Tag: Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-04-19.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will retender the existing NHS Whistleblowing Helpline; and if so, on what basis, and when.

Lord Prior of Brampton

We are committed to improving openness in the National Health Service and ensuring whistleblowers receive proper support. Every NHS trust will have a ‘Freedom to Speak up Guardian’ who will support whistleblowers and foster an open and honest culture. The National Guardian will lead, advise, and support the local guardians in carrying out investigations on how concerns are being handled, share good practice, report on national or common themes, and identify any barriers that are preventing the NHS from having a truly safe and open culture.

The Whistleblowing Helpline was established in 2003 by the Department of Health to provide advice to NHS staff and employers on the raising of concerns and on the protection of employees who do raise concerns. The Department holds regular meetings with the provider of the Helpline, Mencap, to keep its performance under review.

In the context of changes in the broader health and care system, such as the establishment of the National Guardian and the local guardians network, the Department is considering what role the Helpline should play in ensuring support for whistleblowers. The Department extended the existing contract to allow the Helpline facility to continue operating while future options for the Helpline are considered.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-04-27.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of pre-exposure prophylaxis in the prevention of HIV.

Lord Prior of Brampton

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a new use of HIV drugs which has shown clinical effectiveness in research trials at preventing HIV in people at high risk of getting HIV such as men who have sex with men (MSM) and people with HIV-positive partners. The drug used in the trials, Truvada, is not yet licenced for use as PrEP. Public Health England (PHE) has undertaken modelling work looking at cost-effectiveness of PrEP. Much depends on the price of the drugs and HIV prevalence in the target group. However, as with any new intervention, PrEP now needs to be properly assessed in relation to cost effectiveness to see how it could be commissioned in the most sustainable and integrated way and how it compares with other cost-effective approaches. The Department is considering this with PHE, NHS England and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

NHS England has agreed to carefully consider their position on commissioning pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Planning continues on the early implementer tests sites in the meantime. Irrespective of the commissioning arrangements for PrEP, decisions to fund will depend on full assessment of clinical and cost effectiveness and how it can be integrated with other HIV prevention efforts.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-05-03.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many review outpatient appointments were delayed beyond the clinically recommended time by hospitals in (1) 2014–15, and (2) 2015–16.

Lord Prior of Brampton

All follow up appointments (also known as planned, surveillance or recall appointments) should take place when clinically appropriate. It is for clinicians to make decisions on when they see patients, in line with their clinical priority, and patients should not experience undue delay at any stage of their referral, diagnosis or treatment. Moreover, the appropriate interval for follow up appointments will vary between different services or specialties, and between individual patients, depending on the severity of their condition.

To ensure that patients are seen at the appropriate time, NHS England guidance is clear that when patients on planned lists are clinically ready for their care to commence and reach the date for their planned appointment, they should either receive that appointment or be transferred to an active waiting list. At that point, a waiting time clock will be started and their wait reported in the relevant statistical return, so that patients are not waiting on ‘hidden’ lists.

Furthermore, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) also assesses providers against the new fundamental standards of safety and quality below which care should never fail. One of these standards requires that care and treatment must be appropriate and reflect service users’ needs and preferences. Another requires that care and treatment must be provided in a safe way. The CQC will require a provider to improve where it is not meeting these standards.

No assessment has been made of the clinical risks to patients of follow-up appointments being scheduled beyond clinically recommended times, as the risks will also vary between services, specialties and patients. It is for clinicians to make these judgements.

The information requested on delays to review outpatient appointments is not collected centrally.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-05-23.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will publish in full the findings of the new review into the governance of the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust.

Lord Prior of Brampton

This is a matter for NHS Improvement, which advises that it is currently undertaking a tender process to appoint a provider for the governance review of the Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust. It is expected that the review will begin in July 2016 and will report in the autumn.

