Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a couple of questions about stigma, which was one of the issues that Professor Hazel Borland mentioned in her opening comments. It is good to see you here this morning, Hazel.

I will cite one example in our committee paper relating to stigma. There is a summary from the Promise in August 2020, which talks about the language that we use and explains how we should not use stigmatising language. There are also specific examples of how to act, such as not showing up in branded cars wearing lanyards or in uniforms outside people’s homes or schools. Can Professor Borland talk a little bit about what actions could or should be taken to continue to tackle stigma so that families feel confident that they will not experience stigma when accessing help?

It is just a quick question to ask Dr O’Kelly to clarify a matter. If a person needs anticoagulant therapy, which would require them to have an extended pre-operative assessment and may even affect their post-op recovery, leading to a delayed discharge to enable the anticoagulants to be managed, that would be covered as part of the mesh removal procedure. Is that correct?

It has—

Sure; thank you.

My other question is on the flipside of that. If somebody acquires a complication because of mesh removal surgery, such as urethral transection or something in the ureter that requires additional surgery, such as a urostomy, is that covered as something that happened because of the removal surgery?

As a former healthcare nurse who worked in operating theatres, I am very keen that clinicians, scientists and experts work together, because it is through knowledge sharing that we will tackle this pandemic and any future concerns with regard to suppressing future pandemics. I know that a pandemic committee has been established in Scotland, too, so there are lots of experts around the table. However, are we good at information sharing at the moment? How can we avoid duplication and different people doing the same kind of work?

Finally, with regard to surveillance and other data, I think that it is necessary that we look at the number of Covid cases and the behaviour that has, say, led to an outbreak. We hear about people who are, for example, against wearing face coverings. If we are looking at surveillance in different parts of the four UK nations, are we able to make good comparative decisions that show that one way might be better than another? Would that inform our search for the best way of dealing with the pandemic?

Sometimes all these budget lines, top lines and different figures just get thrown out there. I am interested in the idea of £15 per hour for care persons. That is what a band 5, three-year university-trained staff nurse makes. If we were going to make a challenge to move or increase that spend, that puts another burden on workforce planning, and that would be a concern for me. I am suggesting that social care staff should be supported and educated to have clinical expertise and progression, but £1.6 billion is an interesting figure that you have given us—if such a measure were to be taken—for a £15 per hour salary. It would be interesting to hear your additional comments on that.

Good morning, Dr Phin. I am interested in information sharing. Given that we now have different scientific advisory groups in each Administration, many of the members of which will, I am sure, know each other, we probably want to pursue a collaborative process using non-legislative measures rather than legislative approaches, which is part of the memorandum of understanding. I am interested in how good information sharing is between the four nations. You have said that there are three representatives from Scotland but 15 from England in the group, and only one from Wales and two from Northern Ireland. How is information currently shared if there is a top-heavy input from England compared with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

I had one more question, about progress towards increasing primary care spend by 25 per cent—I think that the Government has a commitment to increase primary care spend by 25 per cent. I make that my final question.