Previous Section Index Home Page

14 Dec 2009 : Column 758W—continued

A copy of "Necessity-not Nicety" has also been placed in the Library:

This document is also available on the Department's corporate website, via the following link:

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the terms of reference are of the joint OGC and NHS Purchasing Supply Review; when the review will be completed; and whether the results of the review will be published. [304251]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The title of the review was "The Office of Government Commerce's Procurement Capability Review of the Department of Health". The final report was published by the Office of Government Commerce in November 2008.

The terms of reference of the review have been placed in the Library.

The following documents have already been placed in the Library:

NHS: Standards

Norman Lamb: To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions he has been informed by (a) strategic health authorities and (b) non-departmental public bodies of (i) patient safety concerns and (ii) management failings relating to NHS trusts in the last 12 months. [303813]

Ann Keen: The Department does not routinely bring together individual pieces of information from strategic health authorities and non-departmental public bodies which might be classified as "patient safety concerns" and "management failings" and count them.

Nurses: Temporary Employment

James Brokenshire: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many bank or agency nurses are engaged by each London acute hospital trust; and what proportion this figure represents of the nursing staff in each such trust. [305081]


14 Dec 2009 : Column 759W

Ann Keen: This information is not collected centrally, but is held by individual acute trusts.

Nurses: Training

Mrs. Maria Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what expenditure his Department incurred on training and professional development for nurses in the last three years. [305260]

Ann Keen: Expenditure incurred by strategic health authorities (SHAs) on training and development for nurses in the last three years is shown in the table.

Multi-professional education and training expenditure on nurses
£ million

Tuition costs Bursary costs( 1,2) Total costs

2006-07

658.3

352.8

1,011.0

2007-08

635.1

354.0

989.1

2008-09

568.3

352.4

920.6

(1 )Excludes Nil award holders, i.e. EU fees-only students and students whose living allowance element of the bursary has been reduced to nil after income assessment.
(2) Includes the basic award, all supplementary allowances and all one-off payments, e.g. reimbursement of practice placement costs. Recoveries of bursaries are not included for students leaving a course or for fraud.
Source:
SHA Quarterly financial management information systems data
NHS Student Bursaries Scheme database-NHS Business Services Authority

Oesophagectomy

Mr. Swire: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to continue minimally-invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) research conducted at the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital in the event that MIO procedures are moved from that hospital to Derriford hospital. [306569]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: This is a matter for the local national health service.

However, we are advised that the ongoing research projects into minimally invasive surgery for upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancer surgery at the Royal Devon and Exeter Foundation Trust will continue following the centralisation of upper GI cancer surgery for the South West peninsula at Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust.

Mr. Swire: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the long-term survival rate for (a) minimally-invasive oesophagectomy and (b) open oesophagectomy is; [306570]

(2) what the mortality rate for (a) minimally-invasive oesophagectomy and (b) open oesophagectomy is; [306571]

(3) what the average recovery time for (a) minimally-invasive oesophagectomy and (b) open oesophagectomy is. [306572]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Information on the recovery rate and long-term survival rate for minimally-invasive oesophagectomy and open oesophagectomy is not held centrally.

The 30-day mortality rate for minimally-invasive oesophagectomy was 3.4 per cent. and for open
14 Dec 2009 : Column 760W
oesophagectomy was 3.1 per cent. This information is from the second annual report of the National Oesophago-Gastric Cancer Audit (NOGCA), which was published in October 2009. The publication is available on the NHS Information Centre for health and social care website at

It is important to note that the second annual report's data do not cover all eligible patients as the audit does not close for submissions until February 2010, and not all eligible trusts have participated.

Patient Choice Schemes

Mike Penning: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) who has responsibility within the NHS for judging a patient's entitlement and eligibility to use the patient transfer service; [307432]

(2) which NHS bodies are responsible for paying for a patient to use the patient transfer service. [307433]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: A patient's eligibility for non-emergency patient transport service (PTS) should be determined either by a health care professional or by non-clinically qualified staff who are both:

Primary care trusts (PCTs) are responsible for commissioning ambulance services (which could include PTS) to such extent as the PCT considers necessary to meet all reasonable requirements of the area for which they are legally charged with providing services. PCTs are therefore ultimately responsible for the costs of PTS.

Plastic Surgery: Internet

Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department holds on the number of websites advertising botulinum toxin, fillers and other non-surgical cosmetic procedures for sale to people in England. [306518]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Department of Health and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) do not routinely collect information on websites advertising botulinum toxin, fillers and other non-surgical cosmetic procedures for sale to people in the United Kingdom.

However, the MHRA regulates the advertising of medicines, including botulinum toxin products where it is a licensed medicine. The cosmetic use of Botox(r) is outside the product's licensed indications. The administration of injectable medicines such as Botox(r) (whether or not for cosmetic use) is restricted. Unless self-administered, they may only be administered by an independent practitioner or a person acting in accordance with the patient-specific directions of an independent prescriber. The MHRA will take appropriate action on receipt of any complaint about websites advertising botulinum toxin as a cosmetic treatment.


14 Dec 2009 : Column 761W

Prescription Drugs

John Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the spending per head on GP-prescribed (a) tranquillisers and (b) anti-depressants was in (i) each primary care trust area and (ii) England in each of the last three years. [306578]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The average net ingredient cost per head of population, for each primary care trust in England, for the dispensing of prescriptions written by general practitioners for tranquillisers and anti-depressants, has been placed in the Library.

Tranquillisers are defined as all those items appearing in paragraph 4.1.2 Anxiolytics of the British National Formulary (BNF) and anti-depressants defined as those items appearing in section 4.3 Antidepressant drugs of the BNF.

