Tag: Lord Mawhinney

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Mawhinney on 2016-01-27.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of which medical institutions in the UK are in the forefront of research into, and treatment of, Lyme disease.

Lord Prior of Brampton

It is not practical to eradicate Lyme disease in the United Kingdom through treatment of human cases, therefore no cost estimate has been made. The disease is endemic in much of the small mammal and bird population in the UK, and is spread to humans by the bite of infected ticks which have fed on these animals. The number of human cases can be reduced by raising public awareness of how to avoid tick bites, and by environmental measures in public places to reduce the long grass and scrub which harbour ticks.

The number of laboratory confirmed cases of Lyme disease in England and Wales varies annually, in 2013 there were 878 and in 2014 there were 730, but the majority of diagnoses are made clinically by general practitioners and those figures are not recorded. Patients with late or complicated Lyme disease may be diagnosed in a variety of specialist clinics, and the numbers are not recorded. Based on the clinical information supplied with the laboratory request, only a small proportion of the annual number of cases fall into this category.

The Health Protection Research Unit of the University of Liverpool in partnership with Public Health England (PHE) has funding from the National Institute of Health Research for research into Lyme disease, covering diagnostics and biomarkers and public awareness. PHE is working on clinically linked studies for diagnostics with the Czech Republic, as no single centre in the UK has sufficient patients for a suitable study; funding for this work is not yet in place. PHE undertakes limited studies on ticks and Lyme disease in the UK. The Research Councils fund some additional work on ticks and the environment.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Mawhinney on 2016-10-13.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether it is (1) their policy, or (2) the policy of NHS England, that primary care centres should be amalgamated into larger units.

Lord Prior of Brampton

As part of the New Care Models Programme, NHS England is supporting local health and care commissioners and providers to come together to improve the health and care they provide. This includes the development of population-based care models known as integrated Primary and Acute Care Systems and Multispecialty Community Providers (MCPs). Where and how to develop new care models are decisions taken by local partnerships, in response to local conditions. The Programme is not directing or requiring the amalgamation of primary care centres.

There are 14 MCP vanguards, with a single organisation accountable for joined-up General Practitioner (GP) and community services and some specialist care, mental health services, and social care for a defined population. The building blocks of a MCP are the ‘care hubs’ of integrated teams. Each typically serves a community of around 30,000-50,000 people. These hubs are the practical, operational level of any model of accountable care provision. The wider the scope of services included in the MCP, the more hubs you may need to connect together to create sufficient scale. All 14 MCP vanguards now serve a minimum population of around 100,000.

The majority of GP practices are already working in practice groups or federations. This provides opportunities to expand services, stabilise practice income and work at scale, which has benefits for patients, practices and the wider system. These include economies of scale, quality improvement, workforce development, enhanced care and new services, resilience and system partnerships.

A new voluntary MCP contract will be introduced from April 2017, to integrate general practice services with community services and wider healthcare services. Measures from the GP Access Fund and vanguard sites that are currently piloting this approach, will be learned from to support mainstreaming of proven service improvements across all practices, and funding will be provided for local collaborations to support practices to implement new ways of working.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Mawhinney on 2016-03-17.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how information is (1) collected, and (2) managed, to protect the dignity of patients who receive pharmacy services in retail outlets, under the Standards for registered pharmacies, Principle 1.

Lord Prior of Brampton

Pharmacy owners and superintendent pharmacists of bodies corporate are responsible for meeting the General Pharmaceutical Council’s standards for registered pharmacies and must decide how best to do so, including managing information to protect the privacy, dignity and confidentiality of patients and the public, within their pharmacies.

There are a number of different ways in which pharmacy professionals and the wider pharmacy team may receive patient information. Information is included on prescriptions, or may be shared by patients when seeking care from a pharmacy. In addition, information may be stored in patient medication records or other records.

Through its inspections, the General Pharmaceutical Council seeks assurance from the pharmacy team about how they maintain the confidentiality, privacy and dignity of patients and the public. These assurances can be provided through a number of different means, for example restricted password access to patient information, appropriate training of staff or making sure patients can have conversations with members of the pharmacy team in private.

All National Health service providers, including community pharmacies, also need to provide information governance assurances to the NHS on an annual basis.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Mawhinney on 2016-10-13.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what financial resources they transferred to local authorities in 2015–16 which were designated to be spent on personal social services care; and what is their estimate of how much was spent on the provision of such services.

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth

Central government does not determine the level of resources spent by local authorities on adult social care. Each local authority will budget for what it expects to require in order to deliver the services required for their population, drawing on funding from local taxes, unhypothecated central government grant and income from fees and charges.

