| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11 Feb 2003 : Column 670W—continued
NHS Productivity Growth
Mr. Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department routinely uses output data from the NHS to estimate overall trends in NHS productivity growth. [96689]
Mr. Milburn: We routinely compare increases in cost-weighted activity with increases in expenditure. However this does not accurately measure National Health Service productivity since it fails to capture activity undertaken in primary care or improvements in quality.
NHS Staff (Assaults)
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 28 January 2003, Official Report, column 820W, on NHS staff assaults, what the levels of sickness absence resulting from work-related injuries or violence at work were in each hospital trust in West Sussex in the last three months. [96083]
Mr. Hutton: The information requested is not collected centrally.
NHS Staff (Disease Testing)
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1)whether he proposes to extend testing for all new NHS staff for diseases other than HIV and hepatitis; [96068]
- (2) when he proposes to introduce HIV and hepatitis tests for all new NHS staff. [96067]
Ms Blears: Our recent draft guidance published for consultation, "Health clearance for serious communicable diseases: new health care workers", proposes that new health care workers whose jobs or training will involve exposure prone procedures will have to test negative for HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C before taking up their posts. Such procedures occur mainly in surgery, obstetrics and gynaecology, dentistry and midwifery, where there is a risk that injury to the health care worker could expose a patient to their blood.
The draft guidance does not require HIV and hepatitis tests for all new national health service staff because the clinical procedures carried out by the majority of health care workers carry no risk of transmission of these viruses, provided routine infection control measures are observed. New health care workers who will not carry out exposure prone procedures will be offered testing for HIV and hepatitis C. Testing for hepatitis B will be carried out if necessary in the context of checking response to immunisation.
Consultation is due to end on 30 April 2003. The final version of the guidance is due to be published in the second half of 2003, taking account of the comments received, with an estimated four months' lead time for implementation.
New health care workers already have health checks for tuberculosis and are offered immunisation, if necessary. We keep policy on health checks for other infectious diseases under on-going review.
11 Feb 2003 : Column 671W
Prescribing Costs
Ms Coffey: To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will make a statement on costs of prescribing. [96682]
Mr. Lammy: The National Health Service is continuing to expand investment in primary care prescribing to reflect the Government's priorities in areas such as coronary heart disease. Expenditure for England this year is forecast to be around £6.35 billion, an increase of around 11.5 per cent. over the previous year.
Publicity and Advertising
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much (a) his Department and (b) each agency and non-departmental public body sponsored by his Department spent on (i) publicity and (ii) advertising in each year from 1995–96 to 2002–03 (estimated); and if he will make a statement. [92237]
Mr. Lammy: The table shows the expenditure on major campaign publicity and advertising commissioned by the Department of Health's Communications Directorate for the financial years 1995–96 to 2002–03.
| Financial year | Publicity expenditure (excluding advertising) | Advertising expenditure |
|---|---|---|
| 1995–96 | 13.48 | 2.08 |
| 1996–97 | 12.63 | 2.50 |
| 1997–98 | 4.582 | 2.04 |
| 1998–99 | 14.43 | 8.53 |
| 1999–2000 | 20.797 | 15.166 |
| 2000–01 | 25.32 | 20.80 |
| 2001–02 | 16.823 | 20.405 |
| 2002–03 (to date) | 18.04 | 22.916 |
Publicity and advertising expenditure for the Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies can be provided only at disproportionate cost. Expenditure for publicity other than that associated with campaigns can also be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Prior to 1999–2000 publicity and advertising on smoking was undertaken by the Health Education Authority (HEA). £54.53 million has been spent to date by the Department.
There have been a number of new campaigns since 1999–2000. These include:
- Sexual Health (2001–02 to date);
Immunisation (2001–02 to date);
Social Worker Recruitment (2001–02 to date);
Tuberculosis awareness (2001–02 to date);
Walk-in Centres (2000–01 to date);
Mind Out for Mental Health (2001–02 to date).
