Category: Health

  • Jonathan Ashworth – 2021 Comments on Covid Passports for Pubs

    Jonathan Ashworth – 2021 Comments on Covid Passports for Pubs

    The comments made by Jonathan Ashworth, the Shadow Health Secretary, on 10 July 2021.

    The NHS is in crisis as Covid admissions climb, cancer treatments delayed, waiting times increase and pressures intensify.

    Sajid Javid has no plan to support NHS staff through the summer. Their only response is to talk about removing the batteries from the smoke alarm by watering down the NHS app and looking at ID cards for pubs.

    Boris Johnson’s recklessness in throwing all caution to the wind is creating a summer of chaos.

  • Sajid Javid – 2021 Comments on Becoming Health Secretary

    Sajid Javid – 2021 Comments on Becoming Health Secretary

    The comments made by Sajid Javid on 27 June 2021 after becoming the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.

    I’m incredibly honoured to take up the post of Health and Social Care Secretary, particularly during such an important moment in our recovery from COVID-19. This position comes with a huge responsibility and I will do everything I can to deliver for the people of this great country.

    Thanks to the fantastic efforts of our NHS and social care staff who work tirelessly every day, and our phenomenal vaccination programme, we have made enormous progress in the battle against this dreadful disease. I want our country to get out of this pandemic and that will be my most immediate priority.

  • David Davis – 2021 Speech on the Use of Patient Data

    David Davis – 2021 Speech on the Use of Patient Data

    The speech made by David Davis, the Conservative MP for Haltemprice and Howden, in the House of Commons on 24 June 2021.

    In winding up the last debate, the Minister for the Armed Forces referred to volunteering a mucker for the guardroom. I hope that my entire speech does not sound like that to the Secretary of State; it is not intended to.

    Every couple of years, Whitehall, like an overexcited teenager expecting a new mobile phone, becomes fixated with data. Most recently, it has been about the power of big data mining, and I am sure that that is not just because of the influence of Mr Dominic Cummings. The Department of Health and Social Care wants to open our GP medical records—55 million datasets or thereabouts—to pharmaceutical companies, universities and researchers.

    Managed properly, that data could transform, innovate and help to overcome the great challenges of our time, such as cancer, dementia and diabetes. Those are proper and worthwhile ambitions in the national interest, and I have little doubt that that was the Government’s aim, but that data is incredibly personal, full of facts that might harm or embarrass the patient if they were leaked or misused. Psychiatric conditions, history of drug or alcohol abuse, sexually transmitted infections, pregnancy terminations—the list is extensive. Revealing that data may not be embarrassing for everyone, but it could be life-destroying for someone.

    Unfortunately, in keeping with the Department’s long history of IT failures, the roll-out of the programme has been something of a shambles. The Government have failed to explain exactly how they will use the data, have failed to say who will use it and—most importantly—have failed to say how they will safeguard this treasure trove of information. They describe the data as “pseudonymised” because it is impossible to fully anonymise medical records, a fact that is well understood by experts in the field.

    Even pseudonymised, anyone can be identified if someone tries hard enough. Take Tony Blair, who was widely known to have developed a heart condition, supraventricular tachycardia, in October 2003. He was first admitted to Stoke Mandeville and then rushed to Hammersmith. One year later, in September 2004, he visited Hammersmith again for a corrective operation. Even the name of the cardiologist is in the public record. A competent researcher would make very short work of finding such individual records in a mass database. That cannot be for the public good. Moreover, the Government seem to intend to keep hold of the keys to unlock the entire system and identify an individual if the state feels the need to do so.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate; I have been inundated with the same concerns from many of my constituents. Does he agree that a system that allows a diversion from the court-appointed warrant to collect information is a dangerous precedent in terms of judicial due process? We must ensure that anyone who opts out is completely opted out, as is promised.

    Mr Davis

    I take the hon. Gentleman’s point and will elaborate on it as I make progress. As presented, the plan is to collect the data first and think about the problems second, but the information is too important and the Department’s record of failed IT is too great for it to be trusted with carte blanche over our privacy.

    There is also the so-called honeypot problem. Data gathered centrally inevitably attracts actors with more nefarious intentions. The bigger the database, the greater the incentive to hack it. If the Pentagon, US Department of Defence and even Microsoft have been hacked by successful cyber-attacks, what chance does our NHS have?

    Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)

    Order. As we are coming towards 5 o’clock, I will just go through the following technical process.

    5.00pm

    Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(James Morris.)

    Mr Davis

    Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I take it you do not want me to start from the beginning again. That might test people’s patience a little.

    As I was saying, if the giants of data security can be hacked, what chance the NHS? Big databases and big systems are intrinsically vulnerable. In 2017, a ransomware attack brought parts of the NHS to its knees. Trusts were forced to turn away patients, ambulances were diverted and 20,000 operations were cancelled. That highlights significant problems the Government have not yet had time to address. Despite those problems, the Government have been determined to press ahead with their data plans regardless. They undertook no widespread consultation, provided no easy opt-out, and showed no particular willingness to listen as would be proper with such an important move. The public were given little over a month to opt out of a data grab that few knew existed. The plan was described by the British Medical Association as “a complete failure” and “completely inadequate”.

