Seòmar agus comataidhean

Does the cabinet secretary feel that there is scope to extend that? We now have a number of new-build health and social care centres—very often in our town centres—that are well used, have treatment rooms and all the rest of it, so is there a sense that we should be looking to extend that ban across the estate more widely?

My question follows on from some of those that have been asked already and is about the data that is available. Figures from Public Health Scotland show that the number of whole-time equivalent GPs has gone down: we are at the lowest level since 2013. Although the head count is going up, the whole-time equivalent number is a better yardstick in helping us to understand the picture of services across the country.

We have not had any figures on whole-time equivalent GPs since 2019. I do not know whether the cabinet secretary has any information about that; if so, the committee would be keen to see it and to know where we are with whole-time equivalent GPs. Can you commit to providing that information?

Receptionists are not the only staff in GP practices. We have heard about signposting and gatekeeping and all sorts of things, and we had some good evidence from Dr Graeme Marshall, who talked about reception teams training with clinical staff and the more administrative staff. Do you see any opportunity to standardise some of that training?

Because of the nature of GP practices, this would be hard, but perhaps we could look at the pay and conditions of those on the more administrative side and how we might enhance their roles. After all, we know that they are doing more than just answering the phone and talking to patients.

We have heard evidence from patient groups, particularly the Riverside patient participation group, which I think is from Musselburgh, about digital exclusion and health needs. Those two things coincide. We understand that approximately 10 per cent of the population do not have access to new technology or the skills that are required to use it, and that those people are the most likely to have the greatest health needs—there is a clear correlation. I am keen to get a sense from the cabinet secretary of how those patients’ routes into primary care can be protected and enhanced, given the challenges.

To follow on from that point, I understand that the regulations cover hospitals, particularly—

A lot of the answers and discussion have been peppered by mention of the barriers that exist to accessing the sorts of pathways and interventions that there are. I am interested in your views about the potential for the exacerbation of inequalities.

Roseann Logan talked about the need for support and for someone to be accompanied to certain activities and have that intervention. In its written evidence, the alliance spoke about some of the challenges in relation to passes for sports and leisure activities. For example, if someone has never had the support to learn to swim and is given a leisure pass that ends after six weeks, would that increase those barriers, because that person would feel like it did not help them? Related to that, is the financial barrier to being able to continue with some of those activities after that six-week period too high? I am sorry—I appreciate that that was a lot. I drew some of that from the alliance’s evidence, so does Roseann want to start?

Good morning, panel. I want to follow the path that other colleagues have been going down on digital exclusion. We have heard evidence from patient groups—in particular, the Riverside patient participation group from Musselburgh, which noted that approximately 10 per cent of the population has no access to new forms of technology, or does not have the skills that are required to use them. Given that those patients are most likely to have the greatest health needs, what else can we do to protect their right to access primary health care? Would Chris Mackie like to go first?

I want to explore that further. Chris Mackie’s point about who can support and advise is interesting. I am keen on what we can do in libraries in Scotland. I raised that point previously with Citizens Advice Scotland, which talked about some of its services. I am not sure, however, that there is universal coverage by such services. There is an opportunity to do more on that. Do the witnesses have reflections on that? Do the people whom Adam Stachura deals with through Age Scotland, for example, interact with library services?

Thank you. Those were very helpful responses.

I picked up that we want to avoid any sense that interventions would appear paternalistic, or any sense that things are being done to people. From what the witnesses have said, it is very much about collaboration between the link worker and the patient.

I will go back to Roseann Logan on her point about the pathway into sport. Is any work being done to look at how people who have had an initial block of training to access sports are subsequently encouraged or supported to join a local club that is free? Very often, a lot of the barriers are about having the confidence to join a club that is free and get involved. I wonder whether there is a sense that link workers could train and support someone initially and then help them to access the free clubs that already exist in our communities. I am keen to understand how common that is.

There has been increased demand for the NHS 24 telephony service; people want contact via the phone. I have raised the issue before in this committee. That has led to pressure, so sometimes calls go unanswered, which none of us wants to happen. What more do we need to do to bolster and support the service? Dr Perry, do you think that it is a question of call handling and clinical staff capacity? What else needs to be done?