| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
20 Jul 2005 : Column 1895W—continued
Chlamydia
Dr. Evan Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS facilities in England which test for Chlamydia (a) exclusively use the nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT), (b) use NAAT alongside other methods and (c) do not use NAAT; and what percentage of all Chlamydia tests in 2004 used NAAT. [12953]
Caroline Flint:
This information is not collected centrally. Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) are a mandatory requirement of the national chlamydia screening programme, which will be rolled-out across the whole country by March 2007. The chief medical officer wrote to all strategic health authorities in September 2003 and outlined the clinical governance issues raised by the continued use of sub-optimal tests for the detection of chlamydia infection. The Department also announced a further £8 million investment to assist national health service laboratories to support the change to NAATs.
20 Jul 2005 : Column 1896W
Clinical Decisions
Sandra Gidley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the conclusion of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Citizens' Council on the account to be taken of age as a factor in making clinical decisions. [11428]
Jane Kennedy: The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) consulted on the draft Social Value Judgements Guidelines" for a period of three months ending on 30 June 2005. NICE is currently considering responses to that consultation.
Clinical Negligence
Steve Webb: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total level of financial provision by the NHS in England is for future liabilities in respect of clinical negligence; if she will estimate what the level of such provision was on a consistent basis in each year since 1997; if she will break down the most recent total by type of liability; and if she will make a statement on recent trends in such liabilities. [10940]
Jane Kennedy [holding answer 11 July 2005]: The total level of financial provision by the national health service in England for future liabilities in respect of clinical negligence, as agreed by the National Audit Office, is shown in the table.
| Provision for clinical negligence (£ billion) | |
|---|---|
| 1996–97 | 1.3 |
| 1997–98 | 2.3 |
| 1998–99 | 3.2 |
| 1999–2000 | 3.9 |
| 2000–01 | 4.4 |
| 2001–02 | 5.25 |
| 2002–03 | 5.89 |
| 2003–04 | 7.78 |
In 2003–04, the provision for clinical negligence was calculated as shown in the table.
(79) Totals subject to rounding
Notes:
1. Treasury changes in accounting practice over the years mean that figures are not directly comparable.
2. Increases in provisions for incidents incurred but not yet reported were only recorded from 2002–03.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many primary care trusts have settled claims out of court for operations that resulted in the patient becoming permanently disabled in each of the last 10 years. [12734]
Jane Kennedy: This information is not collected centrally.
Clinical Trials
Mr. Baron:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the impact of the EU
20 Jul 2005 : Column 1897W
Clinical Trials Directive on (a) the (i) administrative burden involved in undertaking and (ii) cost of clinical trials and (b) the ability of hospitals and patients to be involved in clinical trials. [12451]
Jane Kennedy [holding answer 18 July 2005]: The Government are monitoring the impact of the clinical trials directive in collaboration with its partners in clinical research. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is the licensing authority for clinical trials under the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004, which implemented Directive 2001/20/EC (the Clinical Trials Directive) in United Kingdom law with effect from 1 May 2004. The MHRA asked the UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) to analyse the available evidence on impacts that can be attributed to the Directive. The UKCRC has reviewed the preliminary evidence and found that no sources of information measure reliably the effects of the directive on the volume and type of clinical research, the difficulties or benefits it has produced, or the impact on research costs. It has agreed on the need for a reliable and independently derived set of metrics.
At this early stage, there is evidence of good performance by the MHRA in approving clinical trials promptly and of a reduction in the time taken for ethics committee review. There is also evidence that in other respects, in 2004–05 it took longer to set up trials and to secure permission to begin them in some national health service organisations. This may in part have been due to confusion in universities and the NHS about the interpretation of the law, leading to inconsistent behaviour and delay in reaching agreement. Financial information also suggests an initial decline in the numbers of early phase trials recruiting volunteers outside the NHS. Members of the UKCRC, including the Government, have agreed to collaborate on actions designed to speed up the approval of trials and reduce costs. The Government aims to work with its partners to build on this country's excellent reputation in clinical research.
Clostridium Difficile
Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 27 June 2005, Official Report, columns 1344–45W on Clostridium difficile, what the first date was on which Clostridium difficile was reported to her Department in respect of each hospital trust. [11106]
Jane Kennedy [holding answer 11 July 2005]: The Department is not routinely informed of laboratory typing results of Clostridium difficile isolates. The data provided in the answer of 27 June 2005, Official Report, columns 1344–45W, were obtained on 13 June as part of information gathering following the outbreak at Stoke Mandeville hospital and included all isolates of type 27 detected since 1999.
Commission for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence
Mr. Lansley:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she has initiated a review of the powers available to the Commission for Healthcare Regulatory
20 Jul 2005 : Column 1898W
Excellence following the recommendations in the fifth report of the Shipman Inquiry; and if she will make a statement. [12529]
Jane Kennedy: We are currently working on our response to the recommendations in the fifth report of the Shipman Inquiry, and intend to reply to the report as a whole in a Command Paper. I do not propose to respond to questions about individual recommendations before laying our report before Parliament.
Complementary Medical Practitioners
Mr. Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she plans to publish for consultation proposals for the statutory regulation of complementary and alternative medical practitioners. [12628]
Jane Kennedy: On 22 December 2004, the Department announced that a £900,000 grant would go to The Prince of Wales's Foundation for Integrated Health, to support its ongoing work on the regulation of complementary therapies.
Proposals for statutory regulation of complementary and alternative medical practitioners will be considered in the context of the outcome of the current review of non-medical regulation, which is due to report by the end of 2005.
Correspondence
Mr. Paul Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what circumstances letters signed by hon. or right hon. Members and sent to her on behalf of constituents are answered by e-mails sent by customer call centre officials; and if she will make a statement. [12368]
Jane Kennedy [holding answer 18 July 2005]: All letters written by hon. or right hon. Members on behalf of constituents to the Secretary of State are answered by letter by the Secretary of State or by Ministers of the Department.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |