NHS Centre for Integrative Care (PE1568)
The second new petition is PE1568, by Catherine Hughes, on the funding of, access to and promotion of the national health service centre for integrative care. Members have a note by the clerk, a Scottish Parliament information centre briefing, the petition and submissions.
I welcome to the meeting Elaine Smith MSP, who has an interest in the petition. I also welcome the petitioner, Catherine Hughes, who is accompanied by Irene Logan from Fibromyalgia Friends Scotland, and by Dr Patrick Trust, who is a retired general practitioner.
I invite Ms Hughes to speak to her petition.
Thank you for the chance to come before your committee as a representative of the patients who depend on the NHS centre for integrative care, given the urgency of the situation and the extreme stress that is being caused to patients, carers and staff.
We are fortunate to have many strong supporters, including the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland and the Scottish Parliament’s cross-party group on chronic pain. The latest individual, who contacted us just yesterday, to offer support is Jane Hawking, who is the former wife of Professor Stephen Hawking.
We are dismayed to be here again appealing to the Government for its intervention. In 2005, when I was part of the successful campaign team that stopped the closure of the inpatient unit—assisted by cross-party political support and intervention—we thought that the hospital’s future would be secure. We won the arguments a decade ago by demonstrating that the hospital was cost-effective and that it resulted in significant long-term continuing cost savings to the NHS.
However, our optimism was short lived: it took only five years before NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde forced through decisions, without patient consultation, that reduced the number of beds from 15 to seven, closed the hospital at the weekends and shut the on-site pharmacy. Now we have had the ultimate blow, as some health boards are taking away the hospital’s patients. All that amounts to death by a thousand cuts and to closure of the service by the back door, which will result in running down of the services that are available to patients who are among the most vulnerable and seriously ill people in Scotland.
This is a plea not only to stop harm to a hospital but to put an end to the bullying of patients, which is what it amounts to when health boards tell people that they will be barred from attending a hospital of their choice. Of the 14 health boards in Scotland, just four now regularly refer patients to the centre for integrative care, with others sending just a few patients occasionally, after long battles by GPs and patients.
NHS Highland and NHS Lothian have ceased referrals. NHS Lanarkshire ceased all new referrals to the hospital from the 31 March this year, despite 80.6 per cent of people who responded to its consultation saying that they want access to continue. Patients find that to be shockingly undemocratic. Why did it hold a consultation if it was going to totally disregard the public and patient view? That decision by NHS Lanarkshire to cease referrals exploits a loophole by which health boards can withdraw care despite Government priorities, and it seriously puts at risk the future of the hospital and clinics. Our concern is that if NHS Lanarkshire can get away with this, its example could set the tone for other health boards. NHS Lanarkshire should be stopped right now, and the Government should act.
Unelected health boards seem to be allowed to do anything they like with patients. It is time that the elected Government and Parliament stepped in; after all, health boards state that they are answerable to Scottish ministers.
The tactics are alarming to patients. We cannot have a form of health apartheid in Scotland: a person who is suffering from multiple sclerosis and chronic pain in the Highlands suffers just as badly as a patient in Glasgow who can still gain access to the centre does. We must ask why any health board would wish to deny access to a national specialist centre of excellence that consistently has 100 per cent patient satisfaction ratings. The hospital gives hope to people who have lost faith in the system due to their experiences of fragmented care.
Endless promises to put patients first are, in reality, worthless. Surely boards are acting against Government policy such as the quality strategy, the 2020 vision and the patient charter, which promotes patient choice and access to individualised person-centred care. Health boards are supposed to adhere to it; to disregard it is a violation of patients’ rights. Where is the compassion?
We certainly do not have enough specialist services for people with chronic conditions, given the increasing numbers that are being diagnosed year after year. If national funding can be found to secure the hospital’s future and to make its unique services available for all patients in Scotland, that will put an end to the postcode lottery and will allow access to what is considered worldwide to be gold-standard care. We call on the Government to intervene urgently to protect the only hospital of its kind in the United Kingdom.
Part of the reason for the rundown of what is a much-loved modern hospital is that help is basically hidden from GPs and patients. We want the Government and boards to promote the ways in which the unit can assist patients who have long-term chronic and complex conditions by proactively informing GPs and other health professionals and by reviewing how the service is accessed.