However recognising the pressures on local authorities, the Spending Review 2015 announced that for the rest of the current Parliament, local authorities responsible for adult social care (“ASC authorities”) would be allowed an additional 2 percent on their current council tax referendum threshold to be used entirely for adult social care. 144 of 152 eligible authorities made use of this precept in 2015-16, raising £382 million for social care.

My department publishes data (attached) from local authorities on their spending on all services. Provisional data for 2015-16 suggests that local authorities spent a net figure of £14.4 billion on adult social care in 2015-16.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/548114/RO_Provisional_Outturn_2015-16_Statistical_Release.pdf

“

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Mawhinney on 2016-03-17.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how information is (1) collected, and (2) managed, to protect the privacy of patients who receive pharmacy services in retail outlets, under Standards for registered pharmacies, Principle 1.

Lord Prior of Brampton

Pharmacy owners and superintendent pharmacists of bodies corporate are responsible for meeting the General Pharmaceutical Council’s standards for registered pharmacies and must decide how best to do so, including managing information to protect the privacy, dignity and confidentiality of patients and the public, within their pharmacies.

There are a number of different ways in which pharmacy professionals and the wider pharmacy team may receive patient information. Information is included on prescriptions, or may be shared by patients when seeking care from a pharmacy. In addition, information may be stored in patient medication records or other records.

Through its inspections, the General Pharmaceutical Council seeks assurance from the pharmacy team about how they maintain the confidentiality, privacy and dignity of patients and the public. These assurances can be provided through a number of different means, for example restricted password access to patient information, appropriate training of staff or making sure patients can have conversations with members of the pharmacy team in private.

All National Health service providers, including community pharmacies, also need to provide information governance assurances to the NHS on an annual basis.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Mawhinney on 2016-10-13.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what financial resources they transferred to local authorities in 2015–16 which were designated to be spent on the provision of public health services; and what is their estimate of how much was spent on the provision of such services.

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth

The public health grant is provided to give local authorities the funding needed to discharge their public heath responsibilities. The total allocation for 2015-16 was £2.80 billion. All details of this grant and the allocations which were made can be found at – https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ring-fenced-public-health-grants-to-local-authorities-2013-14-and-2014-15.

“

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Mawhinney on 2016-03-17.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how information is (1) collected, and (2) managed, to protect the confidentiality of patients who receive pharmacy services in retail outlets, under Standards for registered pharmacies, Principle 1.

Lord Prior of Brampton

Pharmacy owners and superintendent pharmacists of bodies corporate are responsible for meeting the General Pharmaceutical Council’s standards for registered pharmacies and must decide how best to do so, including managing information to protect the privacy, dignity and confidentiality of patients and the public, within their pharmacies.

There are a number of different ways in which pharmacy professionals and the wider pharmacy team may receive patient information. Information is included on prescriptions, or may be shared by patients when seeking care from a pharmacy. In addition, information may be stored in patient medication records or other records.

Through its inspections, the General Pharmaceutical Council seeks assurance from the pharmacy team about how they maintain the confidentiality, privacy and dignity of patients and the public. These assurances can be provided through a number of different means, for example restricted password access to patient information, appropriate training of staff or making sure patients can have conversations with members of the pharmacy team in private.

All National Health service providers, including community pharmacies, also need to provide information governance assurances to the NHS on an annual basis.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Mawhinney on 2016-04-11.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how often the storage mechanisms and substance of patients’ confidential and private information held by pharmacies in the retail sector is examined by or on behalf of the General Pharmaceutical Council; and what percentage of examinations are unacceptable.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Department does not hold this information. However, the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) has provided the following information.

The GPhC undertakes inspections of all registered pharmacies in Great Britain. The vast majority of pharmacies currently receive a routine inspection every three to four years. Inspectors will, in addition, visit pharmacies to investigate concerns from members of the public or health professionals.

Since November 2013 the GPhC has conducted 6,814 routine inspections of pharmacy premises to assess them against its standards. During every inspection GPhC inspectors seek evidence from the pharmacy team that standards relating to the privacy, dignity and confidentiality of patients and the public are met. These standards cover the storage of confidential and private information and the physical and governance arrangements for ensuring patients can have private conversations with pharmacy professionals.

Of the 6,814 inspections that have been carried out by the GPhC since November 2013, in 421 (6.2%) cases pharmacy premises were found to have failed one or more of the above three standards:

– 274 did not meet standard 1.7 (Information is managed to protect the privacy, dignity and confidentiality of patients and the public who receive pharmacy services);

– 174 did not meet standard 3.2 (Premises protect the privacy, dignity and confidentiality of patients and the public who receive pharmacy services); and

– 73 did not meet standard 5.3 (Equipment and facilities are used in a way that protects the privacy and dignity of the patients and the public who receive pharmacy services).

