Contents
New Petitions
Body Cameras (National Health Service Staff) (PE1718)
Under item 2, the committee will consider two new petitions. The first new petition is PE1718, by Alex Wallace, which calls for body cameras to be introduced for all national health service front-line and theatre staff.
In his petition, Mr Wallace states that he considers that the use of body cameras would act as a deterrent to verbal and physical abuse being directed at NHS staff. He also appears to suggest that it would protect patients from abuse by staff.
The briefing paper that the Scottish Parliament information centre and the clerks have prepared refers to the Scottish Government’s “Health and social care staff experience: report 2017”, which sets out figures on levels of abuse that were experienced by NHS staff. It notes that there are no corresponding figures for the levels of abuse experienced by patients at the hands of staff.
The petitioner explains in his petition that the use of body cameras for other emergency services has had a positive effect. Paragraph 8 of our briefing paper lists their benefits, as described in a 2015 report by the International Association for Healthcare Security and Safety. The report also highlights concerns about the potential impacts on privacy, patient confidentiality and the relationship between staff and patients.
Our briefing paper refers to a recent pilot conducted by Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, and addresses in further detail the issue of data protection.
The Scottish Government does not appear to have a policy position.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I note that the dignity at work survey of NHS staff found that 29 per cent of staff had received verbal or emotional abuse from patients or the public in the past 12 months. That is quite a considerable number. Perhaps that reflects why ScotRail brought in the use of cameras. Obviously, individuals and employers should be able to choose whether to use them.
There is a case here. We need to find out more about the matter and how body cameras could be of use.
The petition is really interesting. The initial response to it is that we are looking at cost. I know that the petition does not mention this, but we have become such a litigious society and our healthcare professionals are under so much pressure now that they seem to spend half their time justifying decisions that they have made in the workplace. I wonder whether the proposal could have a positive impact on the time away that staff require not just for litigation but to explain to managers why they took certain actions. I wonder whether one of the by-products would be a positive impact on such things.
Given the success of body cameras in other emergency services, I can see why Alex Wallace lodged the petition, which I welcome.
The convener mentioned the Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust pilot, which seems to have had some success. It found that the use of body cameras was acceptable to patients and staff, and that it resulted in a reduction in incidents and complaints.
I have a lot of sympathy with the petition, and I hope that the matter can be investigated further. However, it is clear that we need to seek the views of a number of stakeholders before we can proceed with the petition.
I think that, if body cameras are going to be used, they would act as a deterrent. We should look at the number of incidents involving NHS staff. Staff in the Scottish Ambulance Service and Carstairs hospital have most commonly experienced abuse. If body cameras were used, we would be able to capture the abuse and probably deter people from doing such things.
I do not know whether it will deter anyone who behaves really badly in, say, accident and emergency on a Saturday night—after all, why do they do that sort of thing in the first place? However, I could see it being used not just by the emergency services and in A and E but, as has been suggested, in operating theatres, and I would be interested to hear whether people who work in the health service, particularly healthcare unions, have a view on that.
Clearly one of the issues is the protection of staff, but we have also recently seen undercover journalists using cameras to expose the terrible abuse of very vulnerable people, and I wonder whether the unions have looked at the measure as a means of protecting them from false accusations. We might also want to talk to patient organisations that represent those who use the health service. Maybe it is just me, but the use of cameras feels quite intrusive in the relationship between the person looking for help and medical professionals. Perhaps we would need to look at the limitations in that respect.
Interestingly enough, cameras are already used in operating theatres, with, for example, live streaming between medical professionals. In fact, I have a friend who wears a camera on his glasses when he performs surgery. There is a precedent for this sort of thing, but I suppose that we are talking about making it more formal.
I do not know whether this is the case in all of them, but I know of ambulances that have on-board cameras; in fact, there was a case in England in which evidence from such a camera was used in court to show how a patient had suffered. Closed-circuit television and on-board cameras are currently being used—although I am not sure whether that is also happening in Scotland—and perhaps the proposal in the petition could complement that approach. In any case, I think that we have to look at all the ways in which these things are being monitored.
We should also think about the balance between cost and benefit, because if this is hugely expensive, we will need to look at what we are actually trying to stop and what its purpose is.
We seem to be agreeing to write to the Scottish Government for its view and to other key stakeholders, particularly the unions but also the Scottish Ambulance Service and patient groups. We could also write to Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust to find out what its findings were. Moreover, we could ask the Scottish Information Commissioner to assist us with the question of confidentiality. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
We should certainly thank the petitioner for giving us plenty of food for thought, and we look forward to the responses.
Fire Safety (Stay Put Policy) (PE1719)
Our second new petition is PE1719, on the review of the fire safety stay put policy, which has been lodged by Rachel Gibson on behalf of tenants of Gartcraigs Road and which calls on the Scottish Government to review the current stay put policy as it applies to the fire strategy for existing multistorey residential buildings.