Patients totally depend on the hospital, which they call their “lifeline”, and it undeniably improves their quality of life. Without it, many patients simply would not cope and would lose all hope. It is well known that the risk of suicide is higher than average among people who have chronic conditions; I honestly do not believe that I would still be alive today had I not been referred to that hospital. Indeed, I wish that I had been referred sooner—immediately on diagnosis—because I think that my life and health would have taken a more positive path with access to care there from the outset. At a time when the right to die is being discussed, where is the patient’s right to live? We should help people to make their lives a bit more bearable.
Thank you, Catherine.
Thank you, Ms Hughes, for your opening remarks. You said that the Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board is unanswerable to ministers. Will you and your colleagues elaborate on that? Are you concerned that NHS boards are going against Scottish Government policy? I am thinking of a statement that was made by Nicola Sturgeon when she was Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing. She said:
“The Scottish Government recognises that complementary or alternative therapies, including homeopathy, may offer relief to some people suffering from a wide variety of conditions.”—[Official Report, 2 December 2010; c 31196.]
On homoeopathy she went on to say:
“but the results are clear, with research showing high levels of safety, patient satisfaction, consultation quality, patient enablement, and useful outcomes.”—[Written Answers, 24 February 2011; S3W-39276.]
Notwithstanding that there is a range of views on the value of homoeopathy, are you concerned that health boards’ decisions not to refer people to homoeopathy services within their area, and also to the centre for integrative care, goes against the direction of policy that has been set by the Scottish Government? Perhaps Dr Trust would like to respond.
I have absolutely no doubt that boards do not adhere to what the then cabinet secretary requested. I worked previously in the Vale of Leven and was immensely impressed by the patient power there and the fact that the cabinet secretary directed boards to change their plans. Boards are still going against the Government’s health plans—they are constrained by finance, so I understand why. I find that staff in the big hospitals are constrained and are unable to speak their minds, which is most unfortunate, but as a retired GP I feel that I am able to speak my mind. I am impressed by the Government’s vision for individual care to be as local as possible.
I have no doubt that, as a GP, I would refer a few patients to the centre for integrative care, but I think that we still have a huge problem in that it was the Glasgow homoeopathic hospital—I have doubts about homoeopathy, although I have had many patients who have undoubtedly benefited from it. The centre is not now, however, the homoeopathic hospital; it is the centre for integrative care and it is unique and provides results. I have had patients who have been to all the Glasgow hospitals and who have notes in several sections. They have come to me with a vast pile of notes, and I have seen what has been done by conventional medicine, so I would phone Dr Reilly and ask, “Do you think you can help me with this person?” Some of the changes were dramatic, with quality of life being brought back not just by homoeopathy but perhaps by homoeopathy plus other things. The management of conditions at the centre is fantastic.
It would be criminal not to allow access for patients from throughout Scotland—that is particularly the case for disadvantaged patients. I have not looked at the patients who go to the centre for integrative care—which was previously the homoeopathic hospital—but I came from working in a very deprived area in G83, and I know that the people there are not able to cope well with complicated chronic disabilities.
I was talking with a colleague last week who said that her impression was that quite a lot of the people coming to the centre from Glasgow are from the more deprived areas. The centre can provide fantastic support, which leads to much better quality of life and to a reduced need to call on services.
One of my patients had 106 out-of-hours calls in a quarter. That was when we had co-operatives, which were a wonderful system—the system now is not nearly so good. I referred that patient to Dr Reilly. He was treated as an in-patient; the in-patient beds are very important. He was in for three weeks, and the change was dramatic. He had had three operations.
Dr Trust—
I am sorry—I can go on.
Is that information anecdotal? I presume that you would agree that good-quality patient care should be underpinned by a sound evidence base about any treatment’s clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness. What is the evidence, as opposed to anecdotal examples?
As I have said, evidence is extremely difficult. The evidence from my past practice is that that man is back at work. He had not been at work for at least 10 years, and was calling for care more than 100 times a quarter. He had had his stomach cut open three times unnecessarily.
Quantification of what the centre does is extremely difficult—to quantify anything needs a lot of research. At the Vale of Leven hospital, which Ms Sturgeon stopped being shut, we had three people who were bean counting for us, which was stopped by Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board. It is difficult to say that we have strong evidence because I cannot give you numbers. I am sure that some numbers could be obtained—the health board could obtain the postcodes of people who had been to the centre so that we could see whether they were from more deprived areas. In Helensburgh, where I live, people go off to various services to get help, and they pay for them.
