Nearly half of hospital toilet users skip handwashing, study says
The study noted that handwashing figures were especially down at the start and end of each day, including typical mealtimes.Prof Benjamin Gardner, from the University of Surrey, said: "Strategies that raise awareness at the crucial point in a bathroom visit and easily understood messaging about how to wash effectively – like singing Happy Birthday twice over – can help people form handwashing habits that last."Guidance from NHS England says handwashing is one of the easiest ways of preventing food poisoning and other illnesses, such as the flu, especially in hospital settings."These findings are worrying but not surprising," Prof Carrie Newlands from the University of Surrey said.Prof Newlands wants visual reinforcements, such as posters and hand-gel stations, to be replaced by "more effective behavioural strategies".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
9 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Britain must stop subsidising pensioners to save the NHS
The Government recently produced a paper on the NHS entitled 'Fit for the Future – The 10 Year Health Plan for England'. It included many radical ideas and didn't pull its punches in regard to the need for reform. It said: 'The choice is stark: reform or die'. And, if nothing is done, it said, the NHS could become 'a poor service for poor people'. Despite its radical tone and many good ideas, this report did not go far enough. In particular, it accepted the continuation of the current system of funding whereby just about the whole cost of the Service is borne by the taxpayer. In a report published last week by Policy Exchange entitled 'The NHS – a Suitable Case for Treatment?', I and two co-authors went much further and called for an end to the system of predominantly taxpayer funding which has been the model since the NHS was founded in 1948. In the mid-1950s the government spent about 3pc of its GDP on healthcare. Today the figure is 9pc (excluding the private sector), amounting to almost a fifth of all government spending. If nothing is done, by 2070 we could end up spending more than a fifth of our GDP on the NHS. This is unacceptable. If we allowed this to happen, other sorts of public spending would have to be squeezed and/or taxes would have to be raised to eye-watering levels. This would have a devastating effect on incentives and therefore a materially depressing effect on the economy. The funding system is the first of the NHS's major problems. The second is inadequate quality. Many British people think that the NHS delivers a first-class service. Yet, it is clear that the NHS offers neither the best nor the worst healthcare in the world. Admittedly, at its best, it is superb, but the standard is hit and miss, and at its worst, it is pretty bad. Among a group of countries of comparable economic development (Australia, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Singapore, Switzerland and the US), on both life expectancy and healthy life expectancy the UK comes in second to last. Only the US scores worse. On preventable and treatable mortality, the UK again comes in second to last, ahead of only the US. On the proportion of patients waiting over a year to see a specialist, the UK is the highest in the group. We also perform badly on the ease of securing an appointment with a GP and access to GPs out of hours. What is to be done? Whenever someone criticises the NHS and suggests that we need to move to a different model, a chorus of voices loudly proclaims that we must not become like America. Indeed not. The US health system pulls off a remarkable double whammy. Although some of the best healthcare in the world is to be found in the United States, average health outcomes for the population as a whole are simply dire. Meanwhile, the system is about the most expensive in the world. However bad the NHS may seem, it is infinitely preferable to the American system. Under no circumstances should we consider copying the US. But we don't have to. There are many countries in the world which operate a different system for funding healthcare and enjoy better average health outcomes than the UK. The essence of their approach is to combine charging and co-payments with a system of social insurance. That is to say, compulsory purchasing of medical insurance, covering everyone in the population, with concessionary rates or even full reimbursement available for poor people. The state remains involved as both a partial funder, co-ordinator and regulator of the system. But governments spend much less on healthcare in these countries than we do, and thereby place a much smaller burden on their taxpayers. Countries that run such a system include Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Singapore and Switzerland. The most outstandingly successful of these is Singapore. It spends only about 5pc of its GDP on healthcare and of that, not much more than a half comes from government. Meanwhile, Singapore achieves just about the best health outcomes in our comparator group. Yet Singapore is a very special case, with a particular political and social model. For an example that would serve the UK well, we should probably look closer to home. The obvious place to look is the Netherlands, not least because it underwent a radical reform of its health system in 2006. It delivers high standards of healthcare yet the government spends only 1pc of GDP on health. Some people will argue that we already have a system of insurance to pay for healthcare, namely National Insurance. Despite its name, however, this is not really a system of insurance. It is rather another form of tax. The amount of money the state pays for healthcare is not restricted by the amount of National Insurance contributions coming into the Treasury. Moreover, unlike pensions, where eligibility is connected with National Insurance contributions, a person's ability to access the NHS is not circumscribed by their NI contribution record. Moving from a system of funding through taxation to one based largely on social insurance is going to be a tough ask. It cannot be completed overnight. The place to start a programme to reform the financing of the NHS is with the introduction of a small charge for GP appointments and an end to the automatic entitlement to free prescriptions for pensioners, regardless of their financial circumstances. Doubtless many people will say that these proposals destroy the essence of the NHS as it was established in 1948. But the provision of healthcare in this country cannot be treated as a sort of museum exhibit. We can adhere to the spirit of the NHS in creating a system that delivers excellent healthcare for all within a funding framework that is right for the 21 st century.
