Seòmar agus comataidhean

How do the boards feel about the progress that they have made under the current escalation framework and the issues on which they have been escalated?

I am particularly interested in the area of culture. I note the number of sites where NHS Highland operates and the number of workers who are potentially not coming into contact with a lot of colleagues. How do you overcome that challenge of ensuring that everybody’s voice is heard and that you are accurately hearing what is going on at different sites, given the small number of staff in some places and the potential for some relationships to be not very good? People may be much more easily identifiable if they make a complaint there, compared with what happens in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and some of the bigger hospital sites that we have, where raising concerns anonymously is slightly easier, I suppose.

Do you feel that you are receiving adequate support to improve not just the things where you are still on level 3 but those other aspects of culture, so that you can continue to make progress? What other support do you feel needs to be in place to help to de-escalate the level 3 things while you keep improving on the things that are at level 2?

Earlier, Natalie Don touched on the family approach. Although I totally welcome that approach, there might be various reasons why people do not have their immediate family involved in their recovery. Their immediate family might be the source of trauma or they might be estranged from their family for various reasons. Do you have plans to issue guidance around that, to make sure that, whatever that family set-up is—whether it is a biological family set-up or friends that someone treats as family—that support network is around that person and is involved in their treatment?

Thank you.

Lovely—thank you.

It is on a slightly different topic, and is on behalf of my colleague Maggie Chapman, who is looking for an update on the implementation of the Dundee drugs commission. What progress is being made on the recommendations of that commission?

Thank you, minister—I absolutely appreciate that. I asked the previous panel about contributing to service design and how we ensure that that is sustainable for anyone who is engaging. I previously asked witnesses how we do that in relation to the national care service, because it is often an onerous and time-intensive thing that asks people to relive trauma. How do you think we can make sure that we take on that valuable experience and that those people can contribute fully to service design, while not negatively impacting their recovery or wellbeing?

I have another question, convener, but perhaps I can come back to it at the end.

That is great. I want to touch on something that Karen Reynolds said earlier about people’s expectations for the end of the journey. For the Parliament, the aim of a lot of these pieces of work is to reduce the number of drug deaths, but, from your service users’ point of view, what are the other measures of success that we should be looking at? After all, what one of your service users might consider a success might not be something that we have picked up on in different threads of our work. If we are missing something, or if there is a piece of success that we should be measuring from your service users’ point of view, what would that be?

On this committee, and on many committees in the Parliament, we agree that lived and living experience should be at the heart of every service that we design but, given the intensity of being involved in this work and the long-term nature of service change and evaluation, how can we ensure that people with either lived experience through loved ones—which Justina Murray spoke about—or those who have previous or current substance use issues are able to engage in the work meaningfully and in a way that does not cause them further harm?