Regardless of which party is actually in power to implement these changes, I thought the new government's new commitment to a 50% reduction in the number of smokers in the UK by 2020 made interesting reading. Ingeniously titled: "A Smokefree Future", the commitment takes five main positions:

1. Stopping young people being recruited as smokers by cracking down on cheap illicit cigarettes. Immediate investment in extra overseas officers will stop 200 million cigarettes entering the UK every year.
2. Every smoker will be able to get help from the NHS to suit them if they want to give up - new types of support will be available at times and in places that suit smokers.
3. The Government will carefully consider the case for plain packaging.
4. Stopping the sale of tobacco from vending machines - a significant source of tobacco for young people.
5. Protecting everyone, especially children, from the harms of second-hand smoke by promoting smokefree homes and cars and reviewing smokefree law. This review will include, for example, whether to extend legislation from enclosed public places and workplaces to areas like entrances to buildings.

All admirable steps to improve our nation's future health but which of these steps will most likely succeed?

Young people will smoke (expensive or cheap cigarettes) provided they can still buy them.  Packaging changes won't work either. Does a shiny red Marlboro box, a nice purple Silk Cut stripe or a nicely groomed Camel really entice someone to smoke? Personally, I would like to see all vending machines removed and a 6m building entrance exclusion zone (like the states of California and New York) enforced because accessibility and convenience will surely have the most impact.

Time to get off my soap box now and hand it over to you...

Earlier today, a really interesting report was published by the Nuffield Trust outlining the performance of the NHS in England (split by 10 regions), Scotland, Ireland and Wales before and after devolution.

Following the evaluation of a number of measures, the analysis highlighted that whilst "historically Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have had higher levels of funding per capita for NHS care than England" there was a stark contrast in resource deployment versus expenditure.  The research states: "... the NHS in England spends less on healthcare and has fewer doctors, nurses and managers per head of population than the health services in the devolved countries, but that it is making better use of the resources it has in terms of delivering higher levels of activity, crude productivity of its staff, and lower waiting times."

The possible reasons for the differences are discussed by Dr Jennifer Dixon (Director of the Nuffield Trust) at http://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/downloads/detail.aspx?id=760. The press release and slides are well worth a peak if you have a spare few minutes this week.

I read yesterday that the Government is launching its second wave of campaigning to highlight the dangers of saturated fat in our nation's diet.  Why a 'second wave' you ask? Well, it seems that the original TV, radio and poster campaign didn't work because it simply wasn't motivational or direct enough.  To fix this, the Foods Standard Agency (FSA) have launched the 21-Day Sat Fat Challenge.  A campaign with a difference...

As you can't go through a day now without hearing about a new iPhone app, the FSA have have developed its own (http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2010/jan/phoneapp).  All you need to do is download the app, choose your saturated fat reducing challenge (such as ditching butter or drinking lower fat milk) and, at the end of each successful day, the app will send a tweet to your friends on Twitter.

I wonder where they got this iPhone app idea from?

Perhaps it was the alcohol (http://www.apple.com/webapps/calculate/baccbloodalcoholconcentrationcalculator.html) or calorie (http://www.mycaloriesmart.com/archives/70) counter?

Despite my sarcasm, if it works, it will be extremely positive.  We all know that cardiovascular disease is the UK's biggest killer so if there are better ways to motivate people to cut down on their saturates, that has to be a good thing.  Leading surgeons suggest 3,500 lives a year could be saved.

As the majority of us have been enjoying the holiday break and trying to avoid thinking about our new year's resolutions and impending diets, the policy writers at the Conservative headquarters have been busy putting the final touches on the Party's new health manifesto.

I don ‘t plan to summarise the entire report (you can read it for yourself in all its blue and green glory at http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/~/media/Files/Downloadable%20Files/DraftHealthManifestopdf.ashx) so below is a brief review of some of the more interesting points covered in its three main areas of ‘promise'.

You won't see anywhere within the document exactly how these promises will be delivered (especially in the context of the massive natonal budget deficit) but perhaps we can ask this question when the leaders debate live on TV (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/dec/21/election-tv-debates) as the general election draws nearer (which could be even closer after today's leadership wobble - live coverage at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/jan/06/pmqs-houseofcommons).

Anyway, back to the manifesto:

1. Through a patient-centred NHS, there are plans to: Get rid of centrally-dictated target setting; put patients in charge of their own records; create an independent NHS board to allocate resources to different parts of the country and make access to the NHS more equal.