The Guardian
9 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Is it true that … cracking your knuckles causes arthritis?
'This is a common question I get asked over the dinner table,' says Kimme Hyrich, a rheumatologist and professor of epidemiology at the University of Manchester. And it's no wonder – as many as 54% of us are habitual knuckle crackers, regularly making those distinctive popping noises as we manipulate the joints. 'The knuckle joint is a very tight space and there's a little bit of fluid in it. When people crack their knuckles, they very temporarily enlarge the space,' says Hyrich. 'The pressure drops and gas that's dissolved in that fluid forms bubbles – and it's the bursting of those bubbles that causes the sound.' The type of arthritis people tend to worry about is osteoarthritis – the most common form. It's a painful condition that causes swelling and stiffness in the joints, and becomes more common as we age. 'We don't fully understand the cause,' Hyrich says, 'but genetics play a large role. Joint trauma is also a risk factor.' It's probably this association with injury that fuels concerns about knuckle-cracking. 'People are likely worried they're damaging the joint,' she says. But is there any actual harm? According to Hyrich, the evidence says no. 'Researchers have looked at people with and without arthritis and asked whether they cracked their knuckles – there's been no difference. Others have compared people who do and don't crack their knuckles using X-rays – again, no difference.' Perhaps the most famous example is a US physician who, in an effort to prove his mother wrong, cracked the knuckles on just one hand every day for over 60 years. When he finally had both hands assessed, there were no signs of arthritis in either. So what kinds of trauma do increase your risk of osteoarthritis? 'Sporting injuries,' Hyrich says, 'such as breaking a bone near your joint, or tearing ligaments.' People who already have another kind of arthritis, such as the autoimmune condition rheumatoid arthritis, are also more prone to osteoarthritis. Her best advice for avoiding it? 'Maintain a healthy lifestyle, stay active, and keep to a healthy weight.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Burkitt review – fascinating film intertwines lives of patient and trailblazing surgeon
In Éanna Mac Cana's probing documentary, two lives are entwined with fascinating results. The seeds for the film were first planted when Mac Cana was diagnosed with Burkitt's lymphoma, a rare and aggressive cancer; his diaristic videos capture the loneliness of his treatment, spent within the cold, yellow walls of hospital rooms. Through the lens of his digital camera, he occasionally takes in the distant, blurry sight of tower blocks, or his mother cycling to the clinic. The world outside appears impenetrable; all the while, the film reaches beyond what the eyes can see. Then, turning to the past, Mac Cana juxtaposes his lived experience of illness with the life story of Denis Burkitt, the trailblazing Irish surgeon after whom Mac Cana's condition was named. From archival materials as well as interviews with experts and Burkitt's family, Mac Cana charts the trajectory of the scientist's career in Africa. Cartography is, in fact, central to Burkitt's research into the disease: like his father, a keen amateur ornithologist who documented bird migration, Burkitt traced the geographical distribution of the then-unknown paediatric cancer in the continent. Mac Cana's stylistic choices become another form of mapping, with Burkitt's charts and drawings occasionally laid over the film-maker's own images. The effect resembles a visual tree branch, one that connects the past and the present, the scientific and the personal. Burkitt's colossal archive of photographs makes for another link, even if the scientist's colonial gaze gets not much more than a mention. Still, this is far from a work of hagiography: by highlighting some of the more melancholic chapters of Burkitt's private life, Mac Cana lends a human element to the legacy of a pioneer. Burkitt is on True Story from 25 July.
