|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what training healthcare staff receive on the prevention, detection and treatment of pressure sores; and what part of this training is a mandatory requirement; 
(3) what guidance and standards his Department has issued in respect of the prevention, management and treatment of pressure sores for all care settings; and how many care homes, nursing homes, hospitals and primary care trusts meet such guidance and standards. 
Mr. Bradshaw: Education and training of healthcare staff, including the prevention, detection and treatment of pressure ulcers, is the responsibility of their employers. Tissue viability is a vital component of nursing care for patients, and one in which there is a strong body of evidence about effective treatment.
Nurses receive training in this during their preparation for registration, and as part of their continuing professional development. They have access to specialist tissue viability nurses who provide training as well as expert advice in the care of individual patients. To reinforce the necessity for continuing learning, regulatory bodies, such as the Nursing and Midwifery Council, require healthcare professionals to maintain competence in their field of practice as a condition of their continued registration.
There are no central plans to require healthcare staff to report incidents of pressure sores. However, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance on tissue viability requires that pressure ulceration over grade 2 be treated as a local clinical incident. Tissue viability is considered a nurse-sensitive indicator and is viewed by trusts as an important pointer to the quality of patient care.
Essence of Care, published in 2003, sets benchmarks for pressure ulcers in health and social care settings, and helps healthcare professionals to devise appropriate care plans. NICE has published detailed clinical guidelines on pressure ulcer management in primary and secondary care. It is the responsibility of local health bodies to ensure that this guidance is implemented.
The registered person shall make arrangements, by training staff or by other measures, to prevent service users being harmed or suffering abuse or being placed at risk of harm or abuse.
In addition, there are other general training requirements in regulation 18 to ensure staff receive training appropriate to the work they perform, including, where relevant, the prevention and treatment of pressure sores.
Under regulation 17 of the Care Homes Regulations 2001, care homes for adults are required to keep a record for each service user, which includes the incidence of pressure sores and of treatment provided to the service user.
The requirements in the regulations are further clarified in the National Minimum Standards. The relevant standards are standard 30 in the Care Homes for Older People standards and standard 35 in the Care Homes for Adults standards. As at 31 March 2005 over 71 per cent. of older peoples care homes and care homes for adults met the relevant standards.
Mr. Bradshaw: The Department funds research to support policy and to provide the evidence needed to underpin quality improvement and service development in the national health service and through its health technology assessment programme has funded two projects on pressure sores at a total cost of £1.1 million. They are:
a randomised controlled trial comparing alternating pressure overlays with alternating pressure mattresses for pressure sore prevention and treatment; and
a systematic review of wound care management.
Over the last 10 years, the main part of the Departments total expenditure on health research has been devolved to and managed by NHS organisations. Details of individual NHS supported research projects including a number concerned with the causes and treatment of pressure sores are available on the national research register at:
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the estimated (a) number and (b) value is of new payment entitlements following the abolition of the fruit, vegetable and potato authorisation system in England under the rules of the single payment scheme. 
Jonathan Shaw [holding answer 12 September 2007 ]: As I announced on 29 August 2007, the system of fruit, vegetable and potato authorisations under the single payment scheme (SPS) will be abolished from 2008. A consultation will follow shortly on implementation of the other SPS aspects of the reforms of the EU fruit and vegetable regime agreed earlier this year. This will include when orchard and nursery land will become eligible under the scheme and the criteria under which any new entitlements will be allocated in respect of such land.
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many staff there were in (a) complement and (b) post at the Health and Safety Executive allocated to the task of monitoring safe practices in accordance with statutory requirements at UK bio-containment facilities on 31 December in each of the last five years. 
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) on how many occasions in each month in the last five years (a) the high security unit, (b) incinerators and (c) effluent treatment plant at the Compton and Pirbright facilities of the Institute for Animal Health were closed down for safety reasons; and how long the closures were in each case; 
(2) whether the (a) Pirbright and (b) Compton site of the Institute for Animal Health is in compliance with the statutory requirements for (i) legionella, (ii) asbestos, (iii) five year fixed wiring tests and (iv) fire survey statutory regulations; 
(3) on how many occasions in each month in the last five years there were recorded instances of the negative building operating pressure in (a) bio-containment facilities at Compton and Pirbright and (b) the High Security Unit at Compton (i) being accidentally reversed, (ii) falling below normal levels and (iii) experiencing noticeable periods of loss of negative pressure. 
These are matters for the Institute of Animal Health which is an independent company limited by guarantee with charitable status. I have drawn the attention of the Chairman of the Governing Board to the hon. Member's questions.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of bee colonies in the UK affected by colony collapse disorder. 
Jonathan Shaw [holding answer 12 September 2007]: Colony collapse disorder (CCD) is a generic name given to a number of major colony losses reported by no more than around 60 commercial bee farmers spread across 25 states in the USA. Currently, the UK is not suffering from similar bee health-related problems on the same scale. Nevertheless, the National Bee Unit (NBU) at DEFRA's Central Science Laboratory is maintaining close contact with researchers from the USA who are investigating possible causes.
Jonathan Shaw: The only appointments made outside civil service grades are board appointments. My Department publishes information annually on appointments to the public bodies for which it is responsible. Data for 2006-07 are in the process of being collated, and will be published shortly.
During that period, £11.3 million was spent on payments relating to these redundancies. A further £15.6 million was set aside for related payments which would fall due after that period in cases where the redundancies were in the form of early retirement, or where single payments were due to staff whose last day of service fell on or after 30 June 2007.
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much was spent by his Department on (a) staff training and (b) communication training in the last 12 months. 
Jonathan Shaw: The staff training expenditure for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for 2006-07 was £3.9 million. To identify the expenditure on communications training would incur disproportionate costs as this information is not held centrally.
[holding answer 12 September 2007]: We currently have no plans to reintroduce a dog licence. The Government support the approach taken
by responsible dog owners who voluntarily have their pets permanently identified and registered on nationwide databases. The effectiveness of a dog licensing system is questionable; in the last year licences were administered (1988) only 44 per cent. of dog owners applied for a licence. There is no evidence to suggest that the opinion of dog owners has changed and that any new scheme introduced would be adopted by the majority of dog owners.
Hugh Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much central government funding has been spent on energy efficiency measures in (a) council, (b) housing association and (c) private homes in York in each year since 1997. 
|Local Authority Housing Investment|
|Investment (£ million)|
|(1) Data not yet available.|
These figures cover double-glazing, cavity wall insulation, loft insulation and heating improvements, This work has been completed by the local authority as part of an overall modernisation programme for housing under the Communities and Local Government's Decent Homes scheme.
Defra's main programme for improving the energy efficiency of vulnerable households is the Warm Front scheme, which provides grants for heating and insulation measures. Warm Front spending on measures in York is set out in the following table:
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|