Services for HIV infection and AIDS in Parkside DHA have been largely hospital based with little active involvement of local GPs. In response to the wishes of those with HIV/AIDS and predicted increases in the number of patients the DHA is now developing an AIDS strategy which identifies the development of primary and community care as a major objective. A postal survey of all 263 GPs within the DHA was undertaken in order to ascertain their views about the role of primary care in the management of HIV infection/AIDS. Replies were received from 75% (196). The responses to the survey indicated both the potential of general practice and willingness of GPs to be involved in the care of this client group. However, two key issues in developing this strategy were identified. These were information exchange and confidentiality. It is suggested that both hospitals and general practice must develop rigorous confidentiality policies to overcome these difficulties.

District health authorities have been instructed to operate a cervical cytology call and recall screening programme using the age-sex registers held by family practitioner committees. A detailed evaluation of implementation in an inner London district showed that 477 out of 687 (69%) invitation letters sent to women by the family practitioner committee were either inaccurate or inappropriate: almost half of the recorded addresses were incorrect and a further fifth of the women were not eligible for a test. Overall, 90 women had a smear, which is only 13% of the total but 43% of those found to be eligible. The findings did not differ significantly with age.The findings have major implications not only for the effectiveness of call and recall for screening for cervical cancer but also for the future development of screening for breast cancer in such areas.

No abstract

No abstract

medicine have been done is correct.' This is not because homoeopathic practitioners fight shy of comparisons, however, but, I believe, because of two other factors. The first factor is money. Well run trials cost money, and this usually comes from drug firms, which have a vested interest in the outcome of trials comparing different treatments. Homoeopathic remedies are cheap and successful (from a market point of view). Huge amounts of money are not at stake, and there is no incentive for homoeopathic manufacturers to invest large sums in clinical trials. The stimulus and finance for such trials would therefore have to come from elsewhereperhaps from a hospital trust with an interest in reducing its costs or from an academic department? The other factor is more complicated. Homoeopathic treatment is, in the main, not based on disease but on a patient's symptoms (so that different remedies may be appropriate for the same disease in different people). Matched cohorts and controls are therefore a problem and trial design has to be different from the conventional kind. This concept has to be understood and worked through. I use homoeopathic remedies routinely as part of my general practice and would be happy to take part in a properly run trial.