,000, can weigh as little as 2.9lb.

Share this article:

Article source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2100452/World-surgeons-grow-bone-TWO-INCHES-prepare-fit-bionic-leg-woman-lost-limb-1996-Tube-accident.html?ITO=1490

On issuing the advice, Professor Dame Sally Davies, Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific Advisor, said:

“It is important the NHS takes all the necessary precautions to minimise the risk of contamination with Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteria which can cause significant infections in very sick patients.

“The guidance we are issuing today reminds healthcare providers of the importance of high standards of infection control. It also provides them with helpful advice on best practice to prevent Pseudomonas aeruginosa in specialist care units, and gives clear and concise information on how to manage the risks.

“Health Departments across the UK have worked together to produce guidance, and we will continue to keep it under review.”

• Share:
• Tweet

Article source: http://www.dh.gov.uk/health/2012/02/pseudomonas-aeruginosa-bacteria/

• Health Service sets aside £15.7bn to deal with ‘no-win, no-fee’ claims
• Compensation claims cost NHS more as one third of money paid out goes straight to lawyers

By
Daniel Martin

Last updated at 12:08 AM on 7th February 2012

An avalanche of claims against doctors has left the Health Service with a £15.7billion bill.

The sum – one seventh of the annual NHS budget – has had to be set aside to pay compensation over future years to tens of thousands of victims of clinical negligence.

A report by MPs reveals that much of the bill is the result of blunders that have left babies brain-damaged.

The rise on the Health Service bill is being partly blamed on ‘no win no fee’ lawyers who encourage people to make claims as they don’t pay costs if they lose

Advances in medical science mean that these children live much longer, increasing their lifelong care bill.

But a substantial part of the rise is also being blamed on ‘no-win no-fee’ lawyers, who encourage patients to make negligence claims because they will not have to pay costs if they lose.

If the patients win, the NHS has to pay even more than normal because no-win no-fee lawyers charge more to defendants to cover their own bills in lost cases.

Around a third of all the money paid out by the NHS in compensation goes straight into the pockets of lawyers.

The £15.7billion figure, which dates from 2009/10, is 13 per cent up on the liability bill from the previous year.

Officials admit it could be an underestimate because, if more court cases than expected go against the NHS, the full cost could exceed £23billion.

The figure is contained in a report on the ‘Whole of Government Accounts’ by the public accounts committee. It also revealed the full cost of Labour’s PFI deals.

It shows that in 2009/10 – Labour’s last year in power – the NHS believed that clinical negligence claims would cost it £15.7billion over future years.

This is an actuarial calculation, based on the number of claims the NHS believes there is a very good chance of it not being able to defend, the severity of the claimed errors and how much a victim would be paid out for these mistakes.

The figure includes an estimate of the cost of mistakes that have not yet been claimed for.

Last year, more than 8,500 clinical negligence claims were received by the NHS – 30 per cent up on 2009/10. Around £1billion is actually paid  each year to victims of blunders. In the report, the Public Accounts Committee warns: ‘Claims for clinical negligence outstanding at 31 March 2010 could cost £15.7billion, or 15 per cent of the government’s total provision for future expenses arising from events that have happened in the past.

‘The Treasury … did not know that clinical claims recorded by the NHS Litigation Authority had increased by some 31 per cent in 2010/11 or what plans were in place to reduce liabilities for clinical negligence.’

Peter Walsh of Action Against Medical Accidents said: ‘One of the most unhelpful things that has happened in recent years is the increase in the more disreputable lawyers who get involved in no-win no-fee deals. This makes it all the more baffling that the Government wants to scrap legal aid for clinical negligence cases. This will encourage claims farmers and no-win no-fee, leaving the NHS to pick up the tabs. This bill will increase.’

Emma Boon of the TaxPayers’ Alliance said: ‘It is extremely worrying that clinical negligence is costing taxpayers billions – especially as no-win no-fee solicitors and a growing compensation culture are partly responsible.’

She added: ‘Health chiefs need to learn lessons from negligence cases and urgently address this issue. The cost to taxpayers is shockingly high.’ A source at the Ministry of Justice said there were concerns that lawyers may be artificially inflating the cost of claims.

A spokesman for the Department of Health said: ‘The vast majority of the millions of people treated by the NHS every year experience good quality, safe and effective care.

‘However, if patients do not receive the treatment they should, and mistakes are made, it is right that they are entitled to compensation and the NHS Litigation Authority plays a vital role in ensuring claims are settled as swiftly as possible.

‘The Government’s ambitious proposals for reforming the civil litigation system will support the NHS in dealing with costly litigation cases.

‘We want to strike the right balance between access to compensation claims and ensuring costs  are proportionate, sustainable  and affordable.’

Share this article:

Article source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2097448/15bn-lawyers-NHS-blunders-Avalanche-win-fee-claims-push-costs-13.html?ITO=1490

By
Matthew Barbour

Last updated at 1:30 AM on 7th February 2012

Scientists at Oxford University have found that storing fat in your bottom, rather than stomach, cuts levels of ‘bad’ LDL cholesterol and raises the ‘good’ HDL cholesterol that protects against hardening of the arteries.

Their review, published in the International Journal of Obesity, showed the benefits of an ample derriere extend even to cutting the risk of diabetes.

