Tag: Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-10-26.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many patients waited at least 12 hours in Accident and Emergency in 2014–5, and in each year since 2005.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The information is not collected in the format requested. Information on the number of patients waiting more than 12 hours from decision to admit to admission in accident and emergency (A&E) departments in 2011-12 to 2014-15 is shown in the table below. The first full year for which data is available is 2011-12 as data was not collected prior to August 2010.

Year	Number of patients spending more than 12 hours from decision to admit to admission in A&E departments
2011-12	123
2012-13	170
2013-14	240
2014-15	1,239

Source: Annual A&E Activity and Emergency Admissions statistics, NHS and independent sector organisations in England

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-10-20.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the safety of the NHS 111 service in the East Midlands.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The commissioning of NHS 111 services is led by local clinical commissioning groups (CCGs). The safety and effectiveness of NHS 111 services are subject to constant review by commissioners, who monitor performance and investigate complaints and clinical incidents through existing clinical governance arrangements. In addition the services are subject to inspection by the Care Quality Commission.

NHS England advises that it has asked local CCGs to conduct a full investigation into recent serious allegations about the NHS 111 service in the East Midlands. This investigation is being coordinated by North Derbyshire CCG, and NHS England will continue to maintain oversight of progress. The investigation report is due at the beginning of December.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-10-20.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what guidance they and the NHS 111 service give to qualified nurses about the prioritisation of complex cases and more routine calls, in the light of the targets set for that service.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Government has seen successes with the NHS 111 service since its launch, with over a million calls offered to the NHS 111 service in August, of which 93.6% were answered within 60 seconds.

The Government expects all NHS 111 centres to be appropriately staffed to offer people safe care and advice and treatment at all times and has asked NHS England for assurances that the NHS 111 service is doing all it can to help patients. Furthermore the Care Quality Commission has announced it will inspect and rate NHS 111 services by September 2016 to give additional assurances that minimum levels of quality are attained.

New Commissioning Standards for Integrated Urgent Care were published last week by NHS England. Developed jointly with commissioners and providers, the Commissioning Standards will support the transformation of urgent care services; introducing the clinical hub employing a broader range of clinical skills, direct booking into general practitioner appointments, improved clinical governance and staff development amongst other developments. Commissioners will now complete their plans to achieve the Commissioning Standards. A copy is attached.

The commissioning of NHS 111 services is led by local Clinical Commissioning Groups and the safety and effectiveness of NHS 111 services are subject to constant review by local commissioners, monitoring performance and investigating complaints and clinical incidents through existing clinical governance arrangements.

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 2015-10-13.

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 2015-09-17.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what account they are taking of the submission by the Nuffield Trust on National Health Service funding in the 2015 Comprehensive Spending Review.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Government has been clear that it wants to engage and harness a wider range of expertise as part of the 2015 Spending Review process and accordingly welcomes the submission of the Nuffield Trust.

Rising demands and continued fiscal constraint means that the National Health Service faces challenges in ensuring that it remains financially sustainable in the future. The Government believes that the answer to these challenges lies in changing the way services are delivered and keeping people well and independent for longer.

This is why the Government has committed to fully meeting the additional funding requirement – £8 billion per year over and above inflation by 2020-21 – identified by the NHS Five Year Forward View.