11 Feb 2003 : Column 672W
Research Ethics Committees
Dr. Evan Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Central Office for Research Ethics Committees will make funds available to local research ethics committees for the training of their members. [94743]
Ms Blears: A letter from the Central Office for Research Ethics Committees, dated 26 September 2002, invited local research ethics committees to report their running costs for reimbursement. Within these costs, local research ethics committees were invited to identify training costs for both members and administrators.
Dr. Evan Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Health who the members are of the independent group drawn from local research ethics committees, multi-centre research ethics committees, health authorities, research subjects, wider lay interests and the research community evaluating the MREC system; how often they have met; what the results were of their deliberations; and if he will make a statement. [94744]
Mr. Lammy: The Centre of Medical Law and Ethics at King's College London was commissioned to conduct an evaluation of the multi-centre research ethics committee system. The evaluation was undertaken via a customer based questionnaire survey. Questionnaires were issued to all applicants to multi-centre research ethics committees during the period 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1998. Questionnaires were issued to principal researchers, sponsor companies, local researchers and local research ethics committees processing locality assessments. The evaluation was based on 1,303 completed questionnaires and on information from the multi-centre research ethics committees' annual reports.
Dr. Evan Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how and where the posts of director of corporate affairs and director of operations of the Central Office for Research Ethics Committees were advertised; and how many applications were received for each post. [94746]
Mr. Lammy: The posts of director of corporate affairs and director of operations at the Central Office for Research Ethics Committees (COREC) were advertised in the Health Services Journal and in the September 2002 edition of the research ethics committee administrators bulletin, issued by COREC. There were three applications for each of the posts.
Dr. Evan Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Central Office for Research Ethics Committees became responsible for research ethics committees in (a) England, (b) Wales and (c) the United Kingdom. [94748]
Mr. Lammy: The Central Office for Research Ethics Committees (COREC) is not responsible for research ethics committees in England, Wales or the United Kingdom. Strategic health authorities (StHAs) have the responsibility that health authorities formerly had for research ethics committees in England.
In preparation for the implementation of Directive 2001/20/EC, my noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Lord Hunt), wrote to research ethics committee chairmen on 7 August 2002 to inform them that he had decided that COREC would
11 Feb 2003 : Column 673W
oversee the operation of research ethics committees in England and would establish a system of direct support for them, working closely with StHAs.
Dr. Evan Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment was made of the need for regional offices for research ethics committees; what consultations were held; and what his estimate is of the annual costs of running these offices. [94749]
Mr. Lammy: The Department agreed to proposals to establish offices of research ethics committees, following an assessment by the Central Office for Research Ethics Committees (COREC). The main consideration was the support that the national health service and local research ethics committees are expected to require in complying with regulations implementing Directive 2001/20/EC.
COREC engaged in extensive informal consultation on proposals to establish offices of research ethics committees during meetings held in 2002. The plans were described in management information sheet number 1, issued by COREC in May 2002. This was sent to identified strategic health authority officers, research and development directors and chairmen of research ethics committees. The costs of running the offices of research ethics committees in England are estimated to be £900,000 a year.
Dr. Evan Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the ability of local research ethics committees to improve their performance as set out in the recommendations of the pharmaceutical industry competitiveness task force; and what funding they have received to deliver this. [94750]
Mr. Lammy: The Central Office for Research Ethics Committees (COREC) continues to advise the Department on the ability of the research ethics system to meet the standards set out in the guidance for research ethics committees that the Department promised to uphold in its response to the pharmaceutical industry competitiveness task force (PICTF) report.
PICTF indicator number 22 shows that local research ethics committees are meeting the 60-day target for ethical consideration of protocols for clinical trials of medicines. Data on PICTF indicators can be found on the Department's website at: www.doh.gov.uk/pictf
Dr. Evan Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many local research ethics committees received (a) all or (b) part of their funding from health authorities prior to 1 April 2002; how many local research ethics committees have received funding from strategic health authorities since 1 April 2002; how many local research ethics committees have received funding from the Central Office for Research Ethics Committees since 1 April 2002; and what the total value of funding was. [94751]
Ms Blears: District health authorities became responsible for establishing local research ethics committees in 1991. District health authorities from then and health authorities from 1996 funded all local research ethics committees up to 30 September 2002, but information on the funding provided during this period is not held centrally.
