We are used to medical breakthroughs occurring in the more dramatic areas of healthcare, like genetics, transplant surgery and other life-changing interventions. To most patients, the routine stuff that goes on at the GPs surgery, while undoubtedly essential, is pretty much set in stone – tried and tested procedures that cannot be improved upon.

So it is fitting that a GP from Witheridge in Devon, who also happens to be a Clinical Fellow at the Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry, has been leading research that could transform the way patients have their blood pressure tested and save thousands of lives as a result.

Dr Christopher Clark had researched published by the leading medical journal The Lancet yesterday, showing that taking the blood pressure in both arms, rather than the usual one arm, could reveal pressure differences that might indicate the patient was suffering from a range of conditions including the risk of cardiovascular disease and death.

Dr Clark said yesterday that more research was needed to transfer the findings he and his team have made into clinical practice. In the meantime the UK Vascular Check programme has been made aware of the research and the evidence it has produced. It seems very likely they will want to act on what has been discovered and that patients reporting to their doctors' surgery for a routine blood pressure check in future could find both arms being measured with huge potential benefits for their health.

These findings prove that there is at least as much benefit to patients from looking at the basics of healthcare and that the more information that can be gleaned during basic health checks the greater the chances of early intervention to prevent a range of conditions from developing. They also show what important work is being carried out at the Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry and what a great asset to our region – and to the health of the nation – this organisation has become.

❉ ❉ ❉

There are many different factors which determine why particular communities are at ever increasing risk of flooding. Some have simply been built in the wrong place, others are victims of changes to the landscape around them and many more could become vulnerable as the climate changes and the likelihood of extreme weather events increases.

But it is seldom, if ever, the fault of the people living in those communities that find themselves in the eye of the storm when the water starts to rise. They are the victims of the flooding yet hardly ever the reason for it. So effectively penalising them by making them substantially responsible for flood defence work when it would be fairer – and more affordable – to spread the cost more widely, is not fair. What is clear is the mismatch between the level of flooding risk and the investment. That must change.