���˿���

That is a good question and is a focus of the Audit Scotland report. I will respond to Ms Harper and suspect that we will go into more detail in the forthcoming debate on the subject.

I regularly meet stakeholders, particularly those who have lived experience of long Covid. I also meet Long Covid Kids, which is an important organisation that represents young people who continue to be affected by the long-term impacts of Covid. It would be fair to say that those stakeholders feel that there is no consistency in approach, either from a geographical perspective or within different parts of the healthcare system. That is a key challenge that they have raised with me.

What are we doing to support them? The member will be aware that we try to provide as much of the best guidance that we can to our clinical colleagues in healthcare. Our primary care colleagues in particular will often be the front door for people who are suffering from long Covid. The notes in the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidance Network guidelines say that services for people with long Covid

“may be provided through integrated and coordinated primary care, community, rehabilitation and mental health services.”

and they note that

“areas have different service needs and resources”

so there is not one model that will fit all areas. Different approaches are taken in different parts of the country.

You will know that we announced a £10 million long Covid fund to be spent over the next three financial years. We will soon be able to give details about how some of that funding will be distributed.

One key thing that we have tried to do to deal with the question of consistency is to establish a national strategic network for long Covid. The network is managed by NHS National Services Scotland and brings together clinical experts, GPs, allied health professionals and specialists in secondary care. Most importantly, it brings together those with lived experience, who are informing us on how that funding should be spent and where the gaps in provision and services are. The network will continue to examine and act as a check on the work that we are doing on long Covid.

There is a lot more to do in that space. The last thing that I will say is that we are still learning about the long-term impacts and effects of Covid, so we have provided funding for research. That research will take time and it might not lead to immediate results or benefits, but it will be critical to our understanding of how we treat and manage long Covid in the future.

I think that there is a difference of view among clinicians. I of course respect your clinical judgment on that, but you would acknowledge that many clinicians have a different view and think that, actually, a one-stop clinic that GPs could refer to would end up taking away resources from other parts of the health service. They think that, actually, we could refer people into a respiratory pathway or another pathway, so there is no need for a one-stop clinic. At the same time, I accept that there is contrary view to that.

In my articulation to Ms Harper, I was trying to be fair and to say that, where there are good models—I purposefully referenced the Hertfordshire model—that we think can be replicated here in Scotland, I have no issue with health boards replicating, implementing and embedding those models in their areas. As I said, once the final decisions are made, which will be shortly, we will be able to give detail about funding in relation to the £10 million long Covid fund. The purpose of that fund is to plug the gaps in provision. The strategic network will help with looking at where the gaps in provision are and whether the funding can help to plug some of those.

If the health board believes that there should be a one-top clinic, that is fair enough. However, NHS Highland is a classic example of how challenging running a one-stop clinic might be. I take the point that virtual access can be a key part of that, but many people’s expectation of such a clinic would be to be able to see a clinician face to face and have a detailed conversation with them. We have to be up front and say that that model may work in some areas but may not be suitable for others.

We were always up front about the fact that the funding would be for the next three financial years, one of which we are now in. The reason why we took some time was—not to rehearse the point too often—that it was crucial that we understood where the gaps in provision were. That understanding was informed by clinicians, health boards and people with lived experience and we did detailed consideration of that, which then allowed health boards to bid for money to plug some of those gaps in provision. Therefore, it was very important that that work was done.

I am confident that the disbursement of the first tranche of that money will considerably improve the experiences of people who are suffering from the long-term effects of Covid. However, as I keep saying, it will be a work in progress because we are learning more about the condition and our approach should develop as a result of that.

That is a very good point. I am pleased that Mr Torrance has time to socialise. [Laughter.]

Yes, I am confident of that for a couple of reasons. First, on the wellbeing aspect, I am pleased that Audit Scotland’s report recognises the Government’s focus on wellbeing, and we will have to continue to focus on that. Paragraph 89 of Audit Scotland’s report says that:

“There is clear commitment at Scottish Government and NHS board level to support staff wellbeing, and it features prominently in the NHS recovery plan.”

To me, the fact that Audit Scotland has recognised our focus on wellbeing speaks volumes. I am absolutely unapologetic about that focus, because staff wellbeing is at the core of retention. Pay and terms and conditions are all important, but people who tell me that they are thinking of leaving the NHS or the social care sector say that it is the wellbeing and mental health pressures that are forcing them to think about whether to leave the profession. I am desperate to try to avoid people leaving because of those reasons; therefore, wellbeing will be central to our plans.

Our workforce strategy was recently published and I remind members that it was co-produced with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which is important, particularly for the social care aspect of it. Workforce planning will be challenging—there is no getting away from that. We will do everything that we can to try to ensure that we increase, where necessary, the pipeline of students that are coming through in staffing cohorts. We will do what we can to recruit domestically, which will be a significant part of our strategy.