11 Feb 2003 : Column 674W
From 1 October 2002, the Department, through the Central Office for Research Ethics Committees (COREC) made central provision to reimburse the costs of local research ethics committees on behalf of strategic health authorities. COREC is working with all local research ethics committees to establish their budgets, some of which remain to be finalised. I shall write to the hon. Member with the details when they are available.
Dr. Evan Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the reasons are for the delay in the issuing of a common application form for researchers to use when applying to a research ethics committee; and by how long it has been delayed. [94772]
Mr. Lammy: The Central Office for Research Ethics Committees (COREC) originally planned to pilot a common application form for research ethics committees from October 2002. However, the European Commission have not finalised guidance on the minimum requirements for an application form for research ethics committees to comply with the provision of Directive EC2001/20/EC. Piloting with multi-centre research ethics committees will begin in February 2003.
The common application form is planned to be available on the COREC website: www.corec.org.uk on 14 February 2003. The form will be for optional use by local research ethics committees from April 2003, and all research ethics committees will be required to use the form from October 2003.
Dr. Evan Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment COREC made of commercially available software options designed to provide administrative support to research ethics committees; and what the cost was in (a) time and (b) equipment of the software devised by his Department to provide administrative support to the research ethics committees. [94773]
Mr. Lammy: The Central Office for Research Ethics Committees (COREC) has begun work to develop a common information technology system to support the administration of research ethics committees. COREC has started a scoping exercise on their current information technology use and requirements. Options, including the use of commercially available software, to meet the needs identified, will be considered in May 2003.
Dr. Evan Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many letters were received from local research ethics committees by the Central Office for Research Ethics Committees from (a) 1 January to 31 December 2001, (b) 1 January to 30 September 2002 and (c) 1 October to 31 October; how many of those letters were acknowledged within one month; and how many of those letters have neither been acknowledged nor received a reply. [94777]
Mr. Lammy: The Central Office for Research Ethics Committees (COREC) has now put in place a system for logging correspondence. However, to provide the historical data requested, individual files held at COREC need to be accessed. I shall write to the hon. Member with the information when this has been collated.
11 Feb 2003 : Column 675W
Dr. Evan Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent the training strategy for research ethics committee members developed by COREC matches that recommended in the report on the training needs of research ethics committee members commissioned by his Department. [94778]
Mr. Lammy: The training strategy for research ethics committee members was developed by the Central Office of Research Ethics Committees following a review of past work; following consultation with members of multi-centre and local research ethics committees, users and current providers of training; and taking into consideration the report on training needs commissioned by the Department. The training strategy was publicised at meetings throughout 2002, especially at Birmingham on 23 October 2002.
Dr. Evan Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether COREC followed the guidelines for making public appointments when appointing (a) an adviser on training research ethics committees and (b) an adviser on accreditation of research ethics committees; and what relevant skills and experience each appointed adviser to COREC has. [94856]
Mr. Lammy: The two positions in question are not public appointments. The appointments were made by the Central Office for Research Ethics Committees with the knowledge of the Department taking into account the expertise and experience that those appointed offered.
The training adviser is Dr Hugh Davies. He is a former local research ethics committee and multi-centre research ethics committee chairman, and is a consultant paediatrician with a particular interest in professional education. He has a master's degree in higher and professional training and is a member of the institute of learning and teaching.
Dr. John Lamberty is the chairman of the working group on the accreditation of research ethics committees. He is a consultant anaesthetist. He is a former member of a multi-centre research ethics committee, former chairman of a local research ethics committee, current chairman of a multi-centre research ethics committee and current vice-chairman of the association of research ethics committees. He was a member of the steering groups that established multi-centre research ethics committees and the association of research ethics committees.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |