Tag: Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-10-19.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many people have so far been involved since recruitment into the 100,000 Genomes Project began.

Lord Prior of Brampton

Almost 10,000 people have been involved in the 100,000 Genomes Project so far,with more joining through the NHS Genomic Medicine Centres each day.The Project will sequence 100,000 whole genomes from around 70,000 people.Cancer patients have their genome and the genome of their cancer sequenced. Rare disease patients have their genome sequenced as do two of their blood relatives.

As at 12 October 5,234 whole genomes had been sequenced and added to the data centre.Substantial progress has been made across all aims of the project including the establishment of 11 NHS Genomics Medicine Centres who are actively recruiting participants and the first rare disease patients being diagnosed.

Regular updates on the 100,000 Genomes Project including the total number of genomes sequenced are published on Genomics England’s website:

www.genomicsengland.co.uk

“

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-10-19.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will report on progress with the 100,000 Genomes Project.

Lord Prior of Brampton

Almost 10,000 people have been involved in the 100,000 Genomes Project so far,with more joining through the NHS Genomic Medicine Centres each day.The Project will sequence 100,000 whole genomes from around 70,000 people.Cancer patients have their genome and the genome of their cancer sequenced. Rare disease patients have their genome sequenced as do two of their blood relatives.

As at 12 October 5,234 whole genomes had been sequenced and added to the data centre.Substantial progress has been made across all aims of the project including the establishment of 11 NHS Genomics Medicine Centres who are actively recruiting participants and the first rare disease patients being diagnosed.

Regular updates on the 100,000 Genomes Project including the total number of genomes sequenced are published on Genomics England’s website:

www.genomicsengland.co.uk

“

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-10-19.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many general practitioner practices that received funding to open at weekends and in the evening have cut back out-of-hours work due to (1) a lack of demand; and (2) a shortage of GPs; and by how much those practices have reduced their opening.

Lord Prior of Brampton

Schemes within the Prime Minister’s GP Access Fund are trialling innovative and improved general practitioner access. This includes longer opening hours – such as evening and weekend hours – but also different ways of accessing services, for example telephone and video consultations and increased use of skill mix. £175 million (including £25 million sourced from the £1 billion Infrastructure Fund) has been invested in 57 schemes over two waves, meaning that over 18 million patients (a third of the country) will have benefitted from improved access and transformational change at local level by March 2016.

The Wave One pilots have, in some cases, adjusted their approach. It is right for pilots to have done this to fit with what is found to work best for the local population.

Of the 20 Wave One pilots that initially offered extended access:

‒ 12 pilots have maintained or increased their extended access from initial mobilisation;

‒ 5 pilots have reduced their extended access by an average of 6 hours per week per scheme; and

‒ robust data was not supplied in time for three pilots, so an assessment of extended access variation cannot be made at this time.

Schemes noted that in order to meet local needs and preferences, they adjusted opening hours and redirected resources towards the end of the pilot, once the pattern of local demand was better understood. The reasons for reduction in extended access varied according to locality. They included lower than expected demand from patients, and clinical/non-clinical staff availability. Furthermore, after the process of due diligence, there was a difference for some pilots between bid contract and committed hours.

Clinical commissioning groups are looking at the evidence from the pilots necessary to secure sustainable provision which has proved beneficial for patients, local services and the profession.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-10-13.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government why patients in England cannot access the drug Docetaxel, in contrast to patients in Scotland.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is the independent body which, for England, makes decisions on the clinical and cost effectiveness of products based on thorough assessment of the best available evidence. NICE has recommended docetaxel for the treatment of hormone-refractory metastatic prostate cancer (where the disease becomes unresponsive to hormone treatment). It has not appraised docetaxel for use alongside hormone treatment.

In the absence of guidance from NICE, it is for commissioners in England to make funding decisions on drugs and treatments based on the available evidence. Although docetaxel is not licensed for this indication, there is no funding, legal or regulatory barrier to prescribing drugs off-licence. Where clinically appropriate, off-licence prescribing is safe and legal and most clinicians regularly prescribe in this way.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-10-13.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the reasons for the variation in elective surgery rates among the most affluent and least affluent areas of England recorded in the recent survey by the Health Service Journal.

Lord Prior of Brampton

NHS England has advised it is aware of the findings of the survey.

The NHS Atlas of Variation in Healthcare, published in September 2015 by Public Health England, NHS England and NHS Right Care, aims to identify unwarranted variation, and the causes of variation, in the provision of health services. Linked to this, the NHS Right Care programme will advise local health systems on variation in elective surgery intervention rates and support them to look at reasons for this and identify any changes needed.

The NHS Atlas of Variation in Healthcare is too large to attach to this reply, but can be found online at the following:

http://www.rightcare.nhs.uk/atlas/RC_nhsAtlas3_HIGH_150915.pdf

“

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-10-13.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they set aside the agreement in principle with the British Medical Association on junior doctor working and instead acted to impose a new contract, and if so, why.

Lord Prior of Brampton

No agreement ever existed – in principle or otherwise – beyond the Heads of Terms that were the basis for negotiations. No agreement has been set aside by the Government or the Department.

NHS Employers and the British Medical Association (BMA) agreed Heads of Terms for negotiations in July 2013 and commenced negotiations in October 2013, the intention being to conclude negotiations by the end of October 2014. The BMA walked away from those negotiations on 16 October 2014.