Under current advice provided by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to residents of multistorey flats—which are generally considered to be buildings of six or more storeys—on what to do in the event of a fire, residents should stay in their flats if a fire occurs in a communal area or some other flat and leave only if they are affected by heat or smoke or are told to do so by the police or fire service. Different advice applies to residents if a fire occurs in their own flat. The petitioner’s position is that all residents should be immediately informed of a fire if it spreads from the flat in which it originated instead of being informed through the heat or smoke coming from it or by the emergency services.
In June 2017, the Scottish Government established a ministerial working group on building and fire safety, and in the group’s final report, which was published in December 2018, it recommended the development of specific fire safety guidance for residents of multistorey flats in Scotland. The guidance, which will be developed in collaboration with the SFRS and tenants and residents panels, is due to be completed by late 2019.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
Communication is key in relation to the stay put policy, which is not applied all across the United Kingdom. The Local Government and Communities Committee looked into such issues, but it did not look specifically at the stay put advice, although the committee will return to the issue, depending on its work schedule. The petitioner makes a very good point, and we do not want to lose sight of the importance of clear communication when a fire takes place. I think that we should hold on to the petition, as there is no indication that we should pass it on to the Local Government and Communities Committee when it considers its next steps.
It strikes me that, post Grenfell, the issue must affect anyone who lives in a multistorey building. We can understand why the petitioner is concerned about getting the policy clarified, so that people are clear about the best approach. How do people make such judgments? If someone had the responsibility for letting people know, people would know how to react. The stay put policy applies only in certain circumstances, so residents and tenants quite rightly deserve certainty—or as much certainty as it is possible to give—about what they should do.
We can imagine the serious concerns that we would have if we were in a flat above a fire; our gut reaction would be to get out. The petition is very good, and we need to explore the issue that it raises. As Rachael Hamilton said, it has been explored by the Local Government and Communities Committee, so I am keen to push the petition forward. There are a few people whom we could write to in the first instance.
For your information, I point out that the Local Government and Communities Committee’s work related more to building regulations than to community safety matters. We could flag up the issue to that committee, but I think that we should do a wee bit of work on it ourselves first. We could write to the Scottish Government, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, housing organisations and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, which must be thinking about the matter and must recognise that it is an issue that people are aware of and concerned about. Such organisations could provide information to allay people’s fears.
There were a particular set of circumstances at Grenfell, and questions about the safety of buildings and the fabrics that are used have been explored. However, it would be good to get information on best practice, on where it is best for people to be, and on how they should respond to fire. There is a more general point about how educated we are in how we deal with such emergencies, regardless of the type of accommodation that we live in.
Should we do anything else?
I will make an observation. At the count last week, everyone in the room that I was in was given a copy of the fire procedure. The building operated a stay put policy, because it was directly linked to the fire service. That was the first time that I have been in a building with such a policy. As children, we were all educated to get out of a building if there was a fire, and young people are taught standard and set ways of dealing with things, such as dialling 999. The issue is so important because things being unclear can cause confusion, particularly with elderly people and young people. They have been taught to do things in a certain way, but then they might be told to do something in a different way. The evidence that we get back from all the organisations might show that there could be different ways of teaching young people how to evacuate, depending on the type of building.
Yes. Some high-rise buildings will have a concierge but others will not, so how would people be told what the policy is?
09:45
I hate to point this out, but there seems to be a bit of confusion even from the petitioner. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service advises residents to stay in their flat if a fire occurs in a communal area or other flat and leave only if they are affected by heat or smoke, or are told to do so by the police or fire service. Different advice applies to residents if a fire occurs in their own flat.
Although the petitioner states:
“The stay-put policy is not applied UK wide, for instance, Greater Manchester Fire Rescue Service advises tenants in high-rise buildings that if there is a fire in any flat they should ‘get out and stay out’”,
our briefing paper on the petition informs us that the stay put advice was reiterated by the National Fire Chiefs Council in May 2018 and that Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service advice on fire safety in high-rise flats is the same as that issued by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. Therefore, you can see why there is confusion. It would be good to find a way, if we can, to make sure that the advice is simplified and everybody knows what it is.
Yes. To go back to the example of Grenfell, people did as they were asked, but there was still a very significant loss of life. Nonetheless, people have to be confident about what the advice is, otherwise they will act on instinct. From that point of view, it would be helpful for us to establish the view of the Scottish Government, COSLA, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the National Fire Chiefs Council. I think that that is a substantial amount to be getting on with. Do members agree to write to those organisations?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank the petitioner. We look forward to getting responses from those organisations on that issue.
Next
Continued Petitions