Seòmar agus comataidhean

I must remind everybody that I am still a registered nurse, and I worked in the operating theatre and recovery room in NHS Dumfries and Galloway. I am looking at information that says that patients are sicker than they were pre-pandemic and that they have multiple comorbidities. How does making a patient ready for surgery affect waiting times and preparation? Is that a factor that we need to think about? I see Peter Hastie, Katie Cuthbertson and Professor Din nodding.

You have answered a lot of questions about cancer treatment waiting times, and we have said a little about pre-operative screening. I would like to pick up on what Sandesh Gulhane said about the perioperative environment, I have worked there, so I know that you need lab and X-ray support, recovery rooms and pre-operative support. That is why elective surgeries are not done at 10 o’clock at night. The capacity of the perioperative environment depends on the wider team. I know orthopaedic surgeons who would be really happy to just do arthroscopies and hips and knees all day, but the wider team is required for those.

Where should there be improvements? What could be done to improve cancer treatment approaches? We have addressed the diagnostic part, but then there is intervention. We might need more CT scanners, but we also need people to read the scans and diagnose patients from them. The situation is complex, but can you suggest anything that could be done differently? I will come first to Katie Cuthbertson and then to Professor Din.

I am interested in the improvement plan, which has been updated for 2023 to 2027. I would like to hear your thoughts about how that update is different to previous plans. Does it allow people to have more choice about and control of the plans for their care?

I want to ask about technological innovation and the use of artificial intelligence, which could help to reduce bed days, for instance. Last week Dr Tom Mackay, Catherine Kelly and Dr Mary Melville from NHS Borders gave a presentation to the lung health cross-party group, which I co-convene, about keeping chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma patients out of hospital. They showed us that, among that small amount of patients, the implementation of artificial intelligence technology saved 236 bed days and removed the need for patients in remote and rural areas to have to make 50-mile or 100-mile round trips to get to hospital. I should say that patients in the NHS Dumfries and Galloway area have to travel similar distances.

What are your thoughts about the implementation of technology such as AI for out-of-hospital assessments, and can you tell us what other exciting technology is out there? We know that there are research studies about using such technology to examine X-rays to diagnose lung cancer, for instance. I would be interested to hear about something positive as we look at helping our NHS to address waiting times and so on.

The data in Public Health Scotland’s dashboard is really helpful. We can look at the data for all of Scotland or break it down by age group, choice of option or local authority. It shows that people up to the age of 18 have predominantly chosen option 1, which is direct payment, and that most people over 18 have chosen the option that involves help from the local authority or a combination. I found all that data interesting when I was analysing it.

I learned previously that people do not really equate self-directed support with what the local authority gives them. They say, “The local authority is doing this for me,” rather than, “This was my choice.” Should we in some way enhance people’s knowledge about what the self-directed support options 1, 2, 3 and 4 are so that people know that they are making a personal choice even if they have chosen the local authority option?

In each of your organisations, there are budgetary constraints. You have mentioned that already. Would any of you be happy to tell us about a good example of work that your organisation is doing to achieve the revised plan outcomes?

Good morning, everybody.

The amendments in my name in the group are not controversial, so I hope that members will agree that they are useful in helping to provide clarity on established safe access zones in Scotland.

Amendments 44 and 45 would remove the need for the Scottish ministers to publish the list of safe access zones after updating it with new protected premises, because the list will already be published. The amendments would ensure that the Scottish ministers are required to maintain the list and ensure that details are up to date. That will ensure clear and proper communication with the public so that everyone is clear about where the safe access zones are.

Amendment 45 would also strengthen the requirement that a safe access zone cannot take effect until at least 14 days after the list is updated, by adding a new subsection to make that easier to identify.

Similarly, amendments 47 and 48 would remove from sections 7 and 8 respectively the need to publish the list when the list is updated following an extension or reduction of safe access zones. That is, again, because the list is already published. The timescales for revised zone sizes taking effect remain unchanged, but they are put in a new subsection in both sections 7 and 8, and are at least 14 days after the list is updated for an extension to the zone size but on the day of the list being updated for a reduction in the zone size.

Although my amendments do not have a policy impact, they are, nonetheless, important changes to make the bill clearer and more easily understood. It is always a guiding principle that this Parliament must pass laws that are accessible and comprehensible by the people whom they impact. However, in this case, where the issues are so challenging and of such personal significance, that duty must be at the forefront of our minds.

Finally, during stage 1 scrutiny of the bill, I was interested in ministerial oversight of the creation, extension or reduction of safe access zones, and I welcome the conversations that I have had with Gillian Mackay in that regard. I hope that members can support my amendments, which will help to make the bill clearer.

I was going to bring up the issue of the Republic of Ireland and the traceability that it has put in place. Greyhound racing is quite central and important for people in the Republic of Ireland. Down the line, I am interested in following up work on having one microchip database for the whole of the UK, because I am interested in that part of it.

I have another question about the licensing. The GBGB has anti-doping guidance and it has set percentages for how many dogs will be tested for amphetamine, cocaine and other banned substances. Would a licensing scheme have guidance to require vets being on premises to test X number of dogs to be tested for banned substances, for instance?

Some retailers now sell vapes to customers who order pizzas to be delivered to them. My understanding is that their age is not verified when vapes are delivered along with the pizza that they have just ordered.