³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I refer the member to the answer to question S6W-01706 on
‎ 24 August 2021. All answers to written Parliamentary Questions are available on the Parliament's website, the search facility for which can be found at /chamber-and-committees/written-questions-and-answers

NHS Scotland’s staffing levels are at a record high and the nursing and midwifery staff group is the largest, accounting for just under 64,000 Whole Time Equivalent (42%) of the workforce, an increase of 5% from the previous year. Information on the number of Clinical Nurse Specialists by specialist cancer fields is not held centrally.

The timing for restarting the over-70’s self-referral scheme is regularly reviewed. The Breast Screening Programme Board (BSPB) agreed criteria to resume the option for women over 70 to self-refer in line with the programme’s recovery route map. The option for women over 70 to self-refer into the breast screening programme will resume once all screening centres are able to offer those aged 53-70 their breast screening appointments within 39 months of their previous screening. Progress towards this criteria is being closely monitored, and the National Screening Oversight, National Screening Committee and BSPB continue to work with Health boards to increase the number of available appointments within the programme.

Regardless of their age, women should remain symptom aware and report any symptoms to their GP immediately for these to be investigated.

As I noted in my statement to Parliament on 24 June, a single NHS Board first discovered in December 2020 that a small number of women who had subtotal hysterectomies had been wrongly excluded.

In 2016, a review was carried out of all individual records on the Scottish Cervical Call-Recall System (SCCRS) which had both a subtotal hysterectomy entry and also an open exclusion on the record. This was prompted by an IT error that had led to ‘no cervix’ exclusions being automatically added to the system when a subtotal hysterectomy was recorded together with recommended management of ‘no follow up’ or ‘no further recall’. This error was swiftly addressed.

In the course of addressing the issue, a number of other cases were identified, where a subtotal hysterectomy had been recorded on SCCRS and a manual exclusion had subsequently been opened. As soon as this was discovered, a process was initiated to identify all records on SCCRS with subtotal hysterectomies and open exclusions.

Following a rigorous review of affected records, it was established that some exclusions had been opened in error. Anyone affected was re-instated to the screening programme, and provided with a full explanation. Recommendations were made for safeguards to be put in place to prevent further instances of inappropriate manual exclusions.

At that time, it was believed that the records review had captured all affected patients, and there was no evidence to suggest further widespread errors in the recording of subtotal hysterectomies or the general application of exclusions.

It should be noted that, in 2006, in preparation for the migration to SCCRS, a data cleansing exercise was carried out. GP practices were provided with a list of women where there were discrepancies between the exclusion status and screening history and asked to resolve these before the transfer to SCCRS was complete.

This data cleansing exercise was standard good practice prior to the migration to SSCRS and did not uncover significant coding or data issues that gave rise to widespread concerns. Once the inconsistencies were resolved, the migration to SCCRS was carried out. A decision was made to migrate total hysterectomy information and all exclusions but not subtotal hysterectomy information, as individuals with subtotal hysterectomies would continue to be screened.

Although the actions taken in response to the issues detected in 2006 and 2016 were reasonable in light of the available evidence, we will consider whether there were opportunities to detect the wider issues now identified, and, if so, what lessons can be learned to strengthen monitoring and auditing going forward.

I refer the member to the answer to question S6W-01898 on
‎ 23 August 2021. All answers to written Parliamentary Questions are available on the Parliament's website, the search facility for which can be found at /chamber-and-committees/written-questions-and-answers.

The majority of stock to complete second doses in this phase of the programme has now been received and is being made available to Boards, as it is required.

Beyond the amounts spent for the United Kingdom via the national testing programme, resource spend within the Health portfolio in Scotland for 2020-21 was £152 million and capital spend was £21 million.

Detailed information on hospitalisations by age group and vaccine status of hospitalised patients is available in Public Health Scotland's Weekly Statistical reports. These are accessible here :

Details on age cohort, crossed with vaccination status is available in each report from the week starting 10th of May 2021 onwards.

Further information including charts and tables are available on Publish Health Scotland's Dashboard, available here :

Wastage data is not currently published by Public Health Scotland. However we can confirm for NHS board operated vaccination clinics, wastage is well below our planning assumption of 5%, which is a precautionary approach for worst case scenario planning.

The mesh fund is being administered by NHS National Services Scotland on behalf of the Scottish Government. The following table illustrates, as at 26 July 2021, the number of applications approved, declined and pending: