Seòmar agus comataidhean

Public Health Scotland (PHS) is not required to score its research publications on whether they criticise the Scottish Government. The process for publishing research reports is managed impartially and objectively, in line with scientific principles and recognised best practice.

A Communications Framework, jointly agreed by SG, PHS and COSLA, is in place that provides a high-level framework of good practice in relation to a broad range of communications activity, including communications relating to the publication of research publications. The framework does not impact on the independence of research publications. The framework stresses the operational autonomy of PHS and the key importance of mutual respect for our different roles and responsibilities.

PHS reports are routinely published on their website and can be found at the following web address: https://publichealthscotland.scot/publications/ .

As set out in my response to S6W-00871 on 5 July 2021 we’ve taken a number of steps to provide advice and support to people with chronic pain during the pandemic, including highlighting relevant information on the matter of injections to assist them in discussions with their clinician and Health Board.

In June 2020, joint guidance was issued by the Faculty of Pain Medicine (FPM) and the British Pain Society (BPS) in relation to pain interventions which stated: ‘decision[s] to resume injections should be based on a balance of risks and benefits for individual patients’ . This statement reflected the factors the FMP/BPS said should be considered when resuming pain interventions, including the local prevalence of COVID-19, reducing the risk to patients (specifically in relation to steroid injections) and prioritising lower risk aspects of pain services first. It also emphasised the importance of patient consent in relation to additional risks of attending hospital and receiving an injection during the pandemic.

Following this, the advice issued by the FPM in July 2020 again set out that there was insufficient evidence to assess the potential associated risks should a patient come into contact with COVID-19. It goes on to on to clearly state: ‘Our previous recommendations - “FPM & BPS Joint Guidance on Pain Interventions during the COVID-19 Recovery Phase” published on the 8th of June 2020 in conjunction with the British Pain Society […] still stand ’. The update also stated, when making treatment decisions, the: ‘risk benefit ratio [should] also [be] measured in the context of the local prevalence of the COVID-19 virus at that point in time.’ Our replies to correspondence about this matter therefore continued to include a link to the June 2020 guidance and in response to feedback from a member of the public in April 2021, we now direct people to the overarching FPM webpage containing both advice documents.

Neither Scottish Government officials or Ministers make or influence treatment or prescribing decisions as these are entirely for clinicians in charge of a patient’s care to make. When taking these decisions we expect clinicians to discuss risks and options fully with their patients taking into account relevant guidance, the impact of pain on people’s quality of life and any safety considerations.

All answers to written Parliamentary Questions are available on the Parliament's website, the search facility for which can be found at https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/written-questions-and-answers

The British and Irish Lions rugby match was a flagship event approved by the Scottish Government through an events gateway process. Flagship events are internationally significant events which maintain Scotland’s longer-term profile as a host of major events, with an eye to recovery from the pandemic, and with appropriate Covid-19 mitigations in place.

Decisions about the sale of alcohol was a matter for the Local Authority and was discussed at the City of Edinburgh Council Event Planning & Operations Group Meetings which had Police Scotland in attendance.

We are grateful that the majority of supporters followed the mitigation measures put in place around physical distancing which included extensive messaging around Covid protocols in advance of the match and on the day itself. This included signage (and hand hygiene) at all bars, public address announcements and an additional 150 stewards employed to manage this, however, we are aware that a small number of fans did not always comply. For those reasons, Scottish Rugby took the decision to close the bars earlier than scheduled to avoid a half-time surge. The safety of spectators and employees is, and will always remain, paramount.

The Scottish Government and event organisers will use the knowledge learnt from this to support the wider restart of events across Scotland.

The information requested is not centrally held by Scottish Government, as aspergillus and Cryptococcus are not part of the mandatory surveillance policy. As stated in the National IPC Manual, Appendix 13 alert organism surveillance should be guided by local Board intelligence.

The information requested is not held centrally by the Scottish Government. Information relating to meetings between NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Infection Prevention and Control Team and the Health Protection Team, is held by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. The Scottish Government are only notified of incidents when they are reported by the NHS National Services Scotland, Antimicrobial Resistance and Healthcare Associated Infection Service, by means of the Outbreak Reporting System .

The Scottish Government has liaised with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Board, and the analytical data captured by the management information tool records that staff are a health or social care worker, not their work location or clinical status. The Member will be aware that employees of the health board can access a dedicated email address, if they have not received a second dose of the COVID-19 Vaccine.

At a national level, 373,715 health and social care workers have received their first dose and 357,486 are fully vaccinated. This includes the 94% of specified frontline health workers, who have had their first dose and 89% that have received their second too. The COVID-19 Daily Dashboard | Tableau Public provides the latest figures.

To help free up capacity during the initial coronavirus outbreak, Health Boards were asked to postpone non-urgent operations and procedures to allow vital NHS staff and resources to be redeployed to support the response to the pandemic. All Health Boards were written to in March 2020 and asked to take a structured approach to scaling down all non-urgent elective procedures, making clear that urgent, maternity and vital cancer services should remain.

From May 2020, while NHS Boards needed to maintain capacity for the priorities of COVID-19 as well as continuing to provide urgent, emergency, maternity care and support the care home sector, they started to use spare capacity to safely and incrementally restore services which had been paused. In restarting paused services, each Health Board, whilst ensuring their approach was consistent with national guidance, made their own decision on which services could safely and effectively be resumed; as informed by local circumstances; and both local and national clinical priorities.

National screening programmes restarted over summer 2020 in a phased way with an initial focus on higher risk screening participants, with all adult screening programmes now running again, including those for breast, bowel and cervical cancer.

Remobilising and supporting the NHS remains one of the Scottish Government’s top priorities and the NHS Recovery Plan will be published shortly. This will set out how we will continue to support patients to receive the highest quality of care; safely and effectively expanding NHS capacity whilst ensuring operational resilience.

Published data on performance is available at Publications - Public Health Scotland

The information requested is not centrally held by Scottish Government, relating to Covid 19 infection at specific hospital sites. Publicly available data by Health Board is available via: https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/phs.covid.19/viz/COVID-19DailyDashboard_15960160643010/Overview

The information requested is not centrally held by Scottish Government regarding clinician led case reviews. Information on case reviews is held by the appropriate health board for local learning and quality improvement purposes.

From April 2010 until September 2020, there have been 808 revisional mesh procedures to either remove or oversew transvaginal mesh, inserted for stress urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse or another unknown reason.