Mr. Ivan Lewis
[holding answer 11 December 2007]: The Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI)
has developed, through the inspection methodology, Inspecting for Better Lives, a proportionate inspection framework based on risk. This enables CSCI to focus its resources on those homes that have been assessed as requiring the most improvement. Minimum inspection frequencies are based on quality ratings as follows:
homes classified as poor receive two key inspections per year;
homes classified as adequate receive one key inspection per year;
homes classified as good receive one key inspection every two years; and
homes classified as excellent receive one key inspection every three years.
Even when a home is judged to be good or excellent, it will continue to be monitored throughout the period and CSCI will act on any concerns, complaints or allegations. In addition to key inspections, which are thorough, detailed inspection, under which CSCI will assess all of the key national minimum standards. CSCI also carries out random and thematic inspections, which are short, focused inspections on a specific theme or area.
Annual Service Reviews are also conducted from information obtained from the home and a report produced on an annual basis. CSCI has the power to conduct an inspection of any home at any time period if the information it receives warrants it.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health with reference to the answer of 14 December 2006, Official Report, column 1351W, on the Child Health Interim Application, whether the catch-up exercise has been completed; if he will place in the Library the options report; what updates his Ministers received at the end of January 2007; when the National Child Health Immunisation Board last met; and if he will make available the minutes of its meetings. 
The former Minister of State for Health my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) was updated by officials on 29 January 2007 in relation to the National Immunisation Programme, data issues, specific COVER Data problems with regard to the 10 PCTs using CHIA, and the establishment of a National Child Health Immunisation Programme Board.
Mr. Randall: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many chiropodists there were in (a) Uxbridge constituency, (b) the London borough of Hillingdon and (c) England in each year since 1997. 
This information is shown in the following table. The workforce census recorded Hillingdon Primary Care Trust (PCT) as the sole employer of chiropodists/podiatrists in the Uxbridge constituency
and the London borough of Hillingdon. The number of chiropodists/podiatrists in the national health service in England has increased by 469 (14 per cent.) since 1997 to 3,755 in 2006.
|NHS hospital and community health services: Qualified chiropody/podiatry staff in England, the London strategic health authority area and the Hillingdon PCT area
|n/a = not available. Prior to 2002 chiropody/podiatry services for the Hillingdon PCT area were provided by Harrow and Hillingdon Healthcare NHS Trust. In 2002 the trust was split into the Harrow and Hillingdon PCTs, and it is impossible to retrospectively split the census data between these two organisations.
(1 )More accurate validation processes in 2006 have resulted in the identification and removal of 9,858 duplicate non-medical staff records out of the total workforce figure of 1.3 million in 2006. Earlier years figures could not be accurately validated in this way and so will be slightly inflated. The level of inflation in earlier years figures is estimated to be less than 1 per cent. of total across all non-medical staff groups for headcount figures (and negligible for full time equivalents). This should be taken into consideration when analysing trends over time.
The Information Centre for health and social care Non-Medical Workforce Census.
Mr. Todd: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the Counter Fraud and Security Management Services Division recovered in fraud detected or prevented in (a) 2005-06 and (b) 2006-07; and what proportion these figures represented of the division's costs in each year. 
|(1 )Counter fraud costs consist of the NHS Counter Fraud Service budget plus the Department's funding of civil proceedings.
(2) Detection savings equal losses that would otherwise have been sustained had fraud not been detected, calculated using the average duration of frauds of the same type.
(3) Prevention savings figures are produced through periodic measurement exercises.
Exercises due to be carried out in 2008-09 will measure reduced losses in the period 2006-07 to 2007-08.
(4 )Cash recoveries include recoveries through settlement of ongoing civil proceedings (brought by the Department) against certain generic drugs companies.
Mike Penning: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the role of his Department is in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence in recruiting military dentists; and if he will make a statement. 
Ann Keen: It is the responsibility of the single services to recruit military dentists to fill established posts in the Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force. However, the Ministry of Defence and UK Departments of Health Partnership Board considers work force issues generally.
Mr. Randall: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS dentists in (a) Uxbridge constituency, (b) Hillingdon Primary Care Trust and (c) Greater London (i) admitted new adult patients to their list and (ii) treated NHS patients between the ages of 18 to 65 years in each of the last five years. 
The numbers of patients registered with an NHS dentist at primary care trust and strategic health authority area are available in Annex A of the NHS Dental Activity and Workforce Report, England: 31 March 2006. Information at parliamentary constituency level is available in Annex C. Data are available annually as at 31 March 1997 to 2006 and are broken down by children (aged 17 and under) and adults (aged 18 and over).
Mr. Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 29 November 2007, Official Report, column 711W on the Departmental Board, if he will place in the Library a copy of the evaluation report from the Winter Willow scenario exercise referred to in paragraph 4.1 of the minutes of the meeting held in July 2007. 
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health which teams across Whitehall worked on the review of social care funding announced by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne) on 30 March 2006; how many people worked in each of those teams; and how many officials worked on the review. 
Mr. Ivan Lewis: The Department has not quantified the work of the Comprehensive Spending Review Social Care Working Group. The allocation of personnel and staff hours varied according to the task at hand.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the review of social care funding group announced by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne) on 30 March 2006 met; and whether the personnel of that group remained as announced by the hon. Gentleman. 
Mr. Ivan Lewis: The Department Comprehensive Spending Review Social Care Working Group, met four times in total during June, July, October and November 2006. Group membership remained largely as announced by the then Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne) on 30 March, although some Departments chose to be more closely involved in discussions than others. Following ministerial changes in May 2006, I became chair of the group.
Dr. Kumar: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps his Department is taking with health professionals to reduce the numbers of people on incapacity benefit for conditions such as anxiety and depression; 
Mr. Ivan Lewis: The Department is actively ensuring that all healthcare professionals fully understand the links between health and work, including issues surrounding mental health, and the role that they can play in helping their patients to stay in or quickly return to work. As such we are developing a range of programmes to educate and training healthcare professionals, including:
piloting a national education programme for general practitioners (GPs), which is currently being evaluated, to communicate key messages on links between work and health with a view to influencing GP practice in relation to advising patients about work;
commissioning a training module for GPs on handling difficult fitness for work discussions with patients;
developing a leaflet for GPs outlining the key messages from the evidence review as relevant to their practice;
developing key messages for medical students to be included in their training, with a website based package of resources for use by medical schools;
commissioning the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges to find ways to incorporate key health and work content into postgraduate training of doctors; and
developing an online learning module for nurses on health and work issues which is almost complete and will be launched in early November.
Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what account is taken of dermatological services provision in allocating NHS funding to strategic health authorities; and what assessment he has made of geographical variations in funding for dermatology services; 
Ann Keen: Revenue allocations are made directly to primary care trusts (PCTs) and not to strategic health authorities (SHAs). Funding is allocated to PCTs on the basis of the relative needs of their populations. A weighted capitation formula is used to determine each PCTs share of available resources, to enable them to commission similar levels of health services for populations in similar need.
It is for PCTs to assess the need for services locally, including dermatological services, and to commission services accordingly. By December 2008, patients on consultant-led pathways can expect a maximum wait of 18 weeks from general practitioner (GP) referral to the start of consultant-led treatment. This will include consultant-led dermatological services.
|Programme 14skin problems
|Unified weighted population
|£ per 100,000 weighted population