MId Life Health Survey- a waste of public money?

That's the kind of posts I'm talking about!

Not a doctor or even a nurse, someone told me they get the receptionists to do these health checks.

I was invited to an Over Forty check up when I was 70. It was a useless tick-box exercise. I was told I was inactive because I didn't go to a gym or cycle (despite walking everywhere, gardening and walking my dogs twice daily) Absolutely furious, I asked,"How many 70year olds go to a bloody gym?"
Then she asked if I ever walked uphill. It is impossible to leave any house here without walking up and down hills.
Then she took my blood pressure, which was high, of course, so I had a 24hour monitor. Turned out absolutely normal.
Complete waste of resources because the idiot asking the questions was half- witted.

Anya Dr Margaret McCarthy has written a whole book in which she critiques screening. Well worth a read. The Patient Paradox. She makes a number of convincing arguments.
But statistics aside
If you have a limited number of doctors it does matter whether they are spending their time effectively. They might spend a whole morning screening healthy people, while not having enough time for other work such as doing house calls on an elderly ill people or giving a bit of time to people with mental health problems.

Excuse typos etc but do get so fed up with this type of post.

Of course it's important how money is spent, but I can't believe you going in and on about 'cost effectiveness' - do you work for NICE? If just one life us saved through screening then that's worth it in my eyes.

And who are you to judge who 'need them most?' There are many people who heed the warning given, and who adjust their eating, drinking, smoking, exercise regime.

How many here on GN alone, used to smoke and gave up?
How many gave cut down their drinking, had dry months, given up?
How many are following sensible eating habits or stepped their exercise?

I bet quite a few. And as Jane said, those who are on the right path and get a thumbs up, this too is encouragement to carry on.

I care. And I think the tests could be valuable for some.

Don't you care how your tax is spent in the NHS jingle ?
My neighbour has been smoking for 60 years (!). I'm sure lots of doctors have told him to give up over the years. This week he's been told his lungs have been damaged by smoking - he's been feeling poorly for weeks and had an X-ray. He's announced that he's giving up. Point is that screening appointments and warnings don't seem to work on the people who need them most.

This whole thread is a big fuss over nothing. Ever thought that the gov and their advisers might be taking the population as a whole into account? Not just the Gransnetting ones.

I think the nurse doing the tests would take any 'conditions' on board, and advise accordingly.

I think the tests are worthwhile. If you are sure you don't need them, don't take it up.

'endeth'. Not 'ended'.

You need to go to church more often.

Charming.

Here ended the lesson I hope.

Teetime I think measuring outcome is very difficult - are you going to measure 'lives saved' (=deaths postponed), health problems identified, lifestyle changes adopted following advice or what? Or the dreaded 'patient satisfaction'?
And even if you do measure those things, there are so many confounding factors (eg pre-existing conditions like arthritis that might make it difficult to act on advice to take more exercise) that the measurements are probably going to be meaningless.
There are some things which cannot be measured, but it doesn't mean they are not valuable. My results were 'normal' and the effect on me was to make me feel even more determined to take exercise and eat properly, to maintain that normality for as long as I can.
Another benefit might be that it gives someone who perhaps doesn't go to the doctor very often an opportunity to mention something in passing that has been concerning them, but that they didn't want to 'bother the doctor' with, and it might turn out to be significant.

Finally, in a historical context, public health campaigns and measures have been very important. If it weren't for public health, we would still be suffering from cholera and many infectious diseases that have been eradicated through vaccination programmes, venereal disease would go untreated, many more people would still be smoking and people would be unaware of the dangers of too much sun exposure.

I agree with you luckygirl and my big question remains how will they measure the outcome and whether the money was well spent. I have always questioned the vast amounts spent on various Public Health campaigns over the years.

I think the tests have their place and can be useful, but as I said upthread they are preaching to the converted - only those who try to look after their health anyway are likely to respond to the invitation, which limits their value.

And Anya the lack of evidence that they are cost effective - or indeed effective at all.

anya I wasn't rubbishing the checks - I was just responding to jess's implication that the checks didn't put pressure on GPs because they were carried out mainly by nurses. That might not cost the GPs' time, but it does cost the NHS financially.
I agree with your point that they are really only going to benefit those who are willing to make lifestyle changes as a result of the various test results. Sometimes it's not because they can't see that they should change, but because for one reason or another they are not able to make those changes, for example somebody working full time who also has family responsibilities might find it quite difficult to take the amount of exercise suggested.

But Jane you'd only really want a further 20 minutes of her time if the tests are in some way abnormal I'm guessing. And for those whose results throw up some issues, such as previously undiagnosed diabetes, poor liver or thyroid function this would be time well spent.

Without wishing to ruffle any feathers, I really find it hard to understand why people do not appreciate that these tests and surveys have a purpose, which is to change the way the nation is heading.

It is generally accepted that the NHS is on its knees; between doctors' contracts, bad administration, poor quality care, an aging population (oh no! Not that again ) and the general lifestyle adopted by modern eating habits and lack of exercise.

What do people think would work to address and change lifestyles then? I would really like to hear some positive suggestions rather than all this negativity.

Even if the checks are carried out by a practice nurse, rather than a GP, they are still a cost to the NHS because the nurse still has to be paid, and the blood tests are quite extensive - Hb1ac for glucose levels, cholesterol & other lipids, thyroid function, kidney function and liver function. I've no idea of the lab costs of those but they will be appreciable.
The appointment was for 20 minutes with the nurse, and I could have had another 20 minute appointment to discuss the results if I'd wanted to.
40 minutes of an practice nurse's time is probably as expensive as 10 minutes if a GPs time.

I was invited to one recently jess and it was done by the practice nurse.
There was a benefit to me in that it said my liver function was normal, so I shall carry on with my alcohol use as per normal without feeling guilty or worrying about it

My Health Checks at GP surgery, which I think is the one you and I are talking about Jess was carried out by an experienced Practice Nurse and was quite extensive and thought provoking.

These checks are only as good as the ones who take them. People with a will to change, and accept responsibility for their own lifestyles, and a positive attitude will always succeed better than those who don't.

Getting rid of this survey might alleviate the pressure on GPs. Or are all the checks actually done by nurses?