Supplementary memorandum by Allergy UK
This evidence addresses issues raised in the
oral evidence session of 15 March 2007 which it was not possible
to fully explore within the session.
Thank you for sending through the transcript
of the minutes of evidence taken before the House of Lords Science
and Technology Sub-Committee.
Q796 Allergy UK would like to pick up a
statement made by Dr Glenis Scadding that Pharmacists should not
diagnose allergy. It is the belief of Allergy UK that the majority
of allergy could be successfully diagnosed and managed in primary
care and this includes, as an essential part, Community Pharmacists.
We believe that given the correct training there is absolutely
no reason why Pharmacists could not play a major part in meeting
the desperate need of people with allergy to know and understand
what is causing their allergic symptoms. We appreciate that in
an ideal world everyone presenting with allergic symptoms would
be seen by an allergy specialist, we are however realistic that
this is not going to ever be possible given the lack of specialist
training posts in allergy and the present thinking of health services
being delivered at primary care level rather than secondary care
settings. We have therefore carefully considered the needs of
primary care and as stated in evidence the greatest need is for
education of OP's and Practice Nurses and we also believe in education
to maximise the tremendous skills and knowledge available in local
pharmacies.
Q809 Allergy UK would also like some clarification
placed before the Sub-Committee regarding the York Test. As the
Lords were made aware by Lindsey McManus this is the one test
that we endorse. The test, as was made plain, has undergone clinical
trails at Manchester Hospital and this coupled with our own anecdotal
survey led us to look in more depth at the service and advice
given by York Test. In her evidence Dr Scadding states that it
is better for patients to see a Dietitian and nobody would dispute
this, however our extensive experience has shown that being able
to obtain a referral to a Dietitian who understands food intolerance
is extremely difficult on the NHS.
I think it is important for members of the Sub-Committee
to be aware that in addition to the clinical trial and the anecdotal
studies, we also assured ourselves of the service level to their
clients by York Test. In addition to the test, York Test clients
have the opportunity (usually taken up) for two consultations
with a Nutritionist/Dietitian. They receive an excellent guide
to their condition and the advice is very clear that they should
not continue on an exclusion diet beyond the stated period of
time.
We have yet to receive a complaint from anyone
who has undertaken the York Test and in fact have many calls from
people stating that it has revolutionised their life and given
them back their quality of life.
Q785 Allergy UK would like to echo Donna
Covey's comments that the advice services of both our Helpline
and Information often falls between two stalls. We are in fact
doing the work of the NHS, in providing advice, support, information
for the general public and we are educating healthcare professionals,
all from our funding which is generated outside of statutory funding.
It is extremely difficult for charities such
as Allergy UK to generate funds from a totally unbiased source
of income. We regard it as vital to do so to guarantee "best
advice" is given. As Donna Covey stated we are often rejected
for funding on the basis that we are providing what should be
a statutory service and in other areas we are often rejected for
funding because the service is well established and is not "a
new project". Our materials are used extensively by healthcare
professionals as is our advisory service, yet we do not receive
funding to guarantee the production of these materials and their
ongoing reviews.
21 March 2007
| 
