Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Original Papers

Commentary: Important role for primary care in ensuring informed choice and timely screening and care

Allison Streetly
British Journal of General Practice 2008; 58 (548): 158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp08X277339
Allison Streetly
NHS Sickle Cell & Thalassaemia Screening Programme, King's College London, Division of Health and Social Care, Department of Public Health Sciences, 6th Floor, Capital House, 42 Weston Street, London SE1 3QD
Roles: Programme Director
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Sickle cell disease is now as common as cystic fibrosis in England and is one of the commonest reasons for admission to hospital in London.1,2 The paper by Dormandy and colleagues reports that a cohort of women in a deprived inner-city setting confirmed their pregnancy early on (median gestation 7.6 weeks).3 Despite this early confirmation, antenatal sickle cell and thalassaemia testing did not occur for many weeks (median gestation 15.3 weeks). These results raise two problems. First, services in their present form are falling a long way short of the NICE guidelines that to achieve truly informed choice women should be offered antenatal sickle cell and thalassaemia screening by 10 weeks gestation; and second, the failure to test early in pregnancy results mostly from an NHS failure to deliver early testing rather than from women failing to report their pregnancy early.

So what are the possible ways forward to ensure that all pregnant women have access to good quality antenatal sickle cell and thalassaemia screening in a timely manner? One solution would be to offer antenatal sickle cell and thalassaemia screening in primary care when women first report their pregnancy. Given the findings reported here, this method would be likely to achieve earlier testing for many women. Such a change, as well as requiring changes in general practice and midwifery care, would be difficult because antenatal sickle cell and thalassaemia screening could be perceived as somehow different from other aspects of maternity care.

An alternative way forward would be to acknowledge that sickle cell and thalassaemia screening could be considered as a test for life rather than an antenatal test. It could be conducted in primary care at any stage, not just when the woman is pregnant. To ensure joined-up care the carrier test result could be included on the maternity referral form, much as relevant history is now included.

In the wider view this would fit well with the development of a coherent preconception screening and care policy offered to women and couples as part of young adult checks, contraceptive care, and pre-pregnancy planning.4 The findings of Locock and Kai show that parents would welcome an sickle cell and thalassaemia screening programme before pregnancy.5 At present such a policy and service is lacking from the NHS despite the obvious benefits it would provide. In the case of sickle cell and thalassaemia screening countries such as Cyprus and Iran who offer preconception programmes, and in the case of Iran have even passed a fatwa to allow prenatal diagnosis and termination early in pregnancy, have achieved most success.6 A national preconception screening and care programme would help to clarify that the current ‘turf war’ between midwifery and primary care is unhelpful and would demonstrate the important role for primary care as key to the long-term care of women and their families, which starts before pregnancy and continues through childhood and often into the next generation.

The data reported here highlight an urgent need for action, and the debate about how to achieve change should not lose sight of the need to achieve change. An important area for general practice to address is the lack of knowledge in primary care about the need for early antenatal testing, which patients will increasingly expect to be routinely provided in this setting.6 The experience of the PEGASUS (Professional Education for Genetic Assessment and Screening) programme commissioned by the NHS Sickle Cell and Thalassaemia Screening Programme is that, to date, primary care has been a difficult audience to engage.

  • © British Journal of General Practice, 2008.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. London Health Observatory
    Analysis of frequent hospital users, by PCT 2003/4. http://www.lho.org.uk/viewResource.aspx?id=10286 (accessed 17 Jan 2008).
  2. ↵
    1. Streetly A,
    2. Clarke M,
    3. Downing M,
    4. et al.
    Implementation of the universal newborn screening programme for sickle cell disease in England: results for 2003–2005. J Med Screening, (in press).
  3. ↵
    1. Dormandy E,
    2. Gulliford M,
    3. Reid EP,
    4. et al.
    (2008) Delay between pregnancy confirmation and sickle cell thalassaemia screening: a population-based cohort study. Br J Gen Pract 58:154–159.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Chapple J
    Preconception care (National Knowledge week). http://www.library.nhs.uk/screening/ViewResource.aspx?resID=269308 (accessed 17 Jan 2008).
  5. ↵
    1. Locock L,
    2. Kai J
    (2008) Parents' experiences of universal screening for haemoglobin disorders: implications for practice in new genetics era. Br J Gen Pract 58:161–168.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Samavat A,
    2. Modell B
    (2004) Iranian national thalassaemia screening programme. BMJ 329:1134–1137.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    1. Qureshi N,
    2. Armstrong S,
    3. Modell B
    (2006) GPs' opinions of their role in prenatal genetic services: a cross-sectional survey. Fam Pract 23(1):106–110.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 58 (548)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 58, Issue 548
March 2008
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Commentary: Important role for primary care in ensuring informed choice and timely screening and care
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Commentary: Important role for primary care in ensuring informed choice and timely screening and care
Allison Streetly
British Journal of General Practice 2008; 58 (548): 158. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp08X277339

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Commentary: Important role for primary care in ensuring informed choice and timely screening and care
Allison Streetly
British Journal of General Practice 2008; 58 (548): 158. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp08X277339
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • How people present symptoms to health services: a theory-based content analysis
  • Central or local incident reporting? A comparative study in Dutch GP out-of-hours services
  • Screening of testicular descent in older boys is worthwhile: an observational study
Show more Original Papers

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242