Evidence gathering

Freedom of Information requests

The campaign is using Freedom of Information requests to test whether NHS eczema prescribing is being assessed by clinical suitability and total system impact, not only by product acquisition cost.

Why FOI evidence matters

FOI requests test whether policy questions are visible in public data.

Patient testimony can identify policy questions. FOI responses can help test whether those questions appear in NHS data, formulary evidence, prescribing records, adverse-event reporting, and waiting-time data.

The campaign does not treat pending FOI requests as findings. They are a way to ask whether public bodies hold evidence about formulary decisions, prescribing patterns, dermatology waiting times, non-formulary access, and adverse-event reporting.

FOI tracker

Request categories and current status.

Each tracker item shows the request type, evidence question, status, and what a response may help clarify. Pending FOI requests are not findings.

Integrated Care Boards / formularies

Request type: Formulary evidence base, clinical reviews, equality impact assessments, committee minutes, criteria, Individual Funding Request data, dermatology referral waiting times, and any review of probiotic interventions.
Evidence question: How are formulary choices, exception routes, documented emollient failure, clinical suitability, and adjacent evidence questions handled locally?
What a response may clarify: Whether relevant formulary evidence, review records, criteria, or exception-route data are held and how documented need is considered.

Pending FOI requests are not findings.

NHS Trusts / dermatology access

Request type: Urgent dermatology referral waiting times, 18-week performance, 52-week waits, atopic eczema extractability, first outpatient appointment costs, non-formulary emollient policy, and recording of urgent or emergency care while waiting.
Evidence question: What can dermatology access data show about the treatment gap while patients remain in primary-care eczema management?
What a response may clarify: Whether relevant access, waiting-time, cost, extractability, and non-formulary policy data are held in a form that can inform the campaign question.

Pending FOI requests are not findings.

NHS Business Services Authority / prescribing data

Request type: Monthly prescribing and dispensing volumes and Net Ingredient Cost for emollient and barrier preparations, grouped by broad preparation type where data allows.
Evidence question: What prescribing-volume and cost data exist for broad emollient and barrier preparation patterns?
What a response may clarify: Whether prescribing data can support careful analysis of volume and cost patterns without making unsupported effectiveness claims.

Pending FOI requests are not findings.

MHRA / Yellow Card data

Request type: Aggregated Yellow Card reports for emollient and barrier preparations, including suspected adverse reactions, condition aggravated, drug ineffective, treatment failure, reporter type, severity, and product-level counts where available.
Evidence question: What signal, if any, is visible in aggregated safety and suspected ineffectiveness reporting for relevant preparation categories?
What a response may clarify: Whether aggregated Yellow Card data can inform safety or tolerability questions, with reporting limitations clearly stated.

Pending FOI requests are not findings.

Current status

Requests submitted. Responses pending.

No response dates or findings are being stated on this page until they exist.

How responses will be used

Responses will be published with their limits visible.

The campaign will separate what the data can show from what remains unknown.

Responses will be reviewed carefully before any findings are added to the site.
Findings will be added to the evidence brief and sources page only with limitations noted.
Non-responses, refusals, exemptions, and data not held will be recorded where relevant.
Results will not be used to make clinical treatment recommendations.

Next step

FOI responses will be added to the public evidence trail only after review.

The launch argument remains focused on emollient prescribing flexibility after documented first-line failure.

Evidence brief Sources Methodology Contact