|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. David Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether there are plans to review the Commission for Social Care Inspection's current practice of referring complaints from members of the public about a care provider back to the provider; how many complaints about a provider of care services are required before an inspection is triggered; and what assessment he has made of any changes in the role of the Commission for Social Care Inspection; 
(2) if he will make it his policy that the Commission for Social Care Inspection should have to make an additional inspection of a care home assessed as requiring a three yearly inspection in cases where there have been significant levels of staff turnover. 
Mr. Ivan Lewis: We have no plans to review the Commission for Social Care Inspections role in complaints. We are informed by the Chair of the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) that the threshold for intervention by CSCI is not measured uniquely in terms of the number of complaints about a provider. It is one of a number of factors that CSCI take into account.
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 inspections, 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. Reviews are an analysis of all information that CSCI has gathered since the last key inspection, information submitted each year from the service itself and information from surveys sent to people who use the service and other interested parties. The assessment will consider matters such as staff turnover; if any concerns are raised about how well outcomes are being met for the people who use the services, or if CSCI receives information that causes concern between reviews, it will bring forward the date of the key inspection of the service. CSCI retains the power to conduct an inspection of any home at any time.
Mr. Ivan Lewis: Information is not collected in the format requested. In March 2006, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) published guidance on the use of all drugs used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). They estimated that around 5 per cent. of school-aged children meet the diagnostic criteria for ADHD, equivalent to 366,000 children and adolescents in England and Wales, but not all these children will require medication.
We have also asked NICE to develop a clinical guideline on both the pharmacological and psychological interventions to treat ADHD. The guideline will cover the care provided by primary, community and secondary health care professionals who have direct contact with, and make decisions concerning, the care of children, young people and adults with ADHD.
care in general practice and national health service community care;
hospital out-patient and in-patient care;
primary/secondary interface of care and
transition from childhood services to adult services.
Dawn Primarolo: Cancer Research UK, which runs the SunSmart campaign on behalf of the United Kingdom Health Departments, has been awarded funding of £104,000 for 2007-08 by the Department (under the provisions of section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968). Provisionally and subject to the availability of funds approved by Parliament it has also been awarded £110,000 for 2008-09, and £115,000 for 2009-10.
Mr. Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason expenditure on grants for adult personal social services in 2006-07 was £267 million less than the plans set out in his Departments 2006 annual report. 
Mr. Ivan Lewis: The Departments 2006 annual report set out expenditure on grants for adult personal social services in 2006-07 of £1,688.8 million. Of this, £1,590.4 million was revenue grants and £98.4 million was capital resources including Supported Capital Expenditure (Revenue).
The Specific Grant Resources allocated by the Department in 2006-07 totalled £1,644.948 million. Of this, £1,596.848 million was allocated to revenue grants. This is £6.485 million higher than the resources allocated in the annual report, due to this sum being made available to fund new pressures from the Mental Capacity Act and Independent Mental Capacity Advocate Service. £48.1 million was allocated to specific capital grants and a further £50.3 million of capital funding was allocated to Supported Capital Expenditure (Revenue). Total capital expenditure was £98.4 million, as set out in the annual report.
Mr. David Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many providers of adult social care services are regulated by the Commission for Social Care Inspection; and what proportion of all providers of adult social care services regulated by the Commission for Social Care Inspection have had their assessment level changed from 3 to 1 as a result of an inspection since 1st April 2006. 
The number of services that remained active in the period from 1 April 2006 until 9 November 2007 is 21,257. Of these, 236 services that had a quality rating of level 3 on 1 April 2006 were then at rating level 1 on
9 November 2007. This is a proportion of 0.0111 (a percentage of 1.11 per cent.) of the services active between both dates.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what social care information the Information Centre for Health and Social Care has identified as being relevant at a (a) national and (b) local level, as stated on the our priorities for 2007-08 section of its website; and what progress the Information Centre has made in (i) providing a forum for sharing good practice across information specialists in social care, (ii) forging greater integration of social care and health information, (iii) setting appropriate standards for social care data collection and (iv) producing a publication on the state of the nation using all the Information Centre's sources of data on social care and other sources as appropriate. 
Mr. Ivan Lewis: The publication of the New Performance Framework for Local Authorities and Local Authority Partnerships, in October, has led to a review of all the Information Centre for Health and Social Care's (IC) social care data, with a view to establishing which social care information is used at national and/or at local level.
The IC is currently engaging with stakeholders to establish a National Information and Intelligence Service. This will make better use of the extensive information resource available in locally managed systems and will provide the basis for integrated information in health and social care during 2008.
Social care data collections undertaken by the IC are subject to stringent standards which are regularly reviewed and revised by the Strategic Information Group for Adult Social Care. A specific work programme has been established to review these and other arrangements for setting standards (by March 2008). A decision has been taken for the Information Standards Board, which currently operates across the national health service, to extend its remit to cover social care.
(2) what changes in the allocation of responsibilities for policy on sport between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and his Department have taken place since he became Secretary of State; 
The Department has an important role in promoting the benefits of physical activity for all as set out in the Chief Medical Officer's report At
least five a week: Evidence on the impact of physical activity and its relationship to health. We have worked closely with other Government Departments, including the Department for Culture Media and Sport, the Department for Children, Families and Schools and the Department for Transport to deliver the existing strategy for physical activity set out in Choosing Activity: a physical activity action plan.
HM Treasury has asked the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, to develop a new strategy for Sport England. Ministers have also agreed to work closely over the next few months to ensure that all relevant Government Departments are working together to deliver a physical activity strategy for all. Any changes in responsibilities for policy on physical activity, including the promotion of mass participation in sport, would emerge from this work.
The Department has no plans to fund work to encourage mass participation in sport in 2007-08. However, we are providing funding of £97,000 to the Amateur Swimming Association under the section 64 Scheme of Grants for a project that promotes swimming for health.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 3rd December 2007, Official Report, column 1015W, on sexually transmitted
diseases, if he will break down the figures supplied by age-group. 
Dawn Primarolo: The information requested for genitor urinary clinics (GUM) is published by age bands in Diagnoses and rates of selected STIs seen in GUM clinics: 2002-2006 National and Strategic Health Authority Level Summary tables. A copy has been placed in the Library. Similar information for the national chlamydia screening programme has also be placed in the Library.
Mr. Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS operations were cancelled in each primary care trust in the east of England as a result of (a) administrative errors, (b) shortages of beds, (c) outbreaks of MRSA or other hospital-acquired infections, (d) unavailability of correct or clean equipment and (e) missing notes in each year since 1997. 
Mr. Ivan Lewis: The information is not held in the format requested. The Department collects data on the number of operations cancelled at the last minute for non-clinical reasons for acute trusts in the east of England for the period 1997-98 to 2006-07 and the first quarter of 2007-08. The following table shows data for the number of operations cancelled for non-clinical reasons, national health service organisations in the east of England, 1997-98 to 2006-07 and the first quarter of 2007-08.
|Cancelled operations for non clinical reasons, NHS organisations in East of England, 2001-02 to 2006-07 and quarter 1 2007-08|
|Number of last minute cancellations for non clinical reasons|
|Organisation identification||Name||1997-98||1998-99||1999-2000||2000-01||2001-02||2002-03||2003-04||2004-05||2005-06||2006-07||2007-08 quarter 1|
| Notes: 1. The table shows the organisations as they existed, at the time of each collection.|
2. A last minute cancellation is one that occurs on the day the patient was due to arrive, after they have arrived in hospital or on the day of their operation.
3. Some common non-clinical reasons for cancellations by the hospital include: ward beds unavailable; surgeon unavailable; emergency case needing theatre; theatre list over-ran; equipment failure; admin error; anaesthetist unavailable; theatre staff unavailable; and critical care bed unavailable.
4. An operation which is rescheduled to a time within 24 hours of the original scheduled operation should be recorded as a postponement and not as a cancellation. The QMCO collection does not record the number of postponements.
Source: Department of Health dataset QMCO
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|