Skip to main content

The UK government must be more proactive about addressing drug shortages

In a letter published in the British Medical Journal, I discuss why the UK government must be more proactive about drug addressing shortages in the NHS.

The lack of drugs such as methylphenidate required for the treatment of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the latest of many medication shortages we have seen in the UK in recent years.1 These shortages are now too frequent and waste the time of NHS staff such as general practitioners and pharmacists who have to spend time counselling patients and sourcing alternative drugs instead of focusing on more relevant work. They are also very stressful for patients who risk going without key drugs with potentially adverse consequences for their health. For people with ADHD, for example, this could mean going without medication that they require to function effectively at work and school and in their personal relationships.

We need a much more proactive approach from the government, which needs to work with drugs manufacturers and wholesalers to ensure that the NHS has adequate supplies of key drugs to prevent such problems occurring in the future. This could include better data on drug supply and demand to identify problems before they occur; improving local manufacturing capacity in the UK for essential drugs needed by the NHS; price incentives for suppliers; and international collaboration to ensure continuity of drug supply. Moreover, immediate support mechanisms should be put in place for primary care teams grappling with the increased workload caused by these shortages. Patients too could benefit from help such as national helplines or online support to allow them to cope better with the consequences of drug shortages.

Until we see active intervention by government, working in partnership with the NHS and industry, patients in the UK will continue to be affected and the time of NHS staff will continue to be wasted because of drug shortages.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between primordial prevention and primary prevention?

Primordial prevention and primary prevention are both crucial strategies for promoting health, but they operate at different levels. Primordial prevention aims to address the root causes of health problems and improve the wider determinants of health. It focuses on preventing the emergence of risk factors in the first place by tackling the underlying social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. This involves broad, population-wide interventions such as: Policies that promote healthy food choices: Think about initiatives like taxing sugary drinks to discourage unhealthy consumption, or providing subsidies for fruits and vegetables to make them more accessible. Urban planning that prioritises well-being: This could include creating walkable neighborhoods with safe cycling routes, ensuring access to green spaces for recreation and relaxation, and designing communities that foster social connections. Social programs that address inequality: Initiatives aimed at reducing pov...
Post a Comment
Read more

Talking to Patients About Weight-Loss Drugs

The use of weight-loss drugs such as GLP-1 receptor agonists (e.g., semaglutide, tirzepatide) has increased rapidly in recent years. These drugs can help some people achieve significant weight reduction, but they are not suitable for everyone and require careful counselling before starting treatment. By discussing benefits, risks, practicalities, and  uncertainties, clinicians can help patients make informed, realistic decisions about their treatment. Key points to discuss with patients 1. Indications and eligibility These drugs are usually licensed for adults with a specific BMI. They should be used alongside lifestyle interventions such as dietary change, increased physical activity, and behaviour modification. 2. Potential side effects – some can be serious Common adverse effects include nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, and abdominal discomfort. Less common but more serious risks include gallstones, pancreatitis and visual problems. Patients should know what to watch for a...
Post a Comment
Read more

What makes a good doctor – and who gets to decide?

What Makes a Good Doctor? This is the question that Waseem Jerjes and I explore in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine . It is a key question that underpins the architecture of medical education, clinical practice, regulation, and professional identity. It cannot be answered by regulators, educators, or employers in isolation. It must be answered together – by doctors and patients – revisited throughout a career, and adapted as society and the profession change. Without that shared reflection, the danger is not simply disillusionment, but the erosion of the moral foundations of clinical work. As we enter an era when diagnosis will increasingly involve artificial intelligence and when performance metrics reward volume over value, reclaiming this question as a professional one is imperative. The integrity of our institutions – and of the practitioners within them – depends on reimagining excellence in inclusive, relational terms. A good doctor is not a flawless technician or a f...
Post a Comment
Read more