Getting evidence is extremely difficult, but it is very important that people do not view this as a bid to save the former Glasgow homoeopathic hospital: it is very definitely not that. As a GP, I did not use homoeopathy. However, there is evidence from the centre that people who had terrible quality of life and who could not function are now able to function, although I cannot quantify that for you.
In response to Mr Eadie, you indicated that you could not quantify the numbers. Why can we not quantify the numbers? Is it simply that nobody is collating the figures to determine whether or not there is benefit to patients who use the CIC?
I cannot answer that question; it was answered 10 years ago, in respect of patient benefits. I have been retired for some time now, so I cannot give you such evidence. I am sure that the evidence is available—NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde can crunch the numbers for you. Looking at outcomes is a totally different thing, however, and it is very difficult to prove that something is working when you do not have someone there doing the studies.
That is the point that I am trying to make. There are a number of issues that we can take up with the Scottish Government and the health boards. If the data are not being gathered, the information will not be available to evaluate the benefits of homoeopathic treatments for patients—not just in Glasgow, but throughout Scotland. Why are the figures not being collated? What about the value of the treatments to the individuals concerned? Ms Hughes spoke earlier about the benefits that have accrued to her and that may have accrued to other patients, too, although that has not been calculated.
I want to nail the issue of why health boards are seemingly deciding to cut back on homoeopathic care. The argument that Catherine Hughes used in her submission is that the reasoning is based on the report on the matter by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee.
That 2010 report was refuted then rejected by the UK Government. Is it your assertion that health boards in Scotland are using that report to justify their actions in cutting support for the NHS centre for integrative care?
11:00
Yes—that is definitely the case. Just look at the figures—I think that three out of 14 people signed off that report.
To pick up on Patrick Trust’s point on whether how people can be helped is quantifiable, research was done by Dr Reilly and a colleague. On the patients who attend the hospital, the research showed—this information is in the petition—that 40 per cent reported fewer consultations with their GPs, 30 per cent reported fewer outpatient ambulatory visits, 36 per cent reported that they had reduced the amount of conventional medication that they required, 70 per cent reported a useful improvement in the presenting complaint, and 67 per cent reported a useful improvement in their general mood and wellbeing. You cannot put a price on that; people’s lives are being improved. Money is important, but the centre saves money in the long term. I cannot understand why there is a problem.
I do not disagree with some of your assertions, Ms Hughes, but to return to a concern that you have raised in the petition, if the money is not made available nationally and is dependent on local health boards making referrals and a contribution towards the CIC, what will its future be?
If the centre does not get referrals it will die. That is basically what NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is trying to do. Please do not let the centre die. It would be a loss because it is unique to Scotland, the UK and—we think—Europe. It would also be a loss to medicine as a whole.
We have had letters from medical students who went there before the British Medical Association voted to stop sending them. They reported how much it had improved their learning and understanding and how it made them better doctors, because it was a different branch of medicine and they were taking a holistic view, so it increased their understanding of the patient. When my dad was very ill in hospital, one doctor stood head and shoulders above everyone else. She told me that she had been to the centre as a student. The difference between her and her colleagues was outstanding.
Your petition also raises the lack of consultation of patients and the failure to act on behalf of the patients who have responded to consultation, where it has taken place. You cited figures from NHS Lanarkshire—I know that health board well. Was the consultation negated by the board? Did it lead to false hope for many patients and those who responded to the consultation exercise?
There was a lot of concern about what NHS Lanarkshire did. Its report did not include a patient narrative. Nine people voted for it, three against, and one abstained. It is a concern that the board never even wrote to the patients to tell them that the consultation was taking place. How is that moral? You would have thought that it would have written to the patients who go to the centre to tell them about the consultation, but it did not even write to the patients who live in its area. It did not even tell patients that the clinics are to cease—that is what the plan is. All new referrals will stop, so patient numbers will dwindle.
NHS Lanarkshire is the third-largest health board in Scotland and, because it is a bordering health board, it sends the most patients to the centre, after Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board. Robert Calderwood has made it clear in his annual reviews—I have attended them—and in the press, as was also recently reported by another board spokesperson, that the centre’s whole future is dependent on that board sending patients to the centre.
National funding is the only thing that will save the centre—we need to take it out of the health boards’ decisions. It is a national hospital that serves the whole of Scotland, so I cannot understand what the issue is. It tried for national funding before, in 1997. Brian McAlorum, who was one of the patients during the previous campaign, came before the Public Petitions Committee in 2004 and asked for national funding. In 1997, that was turned down because the expenditure would not be big enough. Why can it be said that the centre is too cheap? It was said that the expenditure had to be above £10 million, but it was under £2 million, so the centre did not qualify. Is not that a ludicrous situation? The centre saves money for the Government and the NHS in the long run.
You mentioned that it is a national hospital. Surely it is a national hospital only if health boards refer patients to it.
Maureen Watt recently called the centre “a national resource”. There seems to be a misunderstanding about something that is thought to be a national resource and how many boards send patients to it. As I said, where is the compassion in the health boards that want to deny those patients access to the centre?
Elaine Smith is next.
Thanks, convener. I do not want to ask a question. I understood that I could come and support the petition. Is that correct? Do members want to finish their questions first? I could then make a statement.
You are welcome to speak on behalf of the petition now if you want to do so, or you can wait.
I do not want to intrude.
Okay. We will move on to Hanzala Malik.
I welcome the petitioners to the committee.
I find the petition very interesting. My understanding of the NHS is that it has different sections, and one section will not really care about what matters in the rest of the health service in terms of saving money—it will not care whether money can be saved elsewhere as long as it is not affected. That is ludicrous.
We ought to support the petition. It is important that we get all the relevant information and the right figures. I appreciate that time has moved on and that the system has almost been disabled by health boards ensuring that fewer patients go to the centre because the full service is no longer available. The damage has almost been done before the decision has been made. Maybe that is deliberate, because that is sometimes how things are wound down. Something is made to look unsuccessful and not very popular, so it is no longer needed. The figures are therefore important.
We do not want only the current figures; I would be very interested in the patient treatment figures from before the cuts. I am very interested to get figures from before and after the cuts to see what effect the cuts have had on the service. We could also perhaps find out from the health boards why they are not sending patients to the centre and what the advantage—or disadvantage—is of not sending them.
The issue is not straightforward; it is actually quite complex, and we need to look at it. I would not want to see a good service go under because some bureaucrat somewhere has made a decision.
Some patients in areas such as the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde area who still have access to the facilities may have difficulty in getting to the hospital because their GP does not believe in the model of care that it uses. That is really because the hospital is not promoted well enough, which is why the idea of promoting it and what goes on there should be taken forward as well.
I know that Shona Robison and Maureen Watt visited the centre for integrative care last Wednesday and took away the issue of where all the misunderstanding came from and why the situation has developed. I hope that they will try to rectify that in time, but that will involve the Government making the matter a priority. That is what we are asking for.
I previously raised the matter with Nicola Sturgeon’s successor as health secretary, Alex Neil, because I felt that, given that the 14 health boards had been left to make an evaluation independently, it would have been helpful if the Scottish Government had an overall view of the value of the service provided and thereby established some sort of national expectation or standard in relation to it. The Government declined to do that at that time, so perhaps the visit to which Catherine Hughes referred might lead to something different. It would be interesting to write to the Scottish Government to find out whether that is so.
My understanding is that the majority of health boards have never referred anybody to the centre. Catherine Hughes articulated why that is the case, and it has nothing to do with finance: it is because they do not believe in the model of care that the centre provides. It is a fact that a very significant body of clinical medical opinion regards the centre as a complete and total waste of time and money. I am stating that because that is what is said; I am not offering an opinion as to whether I agree with that assessment, but it is nonetheless enormously influential in the decisions that health boards have reached on the centre.
The centre is in the care of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, and its viability has depended on the number of referrals, to which the witnesses have referred. In recent years, the number of referrals has declined. That could be happening for financial reasons, or it could be happening because health boards that were previously willing to take a favourable view of the centre’s model of healthcare are reacting to the pressure to which I alluded a moment ago.
However, unless the Scottish Government evolves a view of the centre that is contrary to the one that it has wished to determine hitherto, it is difficult to see how the facility will remain financially viable. Whatever side of the argument one is on, I do not think one could argue that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde should subsidise the facility, to the detriment of other healthcare provision, if it is not being supported by health boards elsewhere in Scotland. I do not know whether Catherine Hughes agrees, but I would have thought that the key to all of this must be the direction or leadership that the Scottish Government wishes to bring to the issue, because I cannot see another prognosis developing without that.