We will also recruit internationally, which is not a panacea, but will help to bolster some areas of our workforce. Recruitment will be difficult, because for some specialisms—for example, medical oncology—there are staff shortages not only in Scotland, but globally. Of course, we are not the only health service in the world that is facing those challenges; we are all going to be trying to recruit more nurses and other staff. We need to make sure that the data that supports our workforce plans is as accurate a projection as it possibly can be—the Audit Scotland report focuses on that in some detail.

I will make a couple of points. First, although I do not disagree that the NHS and social care are probably always under some form of pressure, I note, to be fair, that if you speak to anybody working in health and social care, they will tell you that the past two years have been unlike anything that they have ever faced in their lives. I talk to nurses and doctors who have been working in the NHS for four decades and longer. They tell me that, in the 40 years for which they have been working in the health service, they have never experienced anything like the past two years, and that nothing has even come close to it. There is pressure and then there is pandemic pressure; pandemic pressure is above and beyond anything that we have ever felt before.

On the question about more data—[Interruption.].

A lot of our funding streams are focused on preventative spend. I commend the third sector for the role that it plays. We often talk about the important role of our public bodies, which of course play an exceptionally important role in all this, but the third sector also has a vital and critical role to play in the prevention and preventative agenda. Our funding will often be targeted in the preventative space and—as I mentioned in a previous answer—will always be evaluated in relation to outcomes and what it is achieving.

We also have an important role in relation to policy making and what can help in the preventative space. For example, I am thinking about some of the action that we have taken on smoking cessation, obesity and alcohol consumption. Our policy also has to be focused in the preventative space.

That is also why I am very keen that, when we talk about health and social care, we do not lose focus on the social care aspect. The more we can resource our social care and care in the community, the more we will prevent people from coming in the front door of our hospitals—and, even if they do have to come in the front door of our hospitals, the more we can hope that they are there for a relatively short period of time. Certainly, we would not want to see the level of delayed discharge that we are seeing at the moment, which I fully accept is far too high.

There is therefore an important role for funding and for the third sector and public bodies. However, Government leads on this agenda, and I hope that our own policies give some reassurance that it is a top priority for us.

I recognise from the outset that Ms Mochan has had a consistent interest in the issue of health inequalities. I share that interest, and it goes to the heart of what we are doing right across Government. If she has not seen it, I commend to her the health inequalities and primary care report that I referenced to Ms Mackay. I appreciate how much paperwork members will see on a daily basis, but we would be keen to share that report with the committee. If members have not seen it, we will pass on the link.

It is really important that the Government considers the report and its recommendations, which provide a strong basis for dealing with health inequalities at a primary care level. As we know, primary care is often the first port of call. We have invested in community link workers and have promised to provide further investment in mental health and wellbeing workers in every general practice.

I will not give a long list of what we have done with the powers that we have—I will perhaps just give a short list. We have worked across portfolios. In education, we have provided free school meals. In early years, we have increased the number of hours of free childcare, with a particular focus on at-risk and vulnerable young people. We have invested in affordable housing. In healthcare, we have delivered a number of preventative programmes and policies in the public health space, as I mentioned. There is also concessionary travel, free personal care and so on.

You are right: we are taking a cross-Government approach to tackling inequalities. However, I have to be up front and frank. As I hope Ms Mochan will accept, there is only so much that we can do when we have a UK Government that is not adequately addressing the cost of living crisis, fuel poverty and the energy crisis. The passive nature of how the UK Government is tackling the cost of living crisis comes on the back of 10 years of really difficult austerity.

Some of the powers are, absolutely, in my hands, and Ms Mochan is right to challenge me to go further and use them more. We have often done that. However, to be frank, there is only so much that I can do to mitigate the impacts and effects of decisions that are made elsewhere.

Yes, we must embed that technology in our system. We built on some of that technology out of necessity. Near Me existed before the pandemic, but it was used significantly more during the pandemic than it had been previously.

The issue that you raise comes back to the convener’s question about being up front and honest with people about how access to services is provided. We will work with GPs to try to increase the number of face-to-face appointments, but the hybrid model—which includes telephone and video consultation—will be part of access to general practice.

As Ms Harper will be aware, we published the digital health and care strategy in October last year; I am sure that committee members will have seen it. That goes to the heart of what our digital ambitions are in relation to health and social care. The Public Audit Committee highlighted the fact—I am paraphrasing slightly, of course—that it would be a wasted opportunity if we did not embed some of those technological advances in our response to and recovery from the pandemic.

We intend to publish that data in late summer, but we will have to add to it. We will continue to have to ensure that it is live, which will be an iterative process, and where we can add to it and develop it even further, we will do that. We expect the first cut of the data on clinical prioritisation to be published in late summer.