In October 2006, there was a re-organisation of primary care trusts (PCTs) and the 303 PCTs became 152 with some being abolished, others continuing and new ones being created. It is therefore not possible to give figures per head for each PCT in 2006-07. They have therefore not been included in the response.

Prescriptions: Fees and Charges

Mark Simmonds: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 30 November 2009, Official Report, column 547W, on prescriptions: fees and charges, how many patients have identified cancer and another condition on their FP92A application form since 1 April 2009; and how many such patients identified each other condition. [305258]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: This information is not available. The NHS Business Services Authority's processing system only captures the first ticked box on the medical exemption application form.

Tony Baldry: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department expects to (a) publish and (b) respond to Professor Ian Gilmore's review of prescription charges. [306534]

Norman Lamb: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the report of the review by Professor Ian Gilmore into prescription charges will be published; and if he will make a statement. [307148]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Professor Gilmore has now submitted his report on the prescription charges review to the Department of Health. His recommendations are now being considered by the Department. We will publish the review's report and our response to the recommendations in the new year.

Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust: Finance

Patrick Mercer: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what (a) funding and (b) capital funding allocation was made to each hospital site within the Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in each year since 1997. [306674]


14 Dec 2009 : Column 762W

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The information requested is a matter for the Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. We have written to Tracy Doucet, Chair of Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, informing her of the hon. Member's question. She will reply shortly and a copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

Social Services

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of the working data and assumptions behind table 1 in the Impact Assessment for the Personal Care at Home Bill. [304790]

Phil Hope: The data used to produce table 1 of the Impact Assessment is from the English Longitudinal Study of Aging, Wave 3. This is a publicly available source and can be accessed at:

People under the age of 65 were removed from the sample. Then a logistic model of the need for formal care was estimated on the basis of each person's age, age squared, limitations in activities of daily living (ADL dependency) and whether or not they live alone (as a proxy for receipt of informal care). Fitted values from this logit model were used to produce a continuous variable for each person's level of need. The sample was then ranked in order of their predicted need on this variable, and the needs of the top 4.7 per cent. were assumed to be critical under Fair Access to Care Services (FACS)-this uses the Personal Social Services Research Unit's approach to defining those who are FACS critical, which draws on findings in the Commission for Social Care Inspection report, 'The State of Social Care in England 2007-08', published in January 2009.

The 204 sample members classified as FACS critical in this way were then grouped into those reporting difficulty with different total numbers of activities of daily living, as shown in table 1 of the Impact Assessment.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health with reference to table 2 of the Impact Assessment for the Personal Care at Home Bill, from which pages of the English Longitudinal Study of Aging Wave 3 he derived the numbers of people (a) receiving state-funded care and (b) making a means-tested contribution. [304791]

Phil Hope: The numbers of individuals whose needs are critical under Fair Access to Care Services (FACS) estimated to be receiving state-funded care and making a means-tested contribution are taken from the Personal Social Services Research Unit's micro-simulation model for older people.

The estimated numbers in each of these groups have then been narrowed down to those FACS critical individuals with difficulty with four or more activities of daily living by using the percentages shown in table 1 of the Impact Assessment, which are derived from the English Longitudinal Study of Aging (ELSA). They were produced by secondary analysis of the ELSA data-which are publicly available-and not drawn from a published report.


14 Dec 2009 : Column 763W

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health with reference to table 2 of the Impact Assessment for the Personal Care at Home Bill, what methodology was used to calculate the number of people described as (a) self-funding plus unmet need, (b) residential care switchers and (c) informal care switchers. [304792]

Phil Hope: The number of individuals estimated to be self-funders or those with unmet need is taken from the Personal Social Services Research Unit's micro-simulation model for older people. An extra 25 per cent. was added to both the volume and the estimated cost from their model to bring it closer into line with alternative estimates of the numbers of severely disabled older people purchasing private home care. This seemed prudent in view of the inevitable uncertainty about the impact of free care on demand and the consequent risk of under-estimating costs.

Residential care switchers were estimated by using a simple model of the likely flows into and out of a steady state stock of individuals in residential care. It is assumed that not all individuals entering care homes under the current system will either choose or be eligible to receive personal care at home under the new system (i.e. because their needs may be too great). We do not know exactly what proportion of these individuals will choose to receive their care at home rather than enter residential care, but for illustrative purposes we have assumed a figure of 10 per cent.

Informal care switchers were estimated by removing the 'living alone' variable from the logistic regression equation used to predict individuals' level of need for formal care and re-running the model to estimate the additional volume of individuals who would be classified as critical under Fair Access to Care Services if everybody hypothetical lived alone. We do not know what proportion of these individuals would actually have their informal care arrangements withdrawn in order to qualify for free personal care, but for illustrative purposes we have assumed a figure of 5 per cent.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health with reference to table 2 of the Impact Assessment for the Personal Care at Home Bill, for what reasons the figure given for informal care switchers is 50 per cent. of the estimated number of informal care switchers. [304793]

Phil Hope: We do not know how many potential informal care switchers, as estimated under assumptions detailed in the Impact Assessment, have difficulties with activities of daily living (ADLs). Therefore, we have assumed that 50 per cent. of potential switchers have difficulty with four or more ADLs-and actually switch-and 50 per cent. have difficulty with less than four ADLs and do not switch since they would not qualify for free personal care.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health with reference to Annex A of the Impact Assessment for the Personal Care at Home Bill, from what source the estimate that 5 per cent. of people would have informal care withheld is derived. [304799]


Next Section Index Home Page