    The Government’s riding roughshod over our privacy was halted only when a coalition of organisations, including digital rights campaign group Foxglove, the Doctors’ Association UK, the National Pensioners Convention and myself, challenged the legality of the state’s actions. Our letter before legal action and threat of injunction forced a delay of two months. That is a welcome pause, but it has not resolved the issue.

    Earlier this week, the Secretary of State published a data strategy that raised the possibility of using health data to improve care, something I know is close to his heart, but plans for securing and handling our data were consigned to a single paragraph—almost an afterthought. If the Government do not take corrective action to address our concerns, there will inevitably be a full judicial review. I have no doubt that, without clear action to both protect privacy and give patients control of their own data, the Government will find themselves on the losing side of any legal case.

    Today, I hope and believe the Government will have the courtesy to listen. Indeed, if I may, I will thank the Secretary of State for being here personally today. It is very unusual for a Secretary of State to take the time to be here—he must be the busiest man in the Government—and address the issue today. That he has done so is, I think, a compliment to him.

    A comprehensive health database undoubtedly has the potential to revolutionise patient treatment and save hundreds of thousands of lives. However, this data grab is not the correct approach. There are much better, safer and more effective ways to do this in the national interest. No system is ever going to be 100% safe, but it must be as safe as possible. We must find the proper balance between privacy and progress, research and restrictions, individual rights and academic insights. That also means controlling the companies we allow into our health system. Patient trust is vital to our NHS, so foreign tech companies such as Palantir, with their history of supporting mass surveillance, assisting in drone strikes, immigration raids and predictive policing, must not be placed at the heart of our NHS. We should not be giving away our most sensitive medical information lightly under the guise of research to huge companies whose focus is profits over people.

    Of course, this was not Whitehall’s first attempt at a medical data grab. The failed care.data programme was the most notorious attempt to invade our privacy. Launched in 2013, NHS Digital’s project aimed to extract data from GP surgeries into a central database and sell the information to third parties for profit. NHS Digital claimed the data was going to be anonymised, not realising that that was actually impossible. The Cabinet Office described the disaster as having

    “major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable.”

    The project was ended in July 2016, wasting £8 million before it was scrapped.

    However, care.data was just one example. I am afraid the Department has a long and problematic history with IT. Before care.data the NHS national programme for IT was launched by Labour in 2003. It sought to link more than 30,000 GPs to nearly 300 hospitals with a centralised medical records system for 50 million patients. The initial budget of £2.3 billion—note billion, not million—ballooned to £20 billion, which had to be written off when the programme collapsed in 2011. My old Committee, the Public Accounts Committee described the failed programme as one of the

    “worst and most expensive contracting fiascos”

    ever.

    The possibilities to make research more productive, quicker and more secure are goals worth pursuing. There is no doubt that we all agree on the aims, but the path to progress must be agreed on, and there is clear concern among the public, GPs and professional bodies about this new data system.

    Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)

    I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman not only for giving way, but for leading today’s very important debate. It has been a really difficult year both for clinicians and for the public. The public understand the importance of research and planning, but they need confidence that their data—often about very intimate health needs—is secure. Given the need to maintain the special relationship between the clinician and patient, does he agree that the insufficiency of the current processes will damage that relationship, and therefore that we need a complete rethink about how data is collected and then used appropriately?

    Mr Davis

    I do absolutely agree. I think there is a common interest, frankly, between everybody in this House, including those on the Front Bench. The worst thing that can happen to this is a failure of trust. The failure of public trust in the care.data system saw some 2 million people opt out, and that is not what we want to see here, but we could easily exceed that figure with this programme now.

    A lack of trust will undermine the usefulness of the dataset the Government hope to collect. The Guardian reported this month:

    “All 36 doctors’ surgeries in Tower Hamlets…have already agreed to withhold the data”

    had the collection gone ahead on 1 July as was planned. Other parts of the country are seeing more than 10% of patients withdraw their data via their GP surgery, and that is with little to no public awareness campaign. Much of this would have been avoided had the Government trusted Parliament and the public with a detailed and carefully thought-through plan. As the BMA noted:

    “Rushing through such fundamental changes to confidential healthcare data, losing the confidence of the public and the profession, will severely undermine the programme and threaten any potential benefits it can bring”.

    It is entirely correct.

    Despite the errors so far, this proposal need not necessarily be consigned to the ash heap of NHS history. There are ways of safely achieving the vast majority of what the Government want. The programme OpenSAFELY is a new analytics platform, principally authored by Dr Ben Goldacre, Liam Smeeth and Seb Bacon, that was created during the pandemic to provide urgent data insights, so I know the Health Secretary will be very familiar with it. Working with 58 million NHS records distributed across a range of databases—not centralised, but on a range of databases—their software maintains health data within the secure systems it was already stored on. It is not transported outside the existing servers and it does not create a central honeypot target.

    The programme sees the data, but the researcher does not. Furthermore, all activity involving the data is logged for independent review. The way it works is that the researcher sets up the experiment, and the programme returns the results, such as a hypothesis test, a regression analysis or an associational graph. At no point does the researcher need to see the raw patient data; they simply see the outcome of their own experiment. This is very important because the biggest risk with any new data system is losing control of data dissemination. Once it is out, like Pandora’s box, you cannot close the lid.

