|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the likely impact on travel times to emergency facilities in West Sussex Primary Care Trust in the event of the relocation of accident and emergency facilities away from Worthing Hospital. 
Dawn Primarolo: It is for primary care trusts (PCTs) in conjunction with other local stakeholders and their strategic health authorities (SHAs) to make assessments of current and future health needs and to commission services accordingly. South East Coast SHA has advised officials that in this case West Sussex PCT has carried out the assessment.
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what evidential basis the South East Coast strategic health authority describes as a myth the proposition that patients lives will be at risk if it takes longer for the ambulance to transport them to accident and emergency as described on its website http://www.southeastcoastfff.nhs.uk. 
Dawn Primarolo: This is a matter for the local national health service. South East Coast strategic health authority has advised officials that the evidence obtained comes from several academic sources and has been a theme in a number of national publications.
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average (a) response time for emergency ambulance call-outs and (b) time before admission to hospital following emergency call out was in West Sussex primary care trust in each of the last five years for which figures are available. 
Dawn Primarolo: Information on average response time and time before admission to hospital is not available. The closest equivalent measures of average response time are percentage of response times within eight minutes and 19 minutes.
This information is available for 2002-03 to 2006-07 for each Ambulance Service Provider in England. Data for 2006-07 are not directly comparable to data for earlier years due to the re-organisation of Ambulance Service Providers in 2006.
Mr. Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to encourage primary care trusts to ensure that pharmacies offer chlamydia testing kits as part of the chlamydia screening programme. 
In addition to this, the Department contracted Boots to pilot the potential of community pharmacies as locations for chlamydia screening. Screening started on 14 November 2005. To date, nearly 43,000 screens have been undertaken with a positively rate of around 8 per cent. This pilot is being independently evaluated by TNS Healthcare.
In support of commissioners, the Department is working with the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee and the national health service to develop a national template for a chlamydia screening local enhanced service through the NHS Community Pharmacy Contractual Framework.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many 16 to 24-year-old (a) males and (b) females were tested for chlamydia infection as part of the National Chlamydia Screening Programme broken
down by primary care trust in each year since 2003-04; and what proportion of 16 to 24-year-olds this represented in each year; 
(2) how many tests for chlamydia infection have been undertaken in the 16 to 24-year-old age group in the year 2007-08 to date (a) in England and (b) broken down by primary care trust; and what percentage of 16 to 24-year-olds this represents in each case. 
Dawn Primarolo: For the National Chlamydia Screening Programme, as at March 2007, there were 220,147 females and 49,993 males between the ages of 16 to 24 who provided a primary care trust (PCT) postcode of residence, who were tested for chlamydia in England. PCT data for 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 have been placed in the Library.
Information is not currently available by PCT or by the number of tests undertaken within genito-urinary clinics. The number of diagnoses of uncomplicated chlamydia infection in 16 to 24-year-olds in genito-urinary clinics in England by strategic health authority and sex for 2006, is given in the following table.
|Strategic health authority||Gender||Number of diagnoses|
1. Data are only available up to the calendar year 2006.
2. Data are not available at the PCT level.
3. Data on the number of test for chlamydia infection are not available.
4. The data available from the KC60 statutory returns are for diagnoses made in GUM clinics only. Diagnoses made in other clinical settings, such as general practice, are not recorded in the KC60 dataset.
5. The data available from the KC60 statutory returns are the number of diagnoses made, not the number of patients diagnosed. For example, individuals may be diagnosed with several co-infections and each diagnosis will be counted separately.
6. The information provided has been adjusted for missing clinic data.
1. KC60 returns.
2. Health Protection Agency.
Dawn Primarolo: Modelling the Healthcare costs of an opportunistic chlamydia screening programme research published in 2004 using data from a pilot study undertaken between 1999-2000 in Portsmouth and Wirral within the National Chlamydia Screening programme, estimated the costs per screening offer, testing episode and positive result. This information is given in tables 1 and 2.
A more recent article The health care and patient costs of an proactive chlamydia screening programme: the Chlamydia Screening Studies (ClaSS), published in 2007, identifies costs for register-based screening (rather than opportunistic screening which is used currently within the NCSP) but comes up with very similar average costs to the 2004 article.
|Table 1: Estimated average costs of a chlamydia screenexcluding partner management costs|
|Item||Estimated average cost (£)|
|Table 2: Estimated average costs of a chlamydia screenincluding partner management costs|
|Item||Estimated average cost (£)|
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated by his Department on (i) the effectiveness and (ii) the safety of the Mirena contraceptive device; whether he has any plans to make this contraceptive device available on NHS prescription; and if he will make a statement. 
Dawn Primarolo: Mirena is an intrauterine device (IUD) that releases a medicine, levonorgestrel, directly into the uterus. It is authorised for contraception, reduction of heavy menstrual bleeding (menorrhagia) and protection from endometrial hyperplasia during oestrogen replacement therapy. Since Mirena first became available in the United Kingdom women have been able to obtain it through the national health service.
The Medicines and Healthcare product Regulatory Agency (MHRA), together with independent expert advice for the Commission on Human Medicines is responsible for ensuring that medicines, including Mirena, have met appropriate standards of efficacy, safety and quality before they are granted a marketing authorisation and for ensuring that the benefits of
treatment continue to outweigh the risks post authorisation, as further evidence emerges.
In addition to efficacy studies conducted by the marketing authorisation holder, Schering Health, prior to grant of a marketing authorisation, the Department has funded a number of studies to evaluate the effectiveness of Mirena (mainly in the indication of menstrual bleeding). These include the ongoing ECLIPSE randomised controlled trial in 1,200 women with menorrhagia.
The MHRA monitors the safety of all medicines, including Mirena, by evaluating data including adverse reaction reports received through the Yellow Card Scheme, published data, company studies and safety reviews, and information from other regulatory authorities. The benefits associated with Mirena are currently considered to outweigh the risks in its licensed indications.
The safety of Mirena was recently subject to European review and this has lead to a recommendation to clarify advice about the recognised risks of ectopic pregnancy and uterine perforation. As a precautionary measure, Mirena will be contraindicated in women with progesterone-dependent cancers. The product information for health professionals is being updated to reflect this advice.
The marketing authorisation holder is planning two studies: one to compare the risk of breast cancer in Mirena users with the risk in copper IUD users and users of other hormonal contraceptives and the other to compare the risk of uterine perforation in Mirena users with that in copper IUD users.
Dan Rogerson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what contingency preparations his Department made for the possibility of a general election in autumn 2007; and what the costs were of those preparations. 
Dawn Primarolo: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Edward Miliband) on 15 October 2007, Official Report, column 823W.
Jenny Willott: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new (a) laptops, (b) mobile telephones and (c) personal digital assistant devices his Department bought for the use of departmental Ministers following each Cabinet reshuffle since 1997; and if he will make a statement. 
The Department does not hold detailed records of laptops, mobile telephones and personal digital assistant (PDA) devices provided specifically to Ministers since 1997. However, the policy is to provide Ministers with one laptop, one mobile telephone, and one PDA each, where they have declared a requirement for such equipment. This equipment is usually new but may be re-allocated
equipment depending on age and condition of the device. When a Minister leaves the Department the equipment is returned for re-allocation.
Following this years Cabinet reshuffle, the six current Ministers have been allocated a total of five laptops, one mobile phone and four Blackberry devices which have dual mobile phone and PDA functionality. The team of Ministers before the reshuffle were allocated four laptops, five mobile phones and four Blackberry devices.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|