Gluteofemoral fat stored around the bottom seems to act as a buffer, mopping up inflammatory fats that could have a dangerous effect elsewhere

Professor Jimmy Bell, head of metabolic and molecular imaging at Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust, explains: ‘Fat comes in “good” and “bad” forms.

Burning off too much of this healthier form of fat isn’t good for you

‘Gluteofemoral fat stored around the bottom seems to act as a buffer, mopping up inflammatory fats that could have a dangerous effect elsewhere.

‘Because fat around your backside breaks down more slowly than belly fat, it produces fewer inflammatory cytokines — chemicals which have been linked to diabetes, heart disease and obesity.

‘Burning off too much of this healthier form of fat isn’t good for you.’

However, excess fat around the middle can have severe health implications, so getting rid of it  is important.

Share this article:

Article source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2097375/Why-love--BIG-BOTTOM-The-physical-flaws-good-health.html?ITO=1490

• He has true Yorkshire determination, says granddaughter
• Family plan to contact Guinness Book of Records

By
Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 3:52 PM on 2nd February 2012

A centenarian who has just had his left hip replaced is believed to be the oldest person in the world to have surgery.

John Lawrence Randall – known as Laurie – is the grand age of 102. He first had his left hip replaced in 1989.

The determined pensioner wanted to have the two-hour operation so he could continue his passion for gardening.

Standing tall: Laurie Randall with his granddaughter Gillian Coates. She said he was very determined

His granddaughter Gillian Coates, said: ‘Even at 101 he was still digging up his garden and he decided on the hip replacement so he could continue with that.

‘It will be a struggle for him to do
the gardening but he still says the operation was worth the risk because
at least he can stand up and walk around which he enjoys. He was never
very good at sitting still.’

His feat could earn him a place in the Guinness Book of World Records, as the current record holder is Lily Wauters, who was 101 years and 196 days old when she had her right hip replaced in 2007.

Ms Coates, said that Laurie, of Pontefract, West Yorkshire had also had his right hip replaced in 2006 and had ‘true Yorkshire determination’.

‘The operation was a fantastic success and we are very proud of him,’ said Gillian.

‘He has always said: “I tell my legs what to do, they don’t tell me”. He wants to live until he is 105, but he said he didn’t want to do it if he was going to be in a wheelchair.’

Success: Laurie is keen to get back to his garden

Laurie, who has since moved to Durham to be closer to his family, has just had his final post-operation check up at Pinderfields Hospital in Wakefield, West Yorks.

Ms Coates added that the record-breaking op was made even more dangerous as the hip Laurie was having replaced was artificial.

Gillian said: ‘Doctors told him that removing an artificial hip was much more complex than removing a natural hip as the full structure needs to come out.

‘He was still undetered despite having the risks spelled out to him. He said he was talking with the surgeons throughout the process.

‘He always says you should just try things and have a go. It was that attitude that spurred him on to risk his life and have the surgery.

‘We didn’t try to talk him out of it as there would have been no point. Once he has set his mind to something that’s it.’

Share this article:

Article source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2095452/John-Lawrence-Randall-102-year-old-man-worlds-oldest-person-surgery.html?ITO=1490

By
Matthew Barbour

Last updated at 2:53 AM on 31st January 2012

While having lots of moles can put you at up to ten times higher risk of developing skin cancer, oddly, it could also mean you’ll live longer.

Scientists at King’s College London studied more than 900 sets of twins and found those with 100 or more moles lived on average six years longer than those with 25 or fewer.

It is thought this was down to their telomeres, which sit on the ends of strands of DNA like the plastic ends on shoelaces and protect your DNA from wear and tear.

Marilyn Monroe and her mole: Having lots of moles suggests you have long telomeres, which protect your DNA from wear and tear

Telomeres shorten with time, and their length seems to indicate the speed at which our body will age.

The study found people with more than 100 moles tended to have longer telomeres.

They concluded that telomeres allow the pigmented cells that form moles to keep dividing for longer — so having lots of moles suggests you have long telomeres.

Dr Veronique Bataille, consultant dermatologist at Hemel Hempstead General Hospital, says: ‘Moley people may have the benefit of a reduced rate of ageing, and this suggests they are less likely to develop age-related diseases.’

Share this article:

Article source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2094149/Why-love--moles-The-physical-flaws-GOOD-health.html?ITO=1490

The Met Office has confirmed that all regions of England are now experiencing severe cold weather, defined as Level 3 alert. The Met Office website’s ‘Winter Weather Warning Service’ page provides further details.

Low temperatures can be dangerous, especially for the very young or very old or those with chronic disease. Advice on how to reduce the risk either for yourself or for somebody you know is available from NHS Choices, the Department of Health – Cold Weather plan for England, or NHS Direct on 0845 4647, or from your local GP or pharmacist.

For health and social care providers, the purpose of this message is to draw your attention to the advice set out in the Public Health Cold Weather Plan.

Specific advice on steps that may be followed by health care professionals and the managers and staff of residential and nursing homes in the event of severe cold weather is available from the Department of Health – Cold Weather plan for England.

• Share:
• Tweet

Article source: http://www.dh.gov.uk/health/2012/01/cold-weather-plan-level-3-alert/