    OpenSAFELY gets us 80% to 90% of the way to the Government’s objectives. Operated under rigorous access controls, it could give the vast majority of the research benefit with very little risk to the security of the data. Therefore, this is a viable approach providing there is a properly thought-through opt-out system for patients. This approach, so far, has been severely lacking: where are the texts, the emails and the letters to the patients that should have been there at the beginning? On the “Today” programme earlier this week, the Health Secretary indicated that he was now willing to contact every patient. That is very welcome. I hope he is now writing to every single patient involved in this proposed database and informing them properly. That information should be in easy-to-understand English or other community language, not technical jargon. Everything in the letter must be easily verifiable: clear facts for clear choices. The letter should have the approval of the relevant civil organisations that campaign on privacy and medical data issues to give the letter credibility. Unlike the disastrous scenes of only a few weeks ago, this will mean that patients should be able to opt out through their choice of a physical form with a pre-paid return, an easily accessible form online, or a simple notification of their GP. As well as the physical letter, a reminder should be sent to them shortly before their data is accessed, which, again, should give the patient a clear way to change their mind and opt out. The overall aim must be to give patients more control, more security and more trust in the process, and that requires very high levels of transparency.

    However, my understanding is that the Government want to go further than the 80% or 90% that we could do absolutely safely. They want to allow, I think, partial downloads of datasets by researchers, albeit under trusted research environment conditions. They may even go further and wish to train AIs in this area, or allow outside third-party companies to do so. In my view, that is a bridge too far. One of the country’s leading professors of software security told me only this week that it is difficult to ensure that some designs of AI will not retain details of individual data. The simple fact is that at the moment AI is, effectively, a digital technology with analogue oversight. Other researchers argue for other reasons that they need to have more direct access to the data. Again, as I understand it, the Government’s response is downloading partial samples of these databases under the control of technology that will track the researcher’s every click, keystroke and action, and take screenshots of what their computer shows at any point in time. I am afraid that I am unpersuaded of the security of that approach. Downloading any of these databases, even partially, strikes me as being a serious risk.

    The stark fact is that whether it be data downloads, AI or other concerns that we are not yet aware of, there are significant ethical and risk implications. If the Government want to go beyond what is demonstrably safe and secure, an opt-out system is not sufficient. In this scenario, a database would only be viable as an opt-in system, with volunteers, if you like: people who have decided they are happy that their data is used in a system that is perhaps not perfectly secure. The risk is too great to work on the presumption of consent that an opt-out system has. The Government must make these risks of exposure and privacy absolutely clear to those willing to donate their data. It is obvious that an opt-in system will be significantly constrained by a much smaller data sample, but that is the only way we should countenance such risks. My strong recommendation to the Secretary of State is that the Government pursue the first stage properly with a closed technology like OpenSAFELY that can provide proper security, proper access for researchers, and proper reassurance to the public.

    There is no doubt that this is a complex issue. However, it would be a dereliction of our duty if this House did not hold the Government to account on what could have been, and could still be, a colossal failure. Whether it intended it or not, the Department of Health has given us the impression that it did not take the privacy and security of our personal health records sufficiently seriously. This is extremely damaging to the Government’s cause, which I have no doubt is well-meaning. The Department needs to explain to the House how it will address the legitimate concerns and safeguard this most sensitive of personal data. Only by properly respecting the privacy of the citizen, and by obtaining freely given informed consent, can the Department deliver on its prime purpose, which must be enhancing the health of the nation—something that I know is absolutely close to the Secretary of State’s heart.

  • Matt Hancock – 2021 Comments on Vaccine Uptake

    Matt Hancock – 2021 Comments on Vaccine Uptake

    The comments made by Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, on 23 June 2021.

    The vaccination team have been working incredibly hard to provide people with much-needed protection from this life-threatening disease.

    With more and more evidence emerging on just how effective two doses of our vaccines are in protecting against the Delta variant, it’s a great to see three in five adults have been double jabbed, so we’re well on our way to the whole country getting the fullest possible protection.

    We’re so close now to ensuring the entire adult population is protected – now everyone aged 18 and above can make an appointment, so make sure you book in for your first and second doses as soon as possible.

  • Matt Hancock – 2021 Comments on Clinical Research

    Matt Hancock – 2021 Comments on Clinical Research

    The comments made by Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, on 23 June 2021.

    Clinical research has been vital in our fight against COVID-19 and has saved thousands of lives. Working with the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland governments, our ambitious UK-wide vision for the future of clinical research delivery is essential if we are to build on this exciting and life saving momentum.

    We are making this vision a reality by continuing to work closely with our partners across the UK, the NHS, regulators, industry and medical research sector. We will create a more innovative, resilient and patient-centred clinical research system.

  • Jonathan Ashworth – 2021 Letter to Simon Case on NHS Chief Executive

    Jonathan Ashworth – 2021 Letter to Simon Case on NHS Chief Executive

    The letter sent by Jonathan Ashworth, the Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, to Simon Case, the Cabinet Secretary, on 19 June 2021.

    Dear Mr Case,

    Re: Appointment of Chief Executive of NHS England

    I am writing to you today to set out my concerns and expectations for the appointment of the next Chief Executive of NHS England.

    Given the widespread outrage at the way in which cronyism has driven ministerial decision making these 15 months, I hope you will agree this appointment process must be entirely open, transparent and seen to be based on merit.

    This is one of the most important roles in healthcare in the world and the role holder must be able to deliver for both patients and NHS staff.

    The NHS has played a vital role in keeping the country safe during the pandemic. But the reality is that the NHS and healthcare services in this country entered the crisis on the back of have years of underfunding, neglect and cuts that meant we already had the highest waiting lists on record, the lowest number of beds on record, and over 100,000 vacancies.

    Before the pandemic hit, over 4 million people were on the waiting list for NHS treatment, and thousands of them were waiting too long for vital mental health, cancer care and elective surgery.

    Over the course of the pandemic, waiting lists have rocketed further leaving almost 400,000 people waiting over a year for treatment, missed cancer targets month after month and a ballooning waiting list for mental health care.

    Failure to act to bring these waiting lists down can translate into serious concerns for health outcomes on cancer, stroke, heart attacks and mental health. The IPPR estimate that there could be 4,500 avoidable cancer deaths alone this year, and 12,000 avoidable deaths from heart attacks and strokes.

    The crisis has particularly impacted mental health care – an area where years of neglect had already weakened the NHS. Over 200,000 fewer people have been referred for psychological therapies this year and waits for eating disorders are growing as services in some areas have been descried by psychiatrists as being ‘completely overwhelmed’.

    Putting in place a fully funded rescue plan for the NHS to bring waits downs and deliver quality care is priority for NHS staff, patients and me. It must be a priority for the next Chief Executive.

    The recovery from the pandemic will impact the health of a generation and the Chief Executive of NHS England will play a pivotal role in this. The candidate therefore, will need a track record of delivering improved outcomes for patients. The task ahead of them is monumental. The successful candidate must be able to improve waiting lists, modernise care and lead the NHS into the future.

    Our NHS staff, who are now facing a real-terms pay cut, are exhausted after over a year of fighting covid. Many are suffering from Long covid, and both clearing the backlog of NHS treatment and the Prime Minister’s aim of ‘learning to live with Covid’ will place a considerable burden on staff. Services will be expected to operate at increased capacity whilst continuing to work within infection control measures, reduced bed numbers and increased ICU capacity. It is therefore vital that the candidate can command the respect and trust of NHS staff. Staff will want reassurances that the head of the organisation will be their champion when discussing pay and working conditions with Ministers.

    Given the deepest concerns about cronyism in healthcare during the pandemic – around PPE and testing contracts not to mention the poor performance of outsourced services such as Test and Trace, it is understandable that patients and NHS staff have concerns about this appointment process. I am therefore seeking your assurances that the process will be free from the cronyism that has existed over the past year.

    This is a matter of the upmost importance for both patients and NHS staff, as the holder of this role will shape the future of the health service and arguably the most critical time in its history. The process must be entirely transparent, based on merit, and without undue political influence.

    I urge you to take action to make the recruitment and selection process public and subject to proper scrutiny to ensure that there is proper confidence in the next holder of this important role.

    I will be releasing a copy of this letter to the press and look forward to your response.

    Yours sincerely,

     

    The Rt Hon Jonathan Ashworth MP

    Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

  • Matt Hancock – 2021 Comments on NHS App

    Matt Hancock – 2021 Comments on NHS App

    The comments made by Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, on 19 June 2021.

    Technology undoubtedly plays a huge role in how we deliver healthcare now and in the future and it is great to see so many people downloading, using and benefitting from the NHS App.

    It is vital we embrace the momentum we have built in using technology and innovation in the health and care sector over the last year as we look beyond the pandemic to improve treatment, care and the experiences of patients.

  • Matt Hancock – 2021 Comments about Deliveroo and Covid Support

    Matt Hancock – 2021 Comments about Deliveroo and Covid Support

    The comments made by Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, on 19 June 2021.

    We are using every tool at our disposal to stop the spread of variants of concern, and thanks to Deliveroo, this new partnership will reach even more of the public to help us test as many people as possible and identify variants of concern.

    The government is committed to sending these variants into retreat and through our offer of free, twice-weekly testing combined with the phenomenal progress of our vaccination programme, we are doing everything we can to protect loved ones.

  • Olivia Blake – 2021 Speech on Miscarriage Research

    Olivia Blake – 2021 Speech on Miscarriage Research

    The speech made by Olivia Blake, the Labour MP for Sheffield Hallam, in the House of Commons on 17 June 2021.

    I would like to thank Mr Speaker, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing parliamentary time on this important topic in this Adjournment debate on miscarriage. I wanted to bring to the Chamber’s attention the recent series of papers published in The Lancet entitled “Miscarriage matters” and the petition by Tommy’s on support for women after miscarriages. The petition currently has over 170,000 signatories.

    I know that this topic is often one that is difficult to talk about, but I hope that by giving the Chamber an opportunity to hear some of the experiences and latest research, this debate can act as a catalyst for change for miscarriage services in the upcoming women’s health strategy. For too long, miscarriage has been a taboo, and I was disappointed that while the press release on the women’s health strategy call for evidence mentioned breaking taboos, it did not mention miscarriages directly—only pregnancy-related issues.

    I am so pleased that prominent women, like Meghan Markle and Myleene Klass, have been brave enough to speak and break the taboo about their experiences. Miscarriage is little spoken about but incredibly common. One in four pregnancies is thought to end in miscarriage. The research suggests that 15% of recognised pregnancies around the world end in miscarriage—that is 23 million a year or 44 miscarriages a minute. Black mothers face a 40% higher relative risk than white mothers and the risk of miscarriages is lowest between the ages of 20 and 29, but goes up threefold by 40 and fivefold by 45. Unfortunately, I think that this commonality and the well-known challenges in women’s health have meant that services are not always set up in the best interests of women. Miscarriages are often a symptom of an underlying health condition. They should not just be seen as a fact of life, and I am concerned that this attitude speaks to wider gendered inequalities in our society.

    I shared my own experience in a Westminster Hall debate last year and I have been overwhelmed by families contacting me to share their experiences. I have heard from women who have never told anyone but their partners that they have experienced a miscarriage and women who have experienced this 30 years ago still carrying the hurt, and now, some are seeing their children going through exactly the same issues. Although I spoke of my loss to highlight the impact of the pandemic, what is clear to me is that, covid or not, there are some huge holes—sometimes voids—in the care provided. Some people are lucky enough to have access to fantastic services and early pregnancy units. Others attend their GPs and others end up at A&E. Unfortunately, some attitudes seem to be very, very prevalent both in society and in some health services.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    May I just say how moved I was—the hon. Lady knows this—by her contribution in Westminster Hall on that day? It moved me to tears. I congratulate her on securing this debate. We should change the way we handle support for miscarriages as a result of that debate. Does she not agree that the threshold of three miscarriages in a row for NHS investigation must change, as every miscarriage is devastating and the estimation of an acceptable level of loss is abhorrent?

    Olivia Blake

    I absolutely agree and I will come on to the issue of how care is provided later in the debate.

    There seems to be a general lack of understanding that while miscarriage is common it is also incredibly traumatic and can lead to mental health problems. The Lancet research series highlights that anxiety, depression and even suicide are strongly associated with going through a miscarriage. Partners are also likely to be affected and previous reports have highlighted links with post-traumatic stress disorder. Despite that, the loss associated with miscarriage can often be minimised with phrases such as, “It’s okay, you can just try again,” or “It just wasn’t meant to be this time.” After my miscarriage, I got into a cycle of blaming myself and obsessing over what went wrong—if I ate the wrong thing, lifted something too heavy and so many other ridiculous thoughts. I have had to have counselling to deal with my trauma, but it was not offered. It was something that I had to seek out myself.

    The same cycle has been described back to me again and again and again by people who have experienced miscarriages. My brave constituent Lauren, who has allowed me to share her story today, has sadly suffered three miscarriages. She has never ever been offered any mental health support through the miscarriage pathway. In fact, even after she requested it, her miscarriages were not even recorded on her medical notes, leaving her to explain to five different healthcare professionals about her three miscarriages. On one occasion, a member of staff asked her when she had had her first child. That is clearly incredibly distressing, and why I support calls for better data collection and patient recording of miscarriages.

    Women have also told me about suffering three, four and five miscarriages. The reasons found for them were underlying health conditions, such as blood clotting disorders, autoimmune diseases and thyroid disease. Since my miscarriage, I ended up in hospital again and was diagnosed with diabetes, an issue that may have been picked up if testing had been carried out at the time of my miscarriage. The information I have received since my diagnosis of diabetes about pregnancy has been very informative and helpful, and a really stark contrast to those who have to get information about miscarriage.

    There are some excellent examples and many, many committed staff who often share the frustrations about the system, which has a hard cut-off of 24 weeks for some support services. We have seen a huge number of organisations stepping forward to fill the gaps in support and advice: Tommy’s, Sands, the Miscarriage Association and, locally in Sheffield, the Sheffield Maternity Cooperative. I spoke with Phoebe from the Cooperative, an experienced midwife who herself has gone through a miscarriage. She works with individuals and families across the city to provide timely, appropriate and sensitive care, after her own experiences were, unfortunately, the exact opposite of that.

    So what shall we do? I hope today the Minister will respond to the key findings of The Lancet series and to these key asks. The first is that the three-miscarriages rule has to end. The large number of people who signed the Tommy’s petition shows the strength of feeling on that. We would not expect someone to go through three heart attacks before we tried to find out what was wrong and treat them, so why do we expect women to go through three—in some cases preventable—losses before they are offered the answers and treatments they need? Instead, the research recommends a graded support system where people get information and support after their first miscarriage—we should not phrase it like that, though—tests after the second, and consultant-led care after the third.

    The second key ask is 24/7 care and support being available. That care should be standardised to avoid a postcode lottery or the patchy provision currently available, and it should include follow-up mental health support to help to reduce mental illness post miscarriage.