I agree that the Government’s direction and leadership are very important. However, we must not forget the consistent 100 per cent patient satisfaction ratings that have been achieved at the hospital. I do not know many other facilities that can boast such ratings, and it does not look very good if a facility that is getting 100 per cent patient satisfaction ratings—as well as saving the NHS lots of money—is being targeted for closure and turned down for support. Where is the common sense in that? To me, that does not make sense.
The sums have not really been done, although from the previous campaign, I remember the calculation that one patient going to the centre saved more than £100,000.
You referred to common sense, but the problem with common sense is that, in practice, it is not very common and therefore it does not really advance the argument. I am afraid that direction and leadership are required. However much you might point to the evidence that you think underpins a commonsense approach, in my experience that in itself does not guarantee anything.
In a moment, we will sum up what we will do with the petition, but to a large extent I think that what happens will very much depend on the Scottish Government’s view, because the health boards are expressing their view by voting with their feet.
As committee members have no more questions, I call Elaine Smith.
Thank you, convener. I thank the petitioners for coming along to present the petition.
As I said, I am here to support the petition, in which I have a particular interest because my constituents are now being denied access to the centre for integrative care. In addition, the clinic in Coatbridge is due to be closed. Both are totally unacceptable service cuts. The fact that NHS Lanarkshire has stopped supporting the CIC puts its future in danger, as we have heard. That will be a relevant issue for the committee when it considers the petition.
11:15Reading your papers, I noticed that Alex Neil said to anyone who is worried about the CIC closing that
“there is no prospect of us allowing that centre to close.”
In response, I would say that, unless the CIC receives national funding or the Government directs health boards to refer people to it, that is exactly what will happen.
The committee has a written submission from me, so I will not go into great detail; I will merely add to what I wrote.
The reason that NHS Lanarkshire gave for stopping patients accessing the clinic is that homeopathy is scientifically unproven—I think that that issue was touched on in John Wilson’s questions. However, the fact that homeopathy works for many people, as Catherine Hughes said, should be a major consideration. It relieves pain and it saves money. Given that a great many people will testify to the effectiveness of homeopathy, alternative therapies and person-centred care, we should say that, yes, the issue is scientifically unproven—but only as yet. Edward Jenner was ridiculed for using cowpox to cure smallpox, but he was proven to be correct.
I suffer from fibromyalgia and carpal tunnel syndrome, caused by my thyroid condition. I use a technique that is known as Bowen therapy. It works, and it could save me from having to have an operation. Incidentally, NHS Lanarkshire has never offered me a referral to the CIC, which I could probably have benefited from.
Lanarkshire is an area with high rates of ill health, poverty and deprivation. It is outrageous that patients there cannot now access support and alternative therapies, while their neighbours in Glasgow can. It seems to me that sick people will be forced to pay for private treatment if they can afford to, or continue to suffer pain if they cannot. Even just from a simple money-saving perspective, more alternative therapies such as Bowen therapy should be available on the NHS, not fewer.
I want to briefly consider the process by which NHS Lanarkshire decided to stop the referrals. It was appalling and secretive and I think that facts were withheld from the Scottish Government. NHS Lanarkshire relied on stating that the process was approved by the Scottish health council. However, because of the information that NHS Lanarkshire gave it, the Scottish health council did not class the proposal as a major service review. If it had done so, the matter would have been referred to the Scottish Government, which would have had to make a decision.
The figures that the health board gave were incorrect, as hundreds of return patients were excluded. The Scottish health council had questions that were not answered. In a letter that committee members have seen, the Scottish health council said:
“If the developments, information or proposals change and in particular, if it emerges that there is greater patient and/or public concern than currently anticipated, I would ask that you contact us at the earliest opportunity as it may be appropriate to review this position.”
I suggest that the situation has changed and that there is wide public concern. Further, the concern of elected members—who represent thousands of people—must show that there is a case for the matter to be referred to the Scottish Government and to be reviewed by the Scottish health council.
Overall, it seems to me that MSPs are not being properly informed about decisions that affect health provision in their constituencies and regions, and I think that that is disgraceful. We are not an irrelevance when it comes to health issues in our constituencies. We should be fully informed about what is going on.
