|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether dispensing contractors will be allowed to contract out a full dispensing service of appliances to other organisations under proposed amendments to the Regulatory Terms of Service of Pharmacy and
Appliance Contractors in relation to dispensing items listed in Part IX of the Drug Tariff. 
Mr. Ivan Lewis: Annex B of the consultation Arrangements under Part IX of the Drug Tariff for the provision of stoma and incontinence appliancesand related servicesto Primary Care. Revised Proposals sets out a number of proposals relating to essential services provided by dispensing appliance contractors and pharmacy contractors.
One of these proposals states that both dispensing appliance and pharmacy contractors shouldif they cannot dispense the prescription itembe able to pass a prescription form to another dispensing contractor with the patients consentprovided that they do not receive either a gift or a reward from the other dispensing contractor.
This does not preclude dispensing contractors working together in a commercial manner in order to provide a full dispensing service to patients in relation to Part IXA (catheter), Part IXB (incontinence related) or Part IXC (stoma) prescription items.
Harry Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the role is of the independent sector procurement forum; what funds were allocated to it for 2007-08; who is on the forum; and what remuneration each member receives. 
Mr. Bradshaw: The Independent Sector Procurement Forum will advise the Department on policies and practice in local procurement of clinical services. The forum, the membership of which is still being finalised, will draw on a range of expertise and experience. Forum members will not be paid but will be entitled to claim expenses in line with departmental guidance. Secretariat and any other costs of the forum will be met from existing resources for 2007-08.
Mr. Bradshaw: There is no specific consideration made for industrial disease prevalence in determining resource allocations to primary care trusts (PCTs) but industrial disease will be picked up in the models of utilisation of health care in the additional need element of the formula.
The components of the formula are used to weight each PCT's crude population according to their relative need (age, and additional need) for health care and the unavoidable geographical differences in the cost of providing health care (market forces factor).
The additional need element of the formula is intended to reflect the relative need for health care over and above that accounted for by age. The need weighting takes the form of indices from two broad service areas:
acute and maternity;
The indices are based on models of utilisation of health care and comprise a number of socio-economic and health related variables. There are two different groups of variables included in these models:
standard variables derived from small area statistical modelling of utilisation; and
additional morbidity variables designed to capture some of the effect of unmet need where ethnic minority groups and low income groups do not receive healthcare services to the same level as that of others with similar health characteristics.
For further information on the weighted-capitation formula, please refer to Resource Allocation: Weighted Capitation Formula (Fifth edition). A copy is available in the Library, and can also be accessed at:
Mr. Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the Information Centre for Health and Social Care to commence development of a dataset for urgent and emergency care, as described on page four of his Departments document Urgent care update: Key areas highlighted by the Direction of Travel consultation and other work; and which (a) organisations and (b) individuals he expects the Information Centre to consult on the matter. 
Mr. Bradshaw: The Information Centre for health and social care (IC) are working towards developing a dataset for urgent and emergency care. The IC will follow their usual processes of wide engagement with relevant professional bodies, and may also include an open consultation period.
Mr. Ivan Lewis: The Mental Capacity Act 2005 sets out the statutory rules governing advance decisions to refuse treatment, which were sometimes previously known as living wills. The Government issued the Mental Capacity Act Code of Practice in April 2007, which includes guidance on advance decisions, and a range of information booklets for the public and professionals, which summarise the provisions that relate to advance decisions. The Department has issued information on the transitional provisions for advance decisions to refuse life-sustaining treatment made before the Act came into force. The Code of Practice and other information will be updated as necessary.
Mr. Bradshaw: There are no current plans to implement the summary care record (SCR) beyond the existing early adopter programme. The Department is working with both the Summary Care Record Advisory Group and the independent evaluators based at University College London to ensure that all significant learning from the early adopters is taken into account as soon as it is available. The evaluation will draw from extensive fieldwork done to capture the views and experiences of general practitioners, practice managers, nurses, other national health service clinical and management staff, and patients. The results of the evaluation will be incorporated into future deployment plans for the SCR.
Jeremy Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Health which categories of NHS staff working outside GP surgeries will have direct access to information in detailed care records created by clinicians working in a GP surgery; and which of those staff categories will be authorised to override patients' wishes expressed through sealed envelope software. 
Mr. Bradshaw: Individuals from outside the general practitioner's practice will only be able to access a patient's detailed care record, where they are working within a local health community where patient records are managed through a shared detailed record system and where they have a smartcard and role profile that enables access to patient records and also have a legitimate relationship with the patientfor example, because they are providing healthcare or treatment in a different setting, or they have express consent from the patient for other reasons, such as clinical research, or there is a statutory basis or court order supporting disclosure.
Patients may also request that a flag within the system be set to prevent information being accessed by anyone outside of the practice without their express consent other than where there is a legal requirement to do so, or an overriding public interest such as serious crime.
A patient's wishes regarding a sealed envelope can only be overridden exceptionally by staff who have been specifically granted the ability to do so by their employing organisations as part of their assigned role profile. When they do override a seal they must record whether their action is justified by express patient consent, a legal requirement, or an overriding public interest, and this will subsequently be checked by the employing body.
Mr. Ivan Lewis:
The star rating system is no longer used by the Healthcare Commission. The rating system is now shown through scores of weak, fair, good
and excellent. The information requested can be found in the following table:
|Name of Trust||Use of Resources||Quality of Services|
Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been detained involuntarily for treatment under the Mental Health Act in each London mental health trust in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. 
Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time was for talk therapies in each London mental health trust in the latest period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. 
Currently, there are no national waiting times targets for access to psychological therapies in primary care. Waiting times standards are being developed which will be tested in the new Pathfinder Sites for improving access to psychological therapies in 2007-08. These sites will test out proposed standards including appropriate access times for different stages of treatment as detailed in the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Guidelines.
Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time was for a first appointment with a mental health professional following referral by a GP in the last five years, broken down by London mental health trust; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Ivan Lewis: The information is not available in the format requested. Waiting times can only be calculated back to 2005 as prior to this, data were only collected for waits over 13 weeks. The available information has been set out in the tables.
Waiting time data are collected for consultant led out-patient appointments, but recently more work is being done by multi-disciplinary teams. Therefore waiting lists have fallen for mental health specialties. Furthermore, as numbers are small, data for average waits cannot be calculated for all trusts.
Furthermore, in-patient psychiatric activity has fallen over time as we have established more than 700 new mental health teams providing community based care as an alternative to acute in-patient care.
|Out-patient waiting list statistics for mental health specialties for London provider trusts|
|Not yet seen at the end of the month who are still waiting|
|Time periodmonth ending||Name||Total over 13 week out-patient waiters not seen after 1( st) out-patient appointment for mental health specialties||Not seen 13<17 weeks||Not seen 17<21 weeks||Not seen 21+ weeks||Not seen 21<26 weeks||Not seen 26+ weeks|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|