BMA confirms resident doctor strikes will go ahead
After the meeting, Wes Streeting reiterated that 'we cannot move on pay after a 28.9% pay rise' but added that the Government was looking at ways to improve resident doctors' working lives.
The BMA resident doctors committee said while members were happy to discuss non-pay issues, the row 'is at its core a pay dispute'.
Strikes will take place for five consecutive days from 7am on Friday July 25.
Dr Melissa Ryan and Dr Ross Nieuwoudt, co-chairs of the BMA's resident doctors committee, said: 'We have always said that no doctor wants to strike and all it would take to avoid it is a credible path to pay restoration offered by the Government.
'We came to talks in good faith, keen to explore real solutions to the problems facing resident doctors today.
'Unfortunately, we did not receive an offer that would meet the scale of those challenges.
'While we were happy to discuss non-pay issues that affect doctors' finances we have always been upfront that this is at its core a pay dispute.
'The simplest and most direct means of restoring the more than a fifth of our pay that has eroded since 2008 is to raise our pay.
'While we were keen to discuss other items, it was made very clear by the Government that this obvious course of action was going to remain off the table.'
The statement added that 'student debt and the cost of training remain crushing burdens on the finances of resident doctors' and while the BMA hoped there would be 'new ideas' to tackle this, what was proposed 'would not have been significant enough to change the day-to-day financial situation for our members'.
'However our door remains open, and we are glad to have met with the Secretary of State in a constructive spirit. We want to keep talking but we don't accept we can't talk about pay,' they said.
Reacting to the BMA's announcement, Mr Streeting said there was an opportunity for the union 'to work with us on a range of options that would have made a real difference to resident doctors' working conditions and created extra roles to deal with the bottlenecks that hold back their career progression'.
'Instead, they have recklessly and needlessly opted for strike action.
'The BMA would have lost nothing by taking up the offer to postpone strike action to negotiate a package that would improve the working lives of resident doctors.
'By refusing to do so, they will cause unnecessary disruption to patients, put additional pressure on their NHS colleagues and not take the opportunity to improve their own working conditions.
'All of my attention will be now on averting harm to patients and supporting NHS staff at work.
'After a 28.9% pay hike in the last three years and the highest pay rise in the public sector two years in a row, strike action is completely unjustified, completely unprecedented in the history of British trade unionism and shows a complete disdain for patients and the wider recovery of the NHS.'
It came after research suggested public support for the strike is waning.
A YouGov poll showed about half (52%) of people in the UK 'somewhat oppose' (20%) or 'strongly oppose' (32%) resident doctors going on strike over pay.
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, when 48% opposed the strikes and 39% supported them.
A row between the BMA and health leaders also deepened on Tuesday.
NHS Providers, which represents hospital trusts, hit back at the union's claims that health leaders were putting patients at risk, saying it was the 'costly' BMA strike that was risking patient care.
Earlier, the BMA said NHS England plans for managing the strike could put patients at risk because it has ordered hospitals to continue with as much pre-planned care as possible.
In a letter to trust leaders, it urged the health system to focus on maintaining emergency care, the flow of patients and 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 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.'