I also responded to the consultation by NHS Lanarkshire. The health board was not courteous enough to personally inform me of its ultimate decision to close a clinic in my constituency and to stop referrals. I had to find that out in other ways.
Basically, the move is a short-term cost-cutting measure that will increase costs in the long term and is causing patients pain and misery right now. In my opinion, the petition meets the criteria that must be met in order for the committee to take action, as it concerns a devolved matter that comes under the direct control of the Scottish Government. I hope that the committee will look into the matter further.
Do committee members have any suggestions about what to do with the petition?
First, I would welcome the committee writing to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to get a proper prognosis, as far as the board is concerned, on the financial plan and the centre for integrative care’s viability. We could also ask for some detail on the business case and the support that the health board has received from other health boards in respect of referrals—and for some information about which health boards those are, because it is a limited number.
Secondly, I would like us to write to the Scottish Government, because its attitude to the case that underpins the continuation of the centre for integrative care is crucial. The Minister for Public Health and the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Sport have visited it recently, and I would be interested to learn what attitude they came away with and whether they have any plans to bring any direction or leadership to the Government’s guidance to health boards on referrals. Both those things would help us better to understand the position.
My point is about the figures. How many patients used the centre before the number of beds was cut? What is the current usage, and who are the current users? Have any of the authorities concerned drawn up numbers for the use of the centre? I suggested earlier that some people are making cuts at source rather than going through consultation. There is something lacking here. We need to find out why people have decided to stop using the service.
I agree with Jackson Carlaw about writing to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. I would also be interested to find out whether there has been a review of the CIC and the services that are delivered there. I would like to know whether the health board intends to cut back on services such as homoeopathy. Although CIC might remain in place while a review is being carried out, some of the services that are currently being provided might be dropped because of the funding issue. It would be useful to find out whether NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has undertaken that level of scrutiny.
I suggest that we write to the Scottish health council. Elaine Smith quoted a letter dated 5 November 2014 from the health council to the communications manager at NHS Lanarkshire, and there are a number of concerns about that letter. It would be useful to find out whether the Scottish health council received a response to it.
Finally, I suggest that we write to NHS Lanarkshire. Elaine Smith quite rightly spoke about NHS Lanarkshire’s consultation, in which 80.6 per cent of respondents said that they wanted access to the centre to continue. It would be useful to find out the health board’s reason for the decision to continue referring existing patients but not to refer new patients. Did NHS Lanarkshire decide to provide an alternative service to the CIC? That is a particularly interesting question in light of the decision to close down the Coatbridge base in Elaine Smith’s constituency. It would be interesting to know whether NHS Lanarkshire, while making those decisions, offered to provide an alternative, or whether the service is completely lost to patients who desire that type of care and treatment from the alternative sector.
I very much agree with the approach suggested by Hanzala Malik and Jackson Carlaw. I also agree with John Wilson’s suggestion that we should write to the Scottish health council.
I am particularly keen for us to write to all the NHS boards in Scotland that have decided either to stop funding services in their area or to stop making referrals to the CIC. Coatbridge has been referred to, but NHS Lothian has also decided to stop funding homoeopathy services. I would like the health boards to explain the rationale for those decisions. I would like to understand, in each case, the consultation process that was followed before those decisions were made. As part of its deliberations, the committee is entitled to have that justification and that insight into the consultation process.
Hanzala Malik asked about figures, and I have some here. Dorothy-Grace Elder, who was an MSP and a colleague of mine a number of years ago, has been asking NHS Lanarkshire and the Scottish health council for a lot of information. She eventually found out from NHS Lanarkshire that the total number of patients—new and returning patients—referred to the CIC from 2010 to 2014 was nearly 7,000. That is a lot of patients being helped.
I seek some clarification. I know that Jim Eadie has suggested writing to all the NHS boards—
I meant all the NHS boards that have decided to stop funding services or referring patients to the CIC.
Thank you, Mr Eadie. However, you referred to one health board decision that I understand is currently the subject of judicial review. Would that impact on whether we could write to that board to seek answers?
We will find that out. We will raise that point.
If there are no further comments or action points, does the committee agree to all the action points that have been suggested?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank Dr Trust, Catherine Hughes and Irene Logan for their attendance.
11:26 Meeting continued in private until 12:02.Previous
Continued Petitions