NHS Improvement advises that it will publish the final review report in full.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-07-20.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of how best to evaluate the impact of vaccination programmes to prevent rare diseases of high severity, and in particular the cost-effectiveness of the vaccination of children.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Government bases its evaluation of vaccination programmes on the advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), other expert groups and evidence from a wide range of epidemiologists and other experts. Their considerations include the impact of rare diseases, immunisation, and impacts on children. The methodology used to assess cost-effectiveness of regular (i.e. non-emergency) immunisation programmes is based on published National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. A copy of the guidance is attached.

The Cost Effectiveness Methodology for Immunisation Programmes and Procurements (CEMIPP) working group has reviewed whether any changes to the methodology might be appropriate for immunisation and the Government is considering the advice.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-09-14.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the sufficiency of accident and emergency capacity in East Lancashire.

Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen

No such assessments have been made. The provision of accident and emergency (A&E) services at the Royal Blackburn Hospital is a matter for the local National Health Service. The NHS in East Lancashire has established an A&E delivery board to oversee system performance and the effective delivery of urgent and emergency care locally.

Ministers consult weekly with NHS Improvement and the Care Quality Commission about A&E performance.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-11-03.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consultation will take place with MPs and Peers on the proposals to increase fees set out in the consultation paper published by the Care Quality Commission on 2 November.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Care Quality Commission(CQC) has no plan to hold a separate consultation with Members and Peers. The CQC encourages anyone who wishes to contribute to the consultation, including Members of Parliament, to do so through the public consultation process.

The consultation sets out the CQC’s proposals in relation to fees for the 2016-17 fee scheme, and the pace at which it intends to achieve full cost recovery.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-11-10.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to take account of the reported views of several members of the Herbal Medicines and Practitioners Working Group that weak evidence was used to support the conclusions of the March report by Professor Walker on the regulation of herbal medicines and practitioners that there is no credible evidence base for herbal medicine and no rationale for accrediting training courses in that field.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Herbal Medicines and Practitioners Working Group, Chaired by Professor Walker, was an independent Group with a clear remit. The internal workings of the Group, and the evidence it considered when carrying out the various strands of its work, was for the Group and its Chair to determine. The Government will review the recommendations of the report and provide its response in due course.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-11-24.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether local healthwatches are meeting Healthwatch England’s mission to be a consumer champion, in the light of reports that some contractors and local authorities refuse to engage with the public in their area.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Department currently has no plans to undertake an investigation in to the performance of local Healthwatch organisations. In March 2015 the Department published a report commissioned from the King’s Fund – Local Healthwatch: Progress and promise – which set out the progress that local Healthwatch have made since being established in 2013. Transparency about the performance of local Healthwatch organisations is provided through the annual reports which they are required to publish. Reports on how the local Healthwatch network as a whole is operating and the nature of the support needed to deliver their activities effectively are discussed at quarterly public meetings of the Healthwatch England Committee.

Arrangements for ensuring local Healthwatch statutory activities are delivered in each area are a matter for local authorities. The Local Government Association has published guidance to support local Healthwatch and local commissioners in putting in place good governance arrangements, which includes clarity about the roles of all parties involved.

Neither the Department nor Healthwatch England are aware of local Healthwatch contractors refusing to engage with the public in their area. Where Healthwatch England is made aware of concerns in relation to local Healthwatch around governance or local relationships with specific individuals or organisations, it seeks to provide support to resolve these where appropriate. Members of the public are able to raise concerns though the complaints process of the local Healthwatch or the commissioning local authority.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-12-10.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how the performance of sponsored academies compares to that of maintained schools when grouped by prior results at achieving five A*-C grade GCSEs, including English and Maths, broken down per decile, over (1) the last year, (2) the last two years, and (3) the last three years.

Lord Nash

The figures for overall achievement of 5 A*-C Grade GCSEs including English and maths are provided by school type from 2011 to 2015 (provisional results) in Table 24 in the main text of the department’s publication, “Provisional GCSE and equivalent results in England, 2014 to 2015”, as attached to this answer. We do not hold the information grouped by prior results and broken down into deciles.

Interpreting trends in achievement in schools over time is complex with changes being driven by a wide range of influences and different circumstances that may exist between schools.