Seòmar agus comataidhean

I refer the member to the answer to question S4W-03196 on 18 October 2011. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the parliament’s website, the search facility for which can be found at:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/Apps2/MAQASearch/QAndMSearch.aspx.

I have asked that NHSScotland continues to review further evidence on transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) as it emerges.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is currently consulting on draft Interventional Procedures Programme guidance on the safe and efficacious use of TAVI in the UK. The guidance is expected to be made available in November 2011.

The National Institute for Health Research has also commissioned a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) looking at cost effectiveness. Publication of this HTA in December will trigger a further review by the Scottish Health Technologies Group.

As agreed at the time of the original review of TAVI in February 2011, NHSScotland will take this emerging evidence into account in its future consideration of the provision of TAVI by the end of February 2012.

The Scottish Government’s Quality Strategy commits us to ensure that healthcare services are not only person-centred, but also effective and safe. As such, the introduction of any new health technology should be guided by those principles.

An assessment of the clinical and cost effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and its safety, was a central part of the National Planning Forum’s (NPF) original review of TAVI in February 2011.

The NPF concluded that there was insufficient evidence at that point in time, to support a recommendation that a TAVI service should be established in Scotland, on the basis that the long term outcomes are unknown, there is only limited evidence of clinical efficacy and no evidence of cost effectiveness. This conclusion is supported by the most recent findings of the Scottish Health Technologies Group.

The National Institute for Health Research has also commissioned a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) looking at cost effectiveness. Publication of this HTA in December will trigger a further review by the Scottish Health Technologies Group.

As agreed at the time of the original review of TAVI in February 2011, NHSScotland will take this emerging evidence into account in its future consideration of the provision of TAVI by the end of February 2012.

Meantime, we expect that NHS boards should continue to ensure that local arrangements are in place so that people with severe aortic stenosis get access to appropriate clinical treatment. As part of those arrangements, where it is considered clinically appropriate by their doctors, patients can get access to TAVI treatment through consideration by an individual case panel.

As the question relates to local government I have asked COSLA to consider the question and provide a response. Officials from COSLA replied to the member on 23 September 2011.

The National Planning Forum will be provided with an update on transcathere aortic valve implantation treatment (TAVI) when it meets on 13 October 2011.

The Scottish Government announced it's 2012-13 public sector pay policy during the Spending Review statement on 21 September. Employers covered by the policy are required to apply a Scottish Living Wage. The policy is available at:

www.scotland.gov.uk/publicsectorpay.

Pay for other public sector and private sector staff is a matter for these employers.

In 2010 the total costs of providing medical and nursing cover and medical bags was £77,171.

As part of their inspection process The Care Inspectorate review both the qualifications and the continuing professional development training plans of care home provider staff.

The service currently provided by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is on a voluntary basis and is not part of the board’s core, statutory provision. In these circumstances there is no need to carry out a clinical risk assessment as the changes do not impact on patient care.

The direct service costs are largely recovered from promoters but do not include the time of the boards civil contingencies team and pharmacy staff in planning and managing this process.