    Finally, we need to acknowledge that miscarriage matters and start collecting data on miscarriage, stillbirth and pre-term rates. I was shocked to find that no central data existed on the statistics and these estimates are based on very many different sources. We must break the taboo on miscarriage. I know from personal experience, and from many people who have contacted me, that we could do so, so much better. Will the Minister today commit to take forward these proposals and take a stand for women, individuals and families the system is failing? And will she meet me and campaigners to discuss this issue further?

  • Matt Hancock – 2021 Speech at the Virtual NHS Confed Conference

    Matt Hancock – 2021 Speech at the Virtual NHS Confed Conference

    The speech made by Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, on 17 June 2021.

    If I think about the last 18 months, one of the most striking moments for me was a nightshift I did at Basildon hospital in January.

    For me, nothing captures the extraordinary highs and lows of the past 18 months more than when I joined a night shift at Basildon Hospital.

    It was January – the height of the second wave.

    Our vaccine programme was still in its infancy.

    I started the evening by joining NHS colleagues as they got their jabs. It was right at the start of the vaccine programme

    And it was really inspiring to see colleague after colleague being made safe from a disease that, just a year before, didn’t even have a name.

    But that sense of joy gave way to determination, because I then I joined the team on the wards.

    And at that time – across the UK – there were more than 37,000 people in hospital with Covid.

    And they just kept on walking in.

    People. Short of breath. But still talking.

    As the night wore on, I saw some of those patients go onto ventilators.

    And some of them never walked out of that hospital.

    What I saw that night is what so many colleagues have had to endure – day after day, night after night.

    I saw the pressure that one of the most challenged hospitals in the country in terms of COVID was under at the worst moment.

    No matter what walk of life you choose to go in – nobody chooses the pressures that the team faced.

    I was in awe of the compassion – I think that’s the best word for it – and solidarity of colleagues that night in Basildon and everyone across the country who has helped us to face down this terrible disease.

    You have been the very best of us – and we owe you so much.

    And I commit today, to support colleagues across the NHS.

    To give you the support you need to fight for you as we recover, together.

    And as we face the future.

    Reflecting on that night, I’m struck not only by the suffering and the struggle but also by the remarkable fact that this was happening less than 6 months ago and it was happening more or less everywhere.

    We’ve come such a long way since then, to the point where, I can confirm that, as of this afternoon, we have given a first dose of vaccine to 4 out of every 5 adults in the UK.

    And the speed of deployment means that tomorrow we can open vaccination to everyone over the age of 18. I think it’s an incredible achievement on the vaccination side.

    And while there are still just over 1,000 people in hospital with COVID – I’ve just come from the Chelsea and Westminster, where there are none in intensive care, and just 3 in total – and so while there are still those pressures, especially in some parts of the country, we can also take this moment to look forward because we know the vaccine is our way out of this pandemic.

    And as we vaccinate our way out, the scale of the challenges left behind are not diminished.

    And that’s what I wanted to spend a few minutes talking about today.

    My view is that we’ve learned a huge amount together and we’ve got to make sure we embed those lessons as we recover.

    And as your excellent new Chief Executive Matthew Taylor said yesterday:

    “Now is the time to fulfil our duty to the 130,000 who have died – and the millions who have suffered or been bereaved by COVID” to “make this a turning point from which we build the best health system in the world.”

    And I agree with every word and I honestly believe, from the bottom of my heart that we can fulfil the NHS’s potential to be the best health service in the world.

    We have at our disposal what is needed to make that truly happen.

    And if we work together in that common mission, then we can make that dream a reality.

    So today I want to directly address this question: how do we discharge that duty, collectively and together?

    Because, this can only be done if we do work collectively together on that common mission.

    In fact, that common mission was one of the features of dealing with the pandemic and one of the reasons that people could come together, and people did come together in a remarkable way.

    I believe – from the conversations I’ve had with so many of you – that there is a remarkably strong consensus on what needs to happen to make the NHS the best it possibly can be.

    And I commit to you today to play my part in the reforms we all know we need.

    I want to take a few minutes to set out how I see it: the lessons we need to learn and what we need to do.

    But I promise you this in terms of attitude and my approach as Secretary of State: I have no utopian blueprint.

    I have no monopoly on the plan that we must co-create.

    I see my job as one of many, many people, driving the change we all want to see.

    I see my job as playing my part in making the system work for those who work in the system.

    And the way I think of it is this.

    The service the NHS provides is a function 3 things: the level of demand from citizens; resources that we have to serve that demand; and how we use those resources, innovatively and effectively.

    Demand. Resources. And innovation.

    It’s a triangle, if you like, where each side supports the other 2.

    We need to think about all 3, and how they interact.

    What’s going to happen to demand – and what we can do, through preventative action, to reduce it.

    The resources that we have – which means not just the money, important as that is, but the real-world resources like trained staff and capacity.

    And innovation: locking in the lessons we’ve learned through the pandemic and our vaccine rollout and embracing the chance to do things differently, to do things better, to make the changes that will help us take on other missions with the same sense of innovation and integration and passion and mission that we’ve seen these past 18 months.

    So let me just go through each of those 3 sides of that triangle.