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.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
21 minutes ago
- The Independent
Shop-bought health tests not always fit for purpose, researchers warn
Off-the-shelf health tests for issues such as high cholesterol, vitamin deficiency, fertility and prostate problems may not be fit for purpose, researchers have warned. A team from the University of Birmingham examined tests that people can buy in UK supermarkets, pharmacies and shops and which they then use at home. They found the tests risked giving people the wrong result, could delay diagnosis, and most of them recommended follow-up with a doctor anyway, regardless of the result. The researchers called for much tighter regulation of the sector, adding the NHS may face additional demand after people self-test. They said: 'In the absence of guidance from healthcare professionals, individuals might use tests inappropriately or without a clear understanding of the implications of the results. 'False positive test results can lead to unnecessary anxiety, increased healthcare usage, and additional costs, whereas false negative test results may delay appropriate treatment or engagement with… screening programmes. 'Test errors can stem from inherent limitations in the accuracy of the test, as well as user-related issues such as sampling errors, incorrect processing, and difficulties in interpreting the results.' However, the team said that in the future, home tests could have great potential for patient care. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), which regulates medical products, said it would look at the findings. Professor Jon Deeks, from the University of Birmingham, said: 'A plethora of new health self-tests have emerged in recent years and are available to buy from many high street supermarkets and pharmacies in the UK. 'While these kits have been approved for sale, they are not subject to the same stringent regulations as pharmaceutical products. 'Our recent research raises concerns about the suitability, accuracy and usability of many of the self-testing products available that require users to sample, test and interpret results themselves. 'In some cases, it is unclear how accuracy claims are supported, and there is no requirement of manufacturers to share the evidence behind these claims.' Prof Deeks said the UK is looking at a 'new world' when it comes to self-testing, but there is more work to do to show claims made were robust. He said much of the literature contained with tests was 'not easy to understand', while some of the results could lead to a 'wrong diagnosis'. In one example, he said the self-tests for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, a marker of prostate health, were fixed at a certain concentration level. However, 'if you're age 70 you need to have your PSA done at a very different level to when you're 20', he said. Self-testing is becoming increasingly popular, and the UK market for self-tests is expected to reach £660 million by 2030. Overall, 30 self-tests costing £1.89 to £39.99 were included in the study, published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ). The tests covered 19 different conditions, including vitamin deficiency, blood sugar levels, cholesterol, thyroid function, prostate health, HIV, menopause and bowel cancer. Researchers said only eight of the 30 tests provided information about who should or should not use the test, while four specified the presence of symptoms. External packaging on fewer than half of the tests (14) included any statement about their accuracy. Meanwhile, 90% of the tests recommended follow-up with a healthcare professional if test results were positive or abnormal, while 47% recommended this if test results was negative. Accuracy claims were made for 24 of the tests, including in pamphlets, and most (58%) claimed a performance of at least 98% accuracy, sensitivity or specificity. However, the researchers said evidence supporting accuracy claims were largely unavailable or did not provide sufficient information for people likely to purchase the tests. Prof Deeks said: 'Current regulations for the use of self-testing kits in a commercial setting are not adequately protecting consumers. 'Several of the self-test manufacturers refused to provide us with reports of their studies, which support their claims, stating that they were 'commercially confidential'. 'Legally, they do not need to share this information. However, for all matters of our health, it really is important that the evidence upon which health decisions are made is available and can be scrutinised.' Dr Clare Davenport, clinical associate professor at the University of Birmingham, said: 'The wide range of off-the-shelf tests now available to the public are not endorsed by the NHS and evidence for their benefit is lacking. 'This is in contrast to well-established self-tests, such as pregnancy tests. 'We are worried that consumers concerned about their health and tempted by the convenience of buying a test over the counter may be harmed if they use these tests in the wrong way.' Dr Davenport said the recommendation that people see a doctor anyway regardless of the result 'begs the question 'what's the point of doing the test in the first place?''. Sue Davies, Which? head of consumer rights and food policy, said: ' Consumers should be careful with self-tests – they can be expensive, tricky to interpret and don't always come with an expert consultation to help you understand your results. 'It's also likely you'll need to follow up with your GP, so we'd always recommend involving them from the start if you have any particular health concerns. 'Most tests you'll need will be available for free on the NHS and your GP will also be able to speak to you about how you're feeling and spot any symptoms that might not show up on a test.' While clinical trials and medicines must go through the MHRA, self-test devices are subject to checks by notified bodies. A spokesman for Suresign, which provides three of the self-tests studied, said: 'We find this blanket condemnation of a small range of home tests available to be unreasonable and unprofessional, since they admit they are content with many of those examined. 'This is not a clinical approach to a highly scientific subject. 'They also did not confirm that the clinical studies related to our tests were supplied to them, as confirmed to us by the BMJ. 'Our detailed responses to their questions were not fully reflected in their article. 'They have implicitly criticised the professionalism of notified bodies appointed by the MHRA, when we find them to be very exacting in their audits. 'We are content our tests give the public access to healthcare screening not easily available with the NHS at the present time.' Joseph Burt, MHRA head of diagnostics and general medical devices, said it would review the evidence and 'consider all allegations about device deficiencies'. He added: 'We have strengthened post-market surveillance powers to monitor and act on concerns. 'These require manufacturers to actively monitor their products and report significant incidents to us, including for CE-marked self-tests. 'We're overhauling the medical device regulations to further strengthen standards for safety, usability and clinical performance and we're exploring new transparency measures such as requiring published summaries of clinical evidence. 'In the meantime, we strongly encourage anyone using a self-test to check for a CE or UKCA mark, read the instructions carefully, and seek medical advice if they're unsure about their result.'
