Major UK project to tackle AMR closed by aid cuts
The £265 million programme – named after Alexander Fleming the British scientist who discovered penicillin – was established in 2015 in response to a landmark UK study which found resistant infections would kill 10 million people every globally year by 2050.
The fund was designed to tackle drug resistance at its source and support experts in hundreds of laboratories in developing countries that face the greatest threat from AMR.
Termed the 'silent pandemic', AMR is directly responsible for 1.27 million deaths every year as bacteria, viruses, and other pathogens evolve to evade modern medicine.
But it's not just a problem for the developing world – in England alone, 66,730 suffered from 'serious antibiotic resistant infections' in 2023.
There are an estimated 30,000 deaths in the UK every year and, for many others, it changes their lives.
Experts have repeatedly stressed that AMR does not respect borders – and often emerge in countries with less regulation surrounding antibiotic use both to treat illness and in agriculture.
'We are having to make choices that we don't want to have to make,' Baroness Chapman, the Minister of International Development, told the International Development Committee at an evidence session in parliament today.
Baroness Chapman, who became Minister after her predecessor Anneliese Dodds resigned, has become the chief hatchet woman for the aid budget.
Last month, she announced a 40 per cent cut in real terms of the UK's contribution to Gavi, the vaccine alliance which funds immunisations for half the world's children.
'We've had to make some really tough choices. But we've decided as a government that we want to invest in defence, because that's the world we are in,' she told The Telegraph at the time.
Ashley Dalton, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health and Prevention in the Department of Health and Social Care, said that although the funding for the Fleming Fund has ceased, the government will continue with its 'partnerships' forged under the programme.
It is currently unclear what this means.
The Telegraph has contacted the Department of Health and Social Care, who funds the Fleming Fund, for clarification.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
30 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Plane passenger's life-saving allergy request sparks outrage as he's labelled 'selfish'
As someone with a severe nut allergy, Dan Kelly always has to be cautious when he's flying. In a video, posted to his TikTok account @_maycontain, Dan can be seen onboard an easyJet flight, asking the cabin crew whether it's okay to make an announcement to the whole plane to warn them the flight should be nut-free for his safety. In the clip, the flight attendant can be seen asking Dan whether he has an EpiPen - which he confirms he does - and where he's sat. Dan captioned the video: 'I love it when flight attendants understand straight away. 'Surely people can go without nuts for a few hours if it could save someone's life! 'Honestly, I don't understand why some people still don't take food allergies seriously. 'If it were you or your child living with a life-threatening allergy, you'd hope others would show a bit more empathy and recognise just how serious it really is!' But, while most people were very sympathetic towards Dan, he revealed the video 'caused quite a stir' and he received some very negative comments from 'a few small-minded people who seem to have nothing better to do than try to provoke a reaction'. View this post on Instagram A post shared by May Contain | Allergy Blog and Podcast 🎙️ (@_maycontain) One of the cruel comments was: 'I would make all people with allergies sit in a toilet the whole flight. So annoying as I love peanuts with my Gin and tonic.' Another added: 'One person shouldn't dictate what a plane load of people can and cannot eat.' A third nutty passenger agreed: 'I'd be the first to open up a packet of peanut m&ms. Just because I can!' And another troll wrote: 'I always eat Snickers on planes. Nobody tells me not to eat.' But Dan took these negative comments in his stride and said: 'I think it really highlights just how much misunderstanding still exists around allergies even if it's just a small group of people, the lack of seriousness in society is still very real.'