    Recovery

    Of course, one of the great consequences, one of the significant consequences of the pandemic is the scale of the elective backlog.

    The size of that backlog and how quickly we can address it depends on all 3 of these factors: demand, resources and innovation.

    So we need to be clear about what we know and about what we don’t yet know.

    We can all see demand returning and our emergency departments filling up.

    We know there are already 5.1 million people in England waiting for care at this moment.

    Now, thankfully, the latest figures actually show a fall in the number of people waiting over a year which demonstrates the efforts already underway.

    And I know that as I sit here today, that recovery has begun, and I’m very, very grateful to everybody for their part in it.

    But we all know, there is so much more to do.

    Demand

    Let’s turn first to demand. The first part of this triangle is to think about both the demand that can return and also think about what we can do to prevent demand in the future.

    We know that our figures don’t yet include the returning demand of those people who have not come forward for care during the pandemic but are now regaining the confidence to approach the NHS.

    And we know that as people re-present with problems – problems they might not have wanted to bother the NHS with over the last 18 months – we will see the waiting list go up.

    What we don’t know is the exact scale of this pent-up demand.

    But to give a sense of the scale of the challenge, during the pandemic, 7.1 million fewer patients were added to the waiting list for diagnosis and elective treatment.

    So 7.1 million fewer clock-ons.

    Now some of those people will return.

    Some of the issued will have been resolved without the need for care.

    But we must be prepared.

    Even with the system running at 100 percent, even with everybody working incredibly hard, that if all of that demand came back, we would have the biggest pressure on the NHS in its history.

    I am determined that we rise to this challenge and I know, from everything we’ve done together, that we will.

    So we’re then turning to resources. We are putting in the extra resources, we’re hiring the extra people and building the extra capacity.

    But on the demand side, it’s also critical that we use preventative care to help reduce that demand.

    And then I’ll turn to the great promise of innovation because of new technology, that we have, possibly the greatest wave of innovation in the history of our NHS that is going on right now.

    Overall, I can you this: the direction of travel towards integration and population health – that journey we are all on, that will be critical to addressing these pressures too.

    Because our new approach, based on the concept of population health, will help us reduce future demand across primary care, emergency care and mental health across all areas

    By using the collective resources of the local system, the NHS, local authorities, the voluntary sector and all others who we can bring to bear on this to improve the health of the nation.

    So that’s the first part – demand – and it’s about acknowledging the scale of the demand that may come back and it’s about making sure that we use a population health approach and preventative measures to reduce the scale of demand in the future. Those 2 things are not inconsistent. On the contrary, they are vitally side by side and collaborative

    Resources

    The next question is resources.

    We’re providing the NHS with unprecedented levels of funding.

    Today, healthcare funding for COVID-19 alone stands at £92 billion.

    In March we committed £7 billion of further funding – including £1 billion of the Elective Recovery Fund.

    And the most important resource of all, is colleagues’ time.

    And in that spirit, we are bringing in more colleagues to join.

    Since last March we’ve recruited over 5,600 more doctors, over 10,800 nurses, and in total there are more than 58,300 more staff in hospital and community health services.

    So resources, both funding and people, are both absolutely critical to addressing the challenges that we face. And that is the second side of the triangle.

    Innovation

    But everybody knows, we’ve got to use our resources as wisely as possible.

    To truly change how we deliver care in this country, we have to make the changes that allow the spirit of innovation that was unleased by the pandemic and embraced by the workforce – to fly. We have to allow that spirit to fly.

    Reforming diagnostics, with community diagnostic hubs.

    Embracing telemedicine like never before.

    Using NHS 111 as a first port of call.

    The nation’s new-found love of NHS apps.

    Collaborative working within systems and across networks.

    Cancer alliances.

    The Orthopaedic Network.

    Getting it right first time.

    And collaboration. Collaboration. Collaboration. Like never before.

    In the pandemic, we worked as one team – and we must never let that go.

    So, if you think about it, we’re transforming more or less every aspect of health and care in this country art this moment.

    And I think it’s worth dwelling on a few of these big reforms.

    Starting with our Health and Care Bill.

    We know we’re at our best when we work as one.

    The best example is how we’ve deployed over 70 million jabs in little over 6 months by putting traditional organisational boundaries to one side.

    Every time you go to a vaccination centre, there are different people with different lanyards from different organisations: NHS organisations, primary care, secondary care, community care, people from outside the NHS, people from local authorities, the armed forces and volunteers, people with all sorts of organisational backgrounds coming together. We have done so much to break down silos.

    That’s the spirit of our Health and Care Bill.

    The Bill will make it easier to do the right thing, tackling bureaucracy and freeing up the system to innovate and to embrace technology, giving staff and patients a better platform for care.

    Just look at the work that’s already saved lives during the pandemic.

    The QCovid model used anonymous GP records to work out which patients would be a greatest risk from Coronavirus and it led to us adding 1.5 million people to our Shielded Patient List back in February and put them at the front of the queue for the vaccine.

    And I pay tribute to Dr Jenny Harries whose gone on to be the Chief Executive of UKSA in the work that she did.

