Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have been very clear that ScotSTAR will transfer the babies. The decision about whether the mother can travel with the baby depends on the health of the mother. My understanding of the layout of a ScotSTAR ambulance is that the mother would have to sit for the duration of the journey, which might not be appropriate for her own health, so separate transportation decisions as to the safest and the right way for a mother to be transferred would be needed. It may be by ambulance, but it may also be by private car.

ScotSTAR provides a separate ambulance; it is not a general ambulance. ScotSTAR ambulances are key ambulances designed specifically for neonatal baby transfer.

You are absolutely right that ScotSTAR is key to ensuring the right support. As I highlighted earlier, ScotSTAR has been operating for 20 years. It is a well-recognised model of providing transfer between hospitals for the smallest and sickest babies. As I said earlier, ScotSTAR and the Scottish Ambulance Service, which operates ScotSTAR, have been involved in the best start work right from the start, and that is very important.

Any modelling that is required will be done. As Kirstie Campbell noted, the work is happening on a financial basis. One of the directors of finance, who is part of the task and finish group, is looking at the work from a once-for-Scotland approach. If the capacity of ScotSTAR needs to increase, that will certainly be built into our approach to ensure that babies are transported in the safest, most careful way, to ensure the best outcomes for them.

Thank you for that question. I think that you heard some evidence from Stephen Wardle about that last week.

From the work that we did with Crosshouse in Ayrshire and Arran sending patients to Glasgow and the Victoria in Fife sending patients to Lothian, it was clear that the best outcomes are if the mother can travel while the baby is in utero. That should be picked up in the visits that mothers-to-be have with their maternity staff. They will be put on one of the different pathways for expectant mothers and that would be taken into account. There will be certain areas that will require the maternity staff to ensure that they recognise whether a mother is likely to give birth early.

I am sorry if I have given you that impression; that was not the intention.

All the capacity work is being done now, and it is important that it is done. We have been very clear that it needs to be done carefully. I am aware that some of the evidence that you heard last week was that the modelling had not been done. That is exactly the work that we have asked the task and finish group to do, to ensure that we have the right services to provide the right care for the babies.

I would be remiss if I were not following the expert clinical advice that you heard last week, which is clear that the smallest and sickest babies get the best outcomes if they are treated in neonatal intensive care units that have a greater throughput. I find that a really awkward phrase to use when we are talking about babies, but it means a greater number of babies going through the system to ensure that the clinicians, the nurses and everybody else in the units looking after the babies are of the right standard to get the best outcomes for the babies.

I have visited Wishaw, Ninewells and other neonatal units in Scotland. As I indicated in my opening remarks, the staff are fantastic, and I respect and have great confidence in the work they are doing. However, it would be remiss of me as the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health not to listen very clearly and read very closely the evidence from other experts, clinicians and also BAPM.

It was reviewed by the initial group—the experts who were basing their decisions on expert evidence, which you heard last week. However, once I had made the decision and I was, rightly, being questioned by families and other clinicians, I asked the deputy chief medical officer to review it again to ensure that we had followed the right evidence and that the right results were coming from the report.

I refer to Bliss’s involvement in the best start programme. Right at the start, they made the point very clearly that if you have a baby who is in intensive care for some time, it can be financially draining on the family. Accordingly, one of the requirements of best start was to set up the neonatal family fund, which provided money for families in this situation, whether for food, accommodation or travel. That was covered. We have since extended that to the young patients family fund, which ensures that support is available for families in those circumstances.

I visited the people who organise the YPFF in QEUH, and for people who deal with expenses and finance, they were some of the most caring people that I have met, because they recognise the impact—the pressures and the stresses—that such circumstances can have on families. They ensure that all the staff in neonatal wards are aware of the YPFF, but also make visits themselves, and will support families in completing the application forms for the funds. That can be done on a weekly basis or at the end of a stay. The regularity with which the funds arrive is entirely up to the family. The fund is most important and I commend Bliss for its work to ensure that it was included in our recommendations.

Bliss was very positive on not only the finance side but around psychological support for families in this situation. Psychological support can be provided either on the wards or by the third sector, including by Bliss.

We have had a discussion about that. The bill as it stands provides the right controls around the powers that we are looking to introduce, because, as I have said, it is a very fast-changing environment. I will take your question away and look at the issue further, but as it stands, the bill contains the right safeguards, controls and flexibility so that we can respond quickly to any changes that are needed.

UKIMA is one area that relates to the bill, but I felt that it was important that we brought in legislation, given the level of consultation that we have carried out over several years on the safety of cosmetic procedures. It is about not simply the training but, from a healthcare perspective, ensuring that we have the right premises and proper regulation so that clients are assured of the hygiene and safety levels and the professionalism of the people who work in those premises.

We also think that it is very important to bring in legislation to ensure that young people under the age of 18 cannot legally get such treatment. That is a key driver of the bill. We have therefore focused very much on the age-related elements and the premises, while recognising that, ideally, we want to bring in training and professional qualifications—which we will do once we have achieved the discussions with the UK Government.