Public-interest campaign
This is a public-interest campaign about NHS eczema prescribing.
Media
Media and press
A public-interest briefing route for journalists, advocates, charities, and public-interest readers covering NHS eczema prescribing without turning the campaign into medical advice or product promotion.
A prescribing system designed to save pennies on emollients may spend pounds managing the consequences.
Media and briefing enquiries can be sent to [email protected].
Campaign summary
Campaign in one paragraph.
Smarter Eczema Prescribing is a public-interest campaign asking whether NHS eczema prescribing gives clinicians a clear route to review options after documented first-line emollient failure.
The campaign focuses on clinical suitability, documented first-line failure, prescribing flexibility, and the total cost of care when routine eczema management does not work in practice. It asks decision-makers to review the pathway, not patients to change treatment.
Safe facts
Facts and boundaries for coverage.
These statements are designed for public-interest reporting without overstating clinical or policy evidence.
Policy focus
It focuses on clinical suitability, documented first-line failure, prescribing flexibility, and total care cost.
Not treatment advice
It is not a treatment advice service and does not recommend named products, probiotics, ingredients, or routines.
Testimony boundary
Patient testimony is treated as testimony, not clinical proof.
FOI boundary
FOI requests are evidence gathering, not findings.
Evidence discipline
Unsupported clinical or policy claims remain bounded until the source trail supports them.
Briefing routes
Use the public evidence trail when covering or supporting the campaign.
Coverage and advocacy should point readers towards the pages that hold the policy asks, source trail, FOI status, and contact route.
For journalists
Use the one-paragraph summary, safe facts, and boundaries, then route media enquiries through the monitored contact page.
Contact for mediaFor charities and advocates
Use the campaign as a policy and source trail, keeping patient testimony separate from clinical proof.
Open MP briefingPolicy asks
The bounded campaign recommendations for prescribing policy review.
Open policy asksSource trail
The public source-and-gap register, including sourced principles, unresolved gaps, and out-of-scope material.
Open source trailFOI status
The evidence-gathering tracker. Pending FOI requests are not findings and should not be reported as conclusions.
Open FOI trackerEvidence brief
How the campaign separates sourced claims, patient testimony, policy questions, and evidence gaps.
Open evidence briefComment scope
What the campaign can comment on.
The campaign can discuss its purpose, evidence discipline, and public-interest policy questions.
- Campaign purpose and the prescribing-system question it raises.
- Evidence boundaries and why unsupported claims remain visibly bounded.
- Policy asks about documented first-line failure, prescribing flexibility, and total care cost.
- FOI evidence gathering and why pending requests are not findings.
- Patient testimony governance and why lived experience is not treated as clinical proof.
Claim boundaries
What the campaign will not claim.
These boundaries protect patients and keep public-interest coverage from becoming clinical advice.
- No medical advice.
- No product recommendations.
- No unverified probiotic, ingredient, strain, mechanism, or effectiveness claims.
- No population-scale claims from individual testimony.
Next step
Use the media route for public-interest scrutiny, not clinical care.
The campaign welcomes careful coverage that keeps evidence boundaries visible and directs readers to the source trail.