Ignoring NHS advice is often advisable

[raranah]

They just always seem to be way out of date.

I ignored the advice its safe to have x amount of units a week and I had nothing.

I ignored the advice to avoid nuts while expecting and for the first year. Reports say this could increase risks of allergies.

Both of these the advice has / is changing and I feel very vindicated.

They are still pushing low fat stuff, loaded with sugar and artificial sweeteners. I'm sure this advice will be outdated in a few years.

YABveryU. No, it's not "often" advisable and the examples you've chosen are hardly earth shattering anyway.

*health advice

Yes, my patients often ignore my advice to use emolliant on their feet, change their shoes and maintain good diabetes control.

They end up with ulcers not me (I just have to manage them)

Hey, but I only spent three years training, constant ongoing CPD (Continual Professional Development) what the feck do I know eh?

YABU.

Generally speaking, there are experts in the NHS and you are not an expert (or you unlikely to be an expert in everything).

They have to pool their expertise and come up with a consensus (certainly for NHS website).

OK they are unlikely to be right about every little thing all the time, and the nuts thing is an example of a question that, to my knowledge, is still undecided. However, I can't think it is harmful not to eat nuts in pregnancy. What about people who don't like nuts? So this is probably erring on the side of caution.

However, in big things it's best to follow NHS advice, and certainly not stuff from the internet or what your mate thinks. Vaccinations are something that comes to mind in particular.

Anecdote does not equal data.

PS I say this having eaten quite a lot of "forbidden" foods in pregnancy, especially when during morning sickness the ONLY thing I could stomach as cured meat. But you do what you can.

I agree with PP that it's not "often" advisable, but that sometimes it's not a big deal.

Give yourself a pat on the back. You deserve it

Actually in some cases I think YANBU.
Particularly what you say about diet advice. In fact I would go so far as to say that low fat etc has contributed to the obesity epidemic.
It also looks dodgy when they partner up with Nestle to push this diet advice (Change4Life).

I also believe many drugs are pushed that often have no benefit to the patients (statins), not that that's the nhs' fault, rather big pharma who are pushing them and making ££££££ from them.

Over the years I have developed a weird relationship with the NHS. In some ways I trust them implicitly. I would not be here today several times over if it weren't for the NHS.
In other ways though, I think they are way off the mark, and unfortunately this creates distrust from many people.

Well done

I drank the odd glass of wine and are dry toast peanuts do I get a star

Ate ! Ffs

Thanks Joe, obviously from my post I'm just talking about dietary advice

yep, drugs cost money and scientists don't work for free. Do you work for free?

I agree that the imbecilic change4life campaign needs to go. Except for the minority who have weight problems caused by medication or medical conditions, most simply need to be told to reduce sofa and fork time.

I was astounded by the ignorance of the practice nurse at my GPs who knew nothing of the most up to date research on the advisability/risks of using HRT. Whilst you are over generalising OP it think it is a very good idea to check out NHS advice before adopting it.

i don't think you know what "often" means

I think YABU and YANBU. Advice changes, that's just how it is, it doesn't mean all people who ignore nhs advice should get a medal.

However some doctors - even consultants - are giving out of date medical advice. I saw one recently who told me there has never been a link between hypermobility syndrome and ibs, despite it being well documented by rheumatologists - but some doctors decide what they want to tell patients and will not be moved on that.

I do feel that there is sometimes a worryingly large gulf between the information that is freely available in the scientific literature and the information that GPs are aware of. Obviously they are mortal beings and can't be expected to know everything, but it is not an ideal situation.

More attention needs to be directed towards making sure that established findings in scientific research reach the ears of HCPs in an accurate and timely fashion (i.e. not 5 years later).

It depends really, but I agree with Haydee re needing a consensus.

I have had brilliant NHS care from my (overworked) GP, who did a proper fact find and diagnosed me properly - compared to the private GP who completely misdiagnosed me and sent me to a gastro specialist for what turned out to be a thyroid problem.

But I remember some years ago feeling very, very down, suicidal at times, and the NHS website guidelines for depression suggested cutting down on drugs and alcohol (and not much else). I didn't drink, smoke, could barely get myself to the loo most days and that was their advice for how I should get myself of the hole I was in?? I felt that they weren't at all in touch. (Disclaimer: I have not checked their guidelines for MH since.)

"I ignored the advice its safe to have x amount of units a week and I had nothing."

Does that mean you don't drink? Or that you regularly drink in excess of guidelines?

If the former, then of course you'll have nothing.

If the latter, it's a question of cumulative damage over years. I hope that nothing is wrong with you, but the increase in liver disease and various other conditions in a younger population than used to be typical shows all too horribly that the advice is sensible. Because the damage may well not show until years down the line.

I do feel that there is sometimes a worryingly large gulf between the information that is freely available in the scientific literature and the information that GPs are aware of. Obviously they are mortal beings and can't be expected to know everything, but it is not an ideal situation

Yes there is a gulf between scientific literature, the scientists that write and publish the literature, and everyone else.

Scientific literature is a big jigsaw with tiny pieces. You need to sift through an awful lot to get a single piece.

When I was a research scientist literature searching, ordering articles, visits to the library etc took a significant chunk of time. And that was just to keep up with advances in my tiny area.

What I'm trying to say is even research scientists can struggle keeping up with the literature. A GP or HCP with a full load of patients has no chance, even in their speciality area. They rely on the odd conference, an article in the BMJ (which filters down from the literature, to reviews, to an article), NICE, or their NHS trust writing best practice protocols.

One individual researching their own problem will easily be ahead of a GP.

Agree with jorah
(And incidentally have a similar anecdote - i was told by my rheumy that there is no link between hms and osteoarthritis )

www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Joint-hypermobility/Pages/Symptoms.aspx

Both ibs and osteoarthritis are mentioned on the nhs page. Whilst i dont expect doctors to read every single published paper, i do expect them to be up to date with the nhs info in their specialist area.

Do you mean during pregnancy?
Do you mean that you drank no alcohol, or that you had no ill effects?

i hardly find it shaming that the trickle down effect of constant research is slow in such an enormous and underfunded institution.

Just use your common sense.

Yep, us pesky healthcare professionals who follow EVIDENCE-BASED practice & act in an advisory role based on that.

Not taking advice from a bunch of randoms on the internet who are armchair nurtritionists, based on anecdotes. So much of the nutrition advice on MN threads is just absolute shite.

And advice is just that, you can choose whether you follow it.

I agree OP best to research and question any advice you are given.

I agree Micah, I've done it too. I'm trying to say that surely some sort of rapid-response information dispersal team is needed - although I suppose that's what industry periodicals like the Nursing Times etc are for.

In my current field I'm one of the people that sifts through the literature and dispenses easily-digested summaries to busy people so that they are kept up to date, but admittedly it is only one treatment area.

For general practice I'd be tempted to distribute the results of meta-analyses, so that in a sense the findings have been pre-validated as being of interest.