Seòmar agus comataidhean

I can confirm that in 2018-19 the City of Edinburgh Council will again receive an additional £3.9 million in recognition of the increased costs that are associated with Edinburgh being Scotland’s capital city.

In line with the commitment set out in the Cancer Strategy, I can confirm that two radiotherapy physics trainee posts per annum were filled in 2015-16 and 2016-17.

The reporting of waiting times data was a standing item for discussion at the meetings of the Ministerial Steering Group (MSG) on Chronic Pain. Officials met with ISD on 13 January 2017 to provide feedback from patient representatives of the MSG following discussion of the waiting times publication at the MSG on 4 October 2016.

In relation to waiting times data for return appointments, the MSG maintained a position that as this data would not lead to better outcomes for people with chronic pain other options should be explored and subsequently approved progression of the development of a National Chronic Pain dataset.

The Ministerial group has been replaced by the National Advisory Committee for Chronic Pain, which met for the second time on 19 December 2017 and is chaired by Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Gregor Smith. That group, which includes patient representatives, will oversee the development of the National Chronic Pain dataset.

ISD adheres to the Code of Practice for Official Statistics which is underpinned by the Statistics and Registration Services Act (2007). This is achieved by listening to users of their statistics through consultations and adjusting their statistical outputs accordingly, ensuring their statistical reports are protected from any political pressures, and presenting statistics impartially and objectively.

As part of moving the Chronic Pain Waiting Times Publication from developmental status to Experimental Official Statistics, ISD carried out a consultation with users and published a report in October 2017. ISD will be implementing changes over forthcoming publications and are also happy to receive feedback on publications at any point in time.

The Scottish Government supports NHS Health Boards in their efforts to ensure that they have the right staff in place to meet the healthcare needs of the local population.

We have been assured by NHS Lothian that despite significant investment, the Board continued to face challenges with recruitment and sustaining a 24/7 workforce. Therefore it reluctantly took the decision, in the interest of children and their families, to implement an interim model on 7 July 2017.

The Board commissioned the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) to review the work undertaken to secure a sustainable 24/7 staffing model. The College has carried out a review and produced a report which was received by the Board in the Autumn. It concluded that option one remained both the RCPCH’s and NHS Lothian’s preferred option for St John's Paediatric services i.e. 24 hour consultant and Tier 2 [middle grade] cover. The College recognised that the development of this model was a long-term solution depending upon the successful recruitment of consultants, Advance Nurse Practioners (ANP) and Specialty and Associate Specialist Doctors.

NHS Lothian has given an assurance that it is committed to increasing staffing levels and reinstating the 24/7 model.

The Scottish Government committed £100 million of funding to the cancer strategy ‘Beating Cancer: Ambition and Action’ over the 5 year period between 2016 - 2021. To date we have spent £34 million to implement the actions set out within the strategy and the remainder will be allocated over the next three years.

The 2015 Scottish Cancer Patient Experience Survey included all cancers covered by the ICD10 codes from C00 to C96 except C44 (malignant neoplasms) and C84 (some types of lymphomas). This is consistent with the approach taken for other UK Cancer Patient Experience Surveys.

I refer the member to the answer to question S5W-13567 on
9 January 2018. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament’s website, the search facility for which can be found at http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/28877.aspx

The Scottish Government’s Capital Investment Group (CIG) oversees the approval process for business cases across NHSScotland and provides the necessary assurances that proposals are robust, affordable, deliverable, and that they are in line with wider NHS policy. Following consideration by the CIG, approval was given for the Initial Agreements for the NHS Highland “North of Scotland Elective Care Centre” and the Golden Jubilee National Hospital "Ophthalmology Unit Development’" on 28 September 2017. The Business Cases for these elective centres are now under development.

The Initial Agreements for the remaining centres continue to be developed, supported and informed by a range of national planning work, and will be considered by the CIG in due course. In line with the original commitment, the programme to deliver the elective centres remains on track for completion by the end of 2021.

The legislative functions of Healthcare Improvement Scotland (HIS) are broadly similar to those of the Care Quality Commission.

The functions and powers of HIS include: supporting, ensuring and monitoring the quality of healthcare provided or secured by NHS Scotland and the provision of quality assurance and accreditation. HIS also has powers in relation to inspections and registration of independent healthcare services.

In addition, Scottish Ministers have direction making powers under Section 10A(3) of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978: in carrying out its functions, HIS is to act subject to, and in accordance with, such directions as may be given by the Scottish Ministers.

The consultation ‘Promoting professionalism, reforming regulation’ is not due to close until 23:59 on 23 January 2018. As such, it would not be appropriate to comment on future options for the development of professional healthcare regulation.

It is open to anyone to refer a registered health professional to the appropriate regulator when concerns arise about their fitness to practise. Complaints handling procedures vary from regulator to regulator and the wide-ranging consultation seeks views on all aspects of regulation, up to and including the structure and number of the regulators themselves. It is important to note that the professional healthcare regulatory bodies operate on an independent basis, according to their respective legislation, and it is for them to consider and take appropriate action on complaints about registrants’ fitness to practise.

When a complaint is made against an employee, it is right that the Health Board as the employer is allowed the opportunity to investigate properly before making a decision about referring the matter to a professional regulator. However, where clear and serious concerns arise, Boards are entitled to and will often make an immediate referral in the interests of patient safety. The ability of a Board to look into complaints enables them to learn from mistakes and take immediate action to support effective clinical governance.