2. Create a more accountable and accessible NHS where: Hospitals will not be paid in full for a treatment which leaves a patient with an avoidable infection; reform is applied to how drug companies are paid for NHS medicines so that any cost-effective treatment can be made available through the NHS and; NHS Direct will take on a different guise to give people access to a doctor or nurse when the local family doctor's surgery isn't open.

3. Focus on improving the nation's public health by: Turning the Department of Health into a Department of Public Health; providing separate public health funding to local authorities which will be accountable for - and paid according to - how successful they are in improving their local communities' health; introducing a new per-patient funding system for all hospices and other providers of palliative care and allow everyone (on retirement) to protect their homes from being sold to fund residential care costs by paying a one-off insurance premium of £8,000.

Sadly, we will have to wait to see the Labour Party's manifesto but in the meantime, they have launched a "What Conservative said what in 2009" quiz. If you are at a loose end, you can participate online at http://www.labour.org.uk/.  Enjoy...

Well, it seems I now have an answer to the question I posed on 21st November concerning the overspend on the NHS's IT programme.

In today's Pre-Budget Report, Alistair Darling will announce that part of the National Programme for IT (NPfIT) will be shelved in a push to slash public spending to (hopefully) pay-off some of our nation's borrowing. The budget for the National Programme for IT has currently amassed a spend of more than £12bn (versus the original estimate of £2.3bn) but a specific 'aspect' is now not deemed "essential to the NHS frontline".  Conveniently, it is something the Treasury thinks: "we don't need to go ahead with just now."

Sadly though the savings are only likely to run to the hundreds of millions...

You can read more about today's report at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/business/2009/pre_budget_report_2009/default.stm

As with much in modern life, the pace of scientific research has risen markedly over the last 20 years.  Our paper, magazines and online news outlets are filled on a daily basis with new study findings.  Today it is 'Can we use cannabis to treat alcoholism?' and 'Are grey hairs genetic or stress-induced?'.  With the exception of the major clinical studies (which clearly have a significant impact clinical practice or patient outcomes), most of what is published is merely informative and does little to change how we view things.

Today, however, we are given a real treat and a true reminder of how far the human race has come in the last three centuries...

To mark the Royal Society's (the UK's national academy of science) 350th anniversary, 60 of the most famous and influential papers (from the 60,000 published) have been catalogued in a searchable online tool (http://trailblazing.royalsociety.org/).  To pick a few of my favourites: The first animal-to-animal blood transfusion was highlighted in a 1666 paper; the first electric battery was brought to our attention in 1800 and the development of penicillin written-up in 1940.

Let me know what stands out for you?

In our business, we are all looking for new, creative and practical ways to communicate with our healthcare professional partners in the NHS.

Over the five years or so, the internet has developed in such a way that we are now able to deliver tailored, media rich, communications directly to individuals' desktops containing content they have specifically requested. There is however a hitch...

The capability to harness such technology is only as good as the end user's infrastructure. High-speed connectivity, computers with the right internet browsers and associated software are the key to allow - along with e-patient records and e-bookings - charities, other government departments and the pharmaceutical industry to deliver educational platforms and programmes they have developed for the improvement of patient care.

I hear you all saying: "Yes, we know this - that's what the Connecting for Health programme is doing. Why are you telling me today?"

Well, it is because the Taxpayers' Alliance has just published it's Out of Control report which  tells us that (like most of the Government's other capital expenditure programmes) the National Programme for NHS IT (NPfIT) is now running over budget.  OK, so things are always running over but by how much?  The answer is...over 450%. But it doesn't end there.  Some estimates are saying this could rise to 770%.  How can a project originally estimated to cost £2.3bn end up costing £20bn?  Surely a project was specifically designed to improve care should not be further contributing to the thinning of the NHS's already completely threadbare purse.

Where on earth do we go from here?

First an apology to those who read the PRWeek blogs on a regular basis for my absence over the last month or so.  My only real excuse is that when something right for my blog has popped into my head, I have been nowhere near my PC and by the time I return, it was yesterday's news.  I feel victimised by the rapidity of online news proliferation.

Anyway, if you were/are a reasonably regular reader of my blog, you will see that alcohol is a common theme.  Exactly what that says about me is another matter (feel free to comment though) but why does alcohol really feature so often in my ramblings?  Well, it's because I like to comment on what's makes it into the news most frequently and the media write about it an awful lot. 60,000+ stories the past month on Google Health News alone. I find that incredible.

So why comment today?  Well, it was the 100+ stories originating from new research published in the Heart journal which caught my eye.  This study demonstrated that drinking at high levels [4-12 units a day] offers men (not women) protection from heart disease.  In the same sentence of the Press Association's release, this information was followed by "... but health experts warned this could damage other organs and cause premature death."  What does this story possibly tell us?  It doesn't seem to be about moderation or about caution either.  I am lost.