As part of negotiations, proposals for a new contract had been made by the management side (employers from each of the four United Kingdom countries). The BMA said it could not agree to these. The Government therefore asked the independent Review Body on Doctors’ and Dentists’ Remuneration (DDRB) to make recommendations.

The DDRB took evidence from the BMA, NHS Employers, the Department of Health and other parties. NHS Employers’ evidence, on behalf of the four UK countries, set out the proposals made by employers in negotiations, illustrating how these related to the jointly agreed Heads of Terms. The BMA’s evidence set out alternative proposals, which had not been made during negotiations.

The DDRB’s report broadly endorsed the proposals made by NHS Employers and made recommendations, identifying some areas where further discussion was needed. The Government invited both parties to return to the table with the DDRB recommendations forming the basis for further negotiations.

The Government, in England, has made clear its desire for the BMA to be involved in work to introduce a new contract. The Government has asked NHS Employers to work on the detailed design of a new contract for introduction in August 2016 and has continued to encourage the BMA to return to negotiations and take part in that work.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-10-13.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government on what basis officials in the Department of Health have said that the claims made by Dr Dan Poulter, formerly the minister in charge of negotiations, that they had set aside an agreement in principle with the British Medical Association on junior doctor working and instead acted to impose a new contract, were incorrect.

Lord Prior of Brampton

No agreement ever existed – in principle or otherwise – beyond the Heads of Terms that were the basis for negotiations. No agreement has been set aside by the Government or the Department.

NHS Employers and the British Medical Association (BMA) agreed Heads of Terms for negotiations in July 2013 and commenced negotiations in October 2013, the intention being to conclude negotiations by the end of October 2014. The BMA walked away from those negotiations on 16 October 2014.

As part of negotiations, proposals for a new contract had been made by the management side (employers from each of the four United Kingdom countries). The BMA said it could not agree to these. The Government therefore asked the independent Review Body on Doctors’ and Dentists’ Remuneration (DDRB) to make recommendations.

The DDRB took evidence from the BMA, NHS Employers, the Department of Health and other parties. NHS Employers’ evidence, on behalf of the four UK countries, set out the proposals made by employers in negotiations, illustrating how these related to the jointly agreed Heads of Terms. The BMA’s evidence set out alternative proposals, which had not been made during negotiations.

The DDRB’s report broadly endorsed the proposals made by NHS Employers and made recommendations, identifying some areas where further discussion was needed. The Government invited both parties to return to the table with the DDRB recommendations forming the basis for further negotiations.

The Government, in England, has made clear its desire for the BMA to be involved in work to introduce a new contract. The Government has asked NHS Employers to work on the detailed design of a new contract for introduction in August 2016 and has continued to encourage the BMA to return to negotiations and take part in that work.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-10-13.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions took place between government officials or special advisers and Monitor over the publishing of Q1 financial figures for NHS Foundation Trusts prior to the Conservative Party Conference.

Lord Prior of Brampton

Departmental officials regularly have conversations with the Department’s arm’s length bodies, including with Monitor, about the ongoing work of Government business, including the publication of Quarter 1 financial figures.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-10-13.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether Monitor was instructed by officials to delay publishing Q1 financial figures for NHS Foundation Trusts ahead of the Conservative Party Conference, and if so, why.

Lord Prior of Brampton

Departmental officials have no legal powers to instruct Monitor to delay publication of financial performance data. Departmental officials regularly have conversations with the Department’s arm’s length bodies, including with Monitor, about the ongoing work of Government business, including the publication of Quarter 1 financial figures from both Monitor and the Trust Development Authority.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-02-11.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps will be taken by NHS England and other national health bodies to encourage the local commissioning of fracture liaison services, in the light of the advice issued by NHS England that the Fracture Liaison Services model represents best practice.

Earl Howe

NHS England’s National Clinical Director for musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions, Peter Kay, is currently working in partnership with the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Alliance (ARMA), to develop new MSK clinical networks across England.

The work ARMA has done to date has been very successful in capturing examples of best practice in MSK care across England, bringing together health professionals and commissioners and building a strong consensus on the way forward for models of care for MSK patients across the entire MSK community. Work is ongoing in this area and NHS England and ARMA are in dialogue about the nature of such support.

NHS England is undertaking a review of the role, purpose and function of the sub-regional infrastructure that it funds, which is focussed on supporting commissioners and providers to improve the quality of services including Strategic Clinical Networks (SCN), Clinical Senates and Academic Health Science Networks. The purpose of the review is to understand how the best value can be secured from the investment in these functions, in support of commissioners and providers in improving quality. This review is ongoing and is expected to reach its conclusions by the end of March.

Regarding plans to introduce MSK networks as part of the SCN programme, NHS England has made clear that as priorities change, or should the work of one of the initial SCNS conclude, it will identify new conditions or patient groups that would benefit from an SCN approach.

The provision of fracture liaison services (FLS) and falls services is a matter for local clinical commissioning groups (CCGs). NHS England advises that it is aware that provision of good FLS is not uniform across the country and it continues to work with CCGs to support them to develop appropriate local FLS services. It also advises that the FLS model recommended by the International Osteoporosis Foundation and the National Osteoporosis society is recognised as best practice and is being promoted.

In addition to this, the guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Falls: assessment and prevention of falls in older people sets out best practice for clinicians on the management of patients aged 65 and over who are susceptible to falls.