    Or the remarkable things NHSX were doing with Dr Matthew Knight at Watford General Hospital with virtual wards: remotely monitoring patients’ heart rates, oxygen levels, temperatures and flagging to clinicians early when there was any deterioration. And now that model is being used so much more widely.

    Or ‘Everybody In’, where the NHS worked hand in hand with partners in local government to support 37,000 vulnerable people and rough sleepers.

    We can do more of this and we can do it together.

    And of course this team work, this partnership is delivered locally.

    And by god, if we’ve learned anything from the pandemic, we’ve learned the importance of working in partnership with others like local authorities, the NHS, and so many others.

    Integrated Care Systems are designed to support and drive this local partnership, draw on local expertise, and transform how we do public health in this country too.

    And they are put on a statutory footing in a bill that is forthcoming very soon. And by April 2022, the system approach, with its underpinning in law, will remove a huge amount of the barriers to integration that still exist, and help strengthen further that culture of collaboration which has built up so much over the past 18 months.

    That’s the second big reform that’s going on. Which is reforms to how we do public health in this country.

    We know prevention is better than cure – but rarely has it been so starkly apparent than in the past 18 months. For instance, when obesity emerged as a major factor in how ill you can get if you get COVID.

    So now we’re putting the power of the NHS budget in an area behind the prevention agenda,

    giving ICSs the statutory powers, and the budget, to help people stay healthy in the first place.

    Because we know a population health approach will be critical to managing that demand on the NHS in the years and decades ahead

    And with the new UKHSA taking the lead on our health security, that vital health promotion work – on obesity, diabetes, smoking, and so much else – all of that is finally getting the dedicated focus it deserves with national leadership, under the Chief Medical Officer, from the new Office for Health Promotion at a national level, and working with Local Authorities and directors of public health, and through systems, at a local level.

    The third area where there’s major reform going is of course in mental health, which is just as important as physical health is our mental health.

    There’s been over a generation, a revolution in how society thinks about mental health, and rightly so.

    We recommit today to the noble goal that mental and physical health should have parity.

    And to deliver that, we are increasing funding in mental health faster than elsewhere in the NHS and we will bring our mental health legislation into the 21st century.

    The reforms to the Mental Health Act will improve services for the most serious illnesses and support people to manage their own mental health better.

    The legislation will tackle the disparities and inequities of our system, improving how people with learning difficulties and autism are supported and ultimately, it’s going to be there for every single one of us, should we need it.

    And just as these changes in mental health have been needed for too long, later this year, we will also bring forward much-needed reforms in social care too.

    Data strategy

    And the golden thread that runs through all these changes, all of these areas of reform on integration, on public health, on mental health, on social care: the golden thread is better use of data.

    Even by the rapid standards of data-driven technologies, this has been a phenomenal period of progress when we’ve seen a decade of change packed into just over a year.

    At the start of the pandemic, 3 million people had an Enhanced Summary Care Record. Now that has increased to over 56 million people.

    And we know that data saves lives.

    It’s how we identified some the most vulnerable in this pandemic.

    It’s how hospitals supported each other across systems when they were under the greatest pressure they’ve ever faced.

    It’s how we found treatments for COVID. And we found them here in the UK because we have the data systems to support the best clinical trials in the world within the NHS.

    And across the health and care system, people are now using data more fluently, with more confidence, more effectively than ever before.

    The urgency of the pandemic has spurred us on and this is not the moment to slow. On the contrary.

    So we are publishing our new data strategy next week on how we can use the power of data to tackle the challenges ahead.

    And ultimately, it’s our use of data, – not simply legislation – that will drive the greatest reshaping of our health and care landscape and I’m excited about what we can achieve together in the years to come.

    And I want to tell you a story about how important this is that really brings this home for me. On a night shift a couple of years ago, I remember being in a room with a lady who had suffered a cardiac arrest and the alarm went off and a dozen or so people went into the room to support her, and she had a tracheotomy so she couldn’t speak and she was clearly in very significant trouble.

    But the problem was that no one knew her medical condition. They didn’t know what her status was. And they couldn’t find out until a consultant literally wheeled in a trolley with packs of paperwork on and started rifling through it to find her clinical records and then stood on a chair, reading out the crucial parts from these clinical record that were written by hand and she struggled to read the handwriting.

    That was 2 years ago, and it’s no way to run a modern health service.

    Thankfully it’s changing faster than it ever has done in the past. But imagine an NHS in which you can access right data, the right information, at the right time with the touch of a button, as easily as you can check the weather on your phone.

    That is where the NHS must be.

    Saving lives. Improving patient safety. Empowering our team to deliver the best care they can through the best data architecture: that is the fuel for innovation too.

    In its 73-year history, the NHS has faced countless challenges.

    But none can compare to what we have collectively faced over these past 18 months.

    Your extraordinary feats are unsurpassed, even in the proud history of the NHS.

    Not only have you risen to meet the most unimaginable kinds of pressures brought by the pandemic, but you’ve done it with a passion, determination and innovation and that will make us even better still.

    So let us “fulfil our duty to build the best health system in the world”.

    And I commit to you, to give you everything I can to deliver on this mission to build back better and, together, fulfil the promise of the NHS in brighter days ahead.

    Thank you very much indeed.