Well, I suppose the PA article wraps it up nicely: "Robert Sutton, professor of surgery at the University of Liverpool, said the finding that there was no relationship between alcohol and heart disease in women was "highly unusual" and suggested the need for more research."  Ladies and gentleman, drink carefully care over the festive season. You may just be the subject of some new research...

Not specifically healthcare, but today's news that the UK has become the first major economy where advertisers spend more on internet advertising than on television advertising really struck a chord.  A record £1.75bn online spend in the first six months of the year (Guardian online). Perhaps, when it comes to evaluating coverage and relative impact between articles, a positive weighting should be applied to online media outlets?

On a slightly separate note (but nonetheless related), I was slightly less surprised to see that a new dimension in social online interaction platform has been launched to testers within the public domain. The developers of Google Wave say that it will "further enable real-time communication and collaboration using richly formatted text, photos, videos, maps, and more".  With most of us still in a state of Twitter infancy, a newer more powerful application seems a little scary. Check it out at http://wave.google.com/help/wave/about.html though - seeing is believing.

That said, in a moment of open-mindedness, I applied to the Google Wave Team to be a platform evaluator.  I will let you know how I get on...

As usual, the summer holiday season has brought to our screens an spectacular array of colourful news features highlighting the binge-drinking behaviour of young Britons (especially those abroad). Commentators from a variety of healthcare professional and consumer/social affairs organisations routinely appeal to those exposed to: "Grow up and stop drinking less".

Having read today's Mintel report, I am not sure this any longer applies.

The research shows, contrary to common belief, that the draw of binge-drinking among younger people is actually going down and is becoming less socially acceptable among this group.  One statistic in particular surprised me: '55 per cent of middle-aged drinkers consume alcohol more than twice a week, compared with 42 per cent of teenagers and young adults.'

How, if at all, will the commentators change their tune?

Having written about A&E waiting times earlier this year, it seems as though things haven't improved on the non-A&E services front either.

Despite Andy Burnham saying that there were no longer any waiting lists in the NHS on Wednesday's BBC Radio Five Live’s Victoria Derbyshire show, new figures highlighted in the Telegraph today (coming from the Lib Dems I must add) suggest there are more than 230,000 people waiting more than 18 months for services such as oral surgery, geriatric medicine and rheumatology.  Norman Lamb, the Lib Dem shadow health secretary said Mr Burnham's comments were "offensive".

When are the government going to better media train their spokespeople or stop letting them go on the radio full stop?

That said, the shadow government are not doing that well this week either as Mr Duncan illustrated...

An article in Pulse online today (http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=23&storycode=4123410&c=1) talks about the potential "loosening of restrictions on drug companies" which may facilitate them to deliver more information "directly to patients through online and print publications."  This ongoing debate is sure to continue ad nauseam without ever reaching a satisfactory conclusion.

Is the industry's "conflict of interest" that acute?  Are there circumstances where patients might actually benefit?

Raise your hand if you have never visited a US pharmaceutical product website and clicked on the box entitled 'I am a US resident' to gain access to the information. Surely we are not talking about unregulated communication over the internet so why all the hysteria?

Since my first blog on in May, I have (like many others) been curiously following the swine flu story.  Enough has been said this week about the role the media has played in the communication of information (and mis-information) and their relationship with the Government so I am not going to add to that.

If you are interested in reading/hearing more, Tonic's CEO Scott Clark spoke on this on Radio 4 a few days ago (http://bit.ly/17doaS) having commented in PRWeek http://bit.ly/jTGSZ.

I was however shocked (probably shouldn't have been) to hear from Baroness Williams during yesterday evening's question time (http://bbc.co.uk/i/lt0j3/?t=23m43s) that the new flu helpline has been delayed for over five months because the Treasury have been arguing with the DH about funding.  Further round the table, Geoff Hoon MP said: "I have been sitting in pandemic flu preparation meetings for years. We are prepared. We are putting the right mechanisms in place." (http://bbc.co.uk/i/lt0j3/?t=29m32s)  Really, prepared for what?  Answering the audience on Question Time?

I love it.

Researchers at the University of East Anglia are planning to investigate whether chocolate can cut the risk of heart disease and are looking for female volunteers to eat chocolate once a day for a year  Having been seriously outnumbered by chocolate-loving women for the entirety of my career, I think healthcare communications is the perfect place for them to start looking!

The bad news is that the researchers are only looking for 40 and to be enrolled, you need to be menopausal but aged under 75 and have type two diabetes...