When pharmacy premises have not met one or more of the standards, they are required by the GPhC to complete and implement an improvement action plan.

In addition, the United Kingdom and Scottish Parliaments recently approved legislation which includes powers to issue an improvement notice or disqualify a pharmacy from the register for a failure to meet the standards. This will improve the GPhC’s ability to protect patients and improve the quality of the pharmacy services they receive.

In circumstances where the GPhC finds a registered professional’s fitness to practise is called into question it will investigate and can bring proceedings against that individual.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Mawhinney on 2016-04-11.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how often the physical and governance arrangements which ensure that patients can have private conversations with pharmaceutical staff, in the retail sector, are examined by or on behalf of the General Pharmaceutical Council and what percentage of examinations are unacceptable.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Department does not hold this information. However, the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) has provided the following information.

The GPhC undertakes inspections of all registered pharmacies in Great Britain. The vast majority of pharmacies currently receive a routine inspection every three to four years. Inspectors will, in addition, visit pharmacies to investigate concerns from members of the public or health professionals.

Since November 2013 the GPhC has conducted 6,814 routine inspections of pharmacy premises to assess them against its standards. During every inspection GPhC inspectors seek evidence from the pharmacy team that standards relating to the privacy, dignity and confidentiality of patients and the public are met. These standards cover the storage of confidential and private information and the physical and governance arrangements for ensuring patients can have private conversations with pharmacy professionals.

Of the 6,814 inspections that have been carried out by the GPhC since November 2013, in 421 (6.2%) cases pharmacy premises were found to have failed one or more of the above three standards:

– 274 did not meet standard 1.7 (Information is managed to protect the privacy, dignity and confidentiality of patients and the public who receive pharmacy services);

– 174 did not meet standard 3.2 (Premises protect the privacy, dignity and confidentiality of patients and the public who receive pharmacy services); and

– 73 did not meet standard 5.3 (Equipment and facilities are used in a way that protects the privacy and dignity of the patients and the public who receive pharmacy services).

When pharmacy premises have not met one or more of the standards, they are required by the GPhC to complete and implement an improvement action plan.

In addition, the United Kingdom and Scottish Parliaments recently approved legislation which includes powers to issue an improvement notice or disqualify a pharmacy from the register for a failure to meet the standards. This will improve the GPhC’s ability to protect patients and improve the quality of the pharmacy services they receive.

In circumstances where the GPhC finds a registered professional’s fitness to practise is called into question it will investigate and can bring proceedings against that individual.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Mawhinney on 2016-04-11.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many pharmacies in the retail sector have been (1) reprimanded, and (2) sanctioned, by the General Pharmaceutical Council, in the last three years, for breaching patient confidentiality.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Department does not hold this information. However, the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) has provided the following information.

The GPhC undertakes inspections of all registered pharmacies in Great Britain. The vast majority of pharmacies currently receive a routine inspection every three to four years. Inspectors will, in addition, visit pharmacies to investigate concerns from members of the public or health professionals.

Since November 2013 the GPhC has conducted 6,814 routine inspections of pharmacy premises to assess them against its standards. During every inspection GPhC inspectors seek evidence from the pharmacy team that standards relating to the privacy, dignity and confidentiality of patients and the public are met. These standards cover the storage of confidential and private information and the physical and governance arrangements for ensuring patients can have private conversations with pharmacy professionals.

Of the 6,814 inspections that have been carried out by the GPhC since November 2013, in 421 (6.2%) cases pharmacy premises were found to have failed one or more of the above three standards:

– 274 did not meet standard 1.7 (Information is managed to protect the privacy, dignity and confidentiality of patients and the public who receive pharmacy services);

– 174 did not meet standard 3.2 (Premises protect the privacy, dignity and confidentiality of patients and the public who receive pharmacy services); and

– 73 did not meet standard 5.3 (Equipment and facilities are used in a way that protects the privacy and dignity of the patients and the public who receive pharmacy services).

When pharmacy premises have not met one or more of the standards, they are required by the GPhC to complete and implement an improvement action plan.

In addition, the United Kingdom and Scottish Parliaments recently approved legislation which includes powers to issue an improvement notice or disqualify a pharmacy from the register for a failure to meet the standards. This will improve the GPhC’s ability to protect patients and improve the quality of the pharmacy services they receive.

In circumstances where the GPhC finds a registered professional’s fitness to practise is called into question it will investigate and can bring proceedings against that individual.