The Independent
21 minutes ago
- The Independent
High street self-tests for bowel cancer and menopause may be unfit for purpose, researchers warn
High street self-tests for vitamin deficiencies, menopause and bowel cancer may not be fit for purpose, researchers have warned. There are many products available to UK customers without the need for a doctor's appointment. But concerns have been raised about the quality, appropriateness and safety of these kits, with doctors warning they could be 'dangerous' and cause 'false reassurance'. The researchers called for much tighter regulation of the sector, warning the NHS may face additional demand after people self-test. The market for self-tests is booming and is expected to reach a projected revenue of £660m by 2030 in the UK. To put these readily available health checks to the test, researchers at the University of Birmingham reviewed 30 self-tests bought from local supermarkets, pharmacies and health and wellbeing shops. The findings published in the BMJ on Wednesday show that most self-tests lack essential information about who should use them, how to interpret the results, and what actions to take next. Researchers looked at tests that covered 19 conditions including vitamin D deficiency, blood sugar, thyroid function, prostate health, HIV, menopause and bowel cancer. However, out of the 30 tests, less than half made any statement about accuracy, and only eight had information on the box about who should or should not use the test. Just seven of the at-home tests told users what to do after getting their results. Just 16 tests explicitly stated they were for screening, diagnosis, or monitoring, while nine did not indicate the symptoms or risk factors for their use. However, nearly all tests (27 out of 30) recommended follow-up with a healthcare professional if results were positive or abnormal, and 14 regardless of the result. Around half (14) claimed an accuracy of 98 per cent, but study authors highlighted that the evidence to back these claims was either not publicly available or was of low quality, which they said raised ethical concerns. Researchers also said 18 of the tests were 'high risk' due to the quality of the testing equipment, sampling process, or instructions and interpretation of the results. The authors acknowledge that the study sample was restricted to the Birmingham area and that their assessments were limited by the lack of access and poor reporting of documentation provided by manufacturers. However, they say this is a robust, reliable evaluation of self-tests available to the UK public. Kristien Boelaert, professor of endocrinology at the University of Birmingham and a consultant endocrinologist, said: 'I actually think it's dangerous. I would like there to be central UK-wide regulation... that prevents these things from coming on the market. I think the biggest potential harm is a false reassurance that, if it's not positive, everything is fine.' Joseph Burt, head of diagnostics and general medical devices at the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), said it would review the evidence and 'consider all allegations about device deficiencies'. He added: 'We have strengthened post-market surveillance powers to monitor and act on concerns. These require manufacturers to actively monitor their products and report significant incidents to us, including for CE-marked self-tests. 'We're overhauling the medical device regulations to further strengthen standards for safety, usability and clinical performance, and we're exploring new transparency measures such as requiring published summaries of clinical evidence. 'In the meantime, we strongly encourage anyone using a self-test to check for a CE or UKCA mark, read the instructions carefully, and seek medical advice if they're unsure about their result.' Bernie Croal, president of the Royal College of Pathologists, warned of the knock-on effects for the NHS: 'There are significant risks to patients when poor quality tests are carried out inappropriately, with both false reassurance and unnecessary consequences for the NHS to repeat tests or take additional action.' Since the initial sample in 2023, researchers have continued to track the booming self-test market. A repeat search of the same geographical area in December 2024 identified 63 tests, twice as many as the previous year. 'There is an urgent need for coherent guidance and improved regulation to protect both individuals and healthcare systems from misuse and misinformation,' researchers concluded. Irwin Armstrong, founder and CEO of CIGA Healthcare and Suresign, which provides three of the numerous self-tests studied, criticised the BMJ study. He said: 'We find this blanket condemnation of a small range of home tests available to be unreasonable and unprofessional, since they admit they are content with many of those examined. This is not a clinical approach to a highly scientific subject. 'They also did not confirm that the clinical studies related to our tests were supplied to them, as confirmed to us by the BMJ. Our detailed responses to their questions were not fully reflected in their article. 'They have implicitly criticised the professionalism of notified bodies appointed by the MHRA, when we find them to be very exacting in their audits. We are content [that] our tests give the public access to healthcare screening not easily available with the NHS at the present time.' Mr Armstrong added: 'Suresign tests are intended to be used as screening tests and not for taking medical decisions. They are not intended to replace tests carried out by professionals. Currently, it is difficult to get an appointment with a GP and therefore, these tests provide information to enable users to actively seek a medical opinion if necessary.'
The Guardian
21 minutes ago
- The Guardian
7,000 steps a day could be enough to improve health, say researchers
Walking more could reduce your risk of dementia, depression and dying from cancer, as well as being good for your heart, according to research. And you may not need to walk as far as previously thought to reap those benefits. The NHS recommends a brisk 10-minute walk every day. Many people aim to walk 10,000 steps, but struggle to achieve it. Now researchers have calculated that even 7,000 steps could be enough to protect health. Scientists examined data from more than 160,000 adults and found that walking 7,000 steps a day was associated with a reduced risk of a number of serious health conditions and death. Whereas previous studies have mainly examined the links between step count and heart health or overall death rates, this systematic review and meta analysis, published in the Lancet Public Health, sought to comprehensively examine how taking more steps per day could reduce the risk of a range of other health conditions as well. Compared with those who walked 2,000 steps a day, the researchers found that achieving the 7,000 daily step target was linked to a 37% reduction in risk of dying from cancer, while the risk was 14% lower for type 2 diabetes, 38% for dementia, 22% depression and 28% for falls respectively. It was also associated with a 25% lower risk of cardiovascular disease and a 47% reduction in overall risk of dying. Although step count does not measure the quality or intensity of exercise, the findings underscore the importance of being active. There is a 'return on investment' with every additional 1,000 steps taken and even 4,000 steps per day reduced the risk of disease, compared with very low activity levels, the researchers observed. Although the risk continues to decrease above 7,000 steps, the rate at which it reduces that risk starts to slow. Melody Ding, professor of public health at the University of Sydney and lead author of the research, said that those who already walked 10,000 steps should not go back to 7,000, but that 7,000 was a more practical target for those who were currently inactive. 'Those who are currently active and achieving the 10,000 steps a day, keep up the good work – there is no need to modify your step counts. However, for those of us who are far from achieving the 10,000 targets, getting to 7,000 steps/day offers almost comparable health benefits for the outcomes we examined.' Responding to the findings, Dr Daniel Bailey, reader in sedentary behaviour and health at Brunel University of London, said the research helped 'debunk the myth that 10,000 steps per day should be the target for optimal health. 'The real-world implications are that people can get health benefits just from small increases in physical activity, such as doing an extra 1,000 steps per day. To achieve the best reductions in risk, aiming for 5,000-7,000 per day can be recommended, which will be more achievable for many people than the unofficial target of 10,000 steps that has been around for many years.' Dr Andrew Scott, senior lecturer in clinical exercise physiology at the University of Portsmouth, pointed out that not all activity was captured by step counts. 'The steps per day is useful when people's exercise is weight-bearing, however cycling, swimming and rowing are not well-represented by the steps-per-day model.' June Davison, senior cardiac nurse at the British Heart Foundation, said: 'We know that regular walking is one of the easiest ways to help maintain a healthy lifestyle and reduce your risk of heart disease. 'Adults should aim to build up to a total of 150 minutes of moderate-intensity activity every week, but getting active isn't always easy. Incorporating activity snacks, such as walking while taking phone calls, or taking a brisk 10-minute walk during your lunch break, can all count to reduce your chances of developing heart disease.'