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
Six patient deaths linked to use of ‘substitute' doctors by NHS
Six patient deaths have been linked to the NHS introducing physician associates as a 'substitute' for fully trained doctors, a government-commissioned review has found. Professor Gillian Leng, the president of the Royal Society of Medicine, was asked by Wes Streeting, the health secretary, to examine the role of physician associates (PAs), a group of 3,500 NHS staff who assist doctors but do not have a medical degree. Leng's 134-page report concluded there had been cases where PAs had been used as a substitute for doctors in the NHS, which was 'clearly risky and confusing for patients'. She said that, in future, PAs should be renamed physician 'assistants' and wear lanyards, badges and uniforms that make it clear to patients that they are not trained doctors.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
NHS physician associates should not diagnose untriaged patients, review finds
NHS physician associates should be banned from diagnosing patients who have not already been seen by a doctor, a government review has concluded. The review calls for the government to overhaul the role of physician associates (PAs), who it says have been substituted in for doctors to fill staffing gaps despite having significantly less training. The health secretary, Wes Streeting, ordered the review of the more than 3,500 PAs and 100 anaesthesia associates (AAs) working in the NHS after six high-profile deaths of patients who were misdiagnosed by PAs. Prof Gillian Leng, the president of the Royal Society of Medicine, spoke to more than 1,000 people for the review and concluded there were 'no convincing reasons to abolish the roles of AA or PA' but there was also no case 'for continuing with the roles unchanged'. She wrote in the report: 'Despite the significantly shorter training, PAs and to a lesser extent AAs have sometimes been used to fill roles designed for doctors. The rationale for doing this is unclear, and was probably one of pragmatism and practicality, relying on medical staff to provide the additional expertise when required. 'This lack of planning may have been responsible for driving the resentment felt by some resident [doctors] and potentially exposed patients to unnecessary risk.' One of her main recommendations is that PAs should not see 'undifferentiated or untriaged patients', meaning those who have not yet been diagnosed by a doctor. Leng recommended further work to establish which patients they should be able to see and to set clinical protocols that would enable PAs to diagnose patients with mild ailments. 'Let's be clear, [the role of PAs] is working well in some places, but there indeed has been some substitution and any substitution is clearly risky and confusing for patients,' she said. Leng recommended PAs should be renamed 'physician assistants' and AAs 'physician assistants in anaesthesia' to ensure that patients and their families are clear on whether they have been seen by a doctor. She observed that this confusion was the core concern voiced by the bereaved families she had spoken to, who believed it was a contributing factor in their loved ones' death. She noted in her report that despite the role's rapid expansion since it was introduced in the early 2000s, there was limited data and evidence on whether PAs were safe or unsafe. Most concerns related to PAs being the first clinician to see patients unsupervised. 'Making the wrong initial diagnosis and putting patients on an inappropriate pathway can be catastrophic,' she said. The report found that 'relatively few doctors felt it was appropriate for PAs to diagnose illness' and it identified disparities between the tasks PAs considered right for them to carry out and what doctors thought. Leng recommended that newly qualified PAs work in hospitals for two years before they are allowed to work in GP surgeries or mental health trusts, enabling them to start their careers where there are more training opportunities and supervision. She also recommended more leadership training for doctors, who shared concerns about the lack of preparation for supervision duties, and better career development for PAs and AAs. She suggested a named doctor supervise each PA, while uniforms, lanyards, badges and staff information should be standardised to 'distinguish physician assistants from doctors'. Dr Tom Dolphin, the chair of the British Medical Association, said the report 'laid bare the catastrophic failures in NHS leadership that have put patients at serious risk of harm', but he argued the recommendations did not go far enough on national patient safety standards. 'Prof Leng has succeeded in exposing how NHS England introduced these roles and encouraged their expansion without any robust evidence of their safety,' he said. 'The report reveals inadequate national leadership, no accountability and no attempt to listen to the concerns raised by doctors, patients and coroners. 'The blurring of lines between doctors and non-doctors, aided and abetted by the GMC [General Medical Council], has been an unfolding disaster for all to see, and many doctors today will be relieved to see that they were right to raise the alarm,' Dolphin said. Dr Naru Narayanan, the president of the hospital doctors' union, the HSCA, said: 'Safety concerns will continue until a properly defined national scope is established. The review acknowledges this by calling for standardised job descriptions and clinical protocols. This work needs to be fast-tracked. 'Given how poorly these roles have been defined, and the fact physician assistants earn more after a couple of years of clinical training than resident doctors do after nearly a decade in medicine, it's not surprising there's been tension. We've got a shortage of medical training places and a limited supply of trainers. Additional support and time for senior doctors, as recommended by Prof Leng, are essential.'
