Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…
Chamber and committees

Audit Committee, 12 Nov 2008

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 12, 2008


Contents


Decision on Taking Business in Private

The Convener (Hugh Henry):

I welcome members, the press, the public and Audit Scotland staff to the 16th meeting of the Audit Committee in 2008. I ask everyone to ensure that mobile phones are switched off.

Do we agree to take item 8 in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Do we also agree to take in private all future consideration of our draft report on the Auditor General for Scotland's report "A review of free personal and nursing care"?

Members indicated agreement.


“Living and Dying Well: <br />A national action plan for palliative and end of life care in Scotland”

Item 2 concerns a section 23 report on palliative care services. I ask the Auditor General to introduce the item.

Mr Robert Black (Auditor General for Scotland):

When the committee considered palliative care, we gave an undertaking that, once the Scottish Government had published its statement on the matter, we would give a brief outline of the significant issues. Angela Canning is happy to do that, if it would assist the committee.

Angela Canning (Audit Scotland):

The Audit Scotland report on palliative care, which was published on 21 August, made a number of recommendations about improving access to specialist palliative care for everyone who needs it; providing education, training and support for generalist staff; applying good practice guidance everywhere that patients receive care; and putting in place better links between services.

On 2 October, the Scottish Government published its action plan on palliative care, which is called "Living and Dying Well: A national action plan for palliative and end of life care in Scotland". The action plan is not the Scottish Government's response to the Audit Scotland report—it was already being developed before we published our report—but it takes account of our findings and recommendations. The accompanying letter to board chief executives states that national health service boards should give sufficient priority to implementing the recommendations in our report and the requirements that are set out in the Government's action plan. The overall aim of the action plan is

"to ensure that good palliative and end of life care is available for all patients and families who need it in a consistent, comprehensive, appropriate and equitable manner across all care settings in Scotland."

That is in line with the key recommendations in the Audit Scotland report.

The action plan identifies a number of areas for development in which short-life working groups have been set up. They include a group that is developing criteria for referral to specialist palliative care services and a group that is considering developing new standards for palliative and end-of-life care as recommended in our report.

The plan includes a number of specific actions that relate to promoting equity of access for all patients with palliative and end-of-life care needs regardless of their condition, location or other life circumstances, such as age, ethnicity and religion. It also includes a number of actions on training for generalist staff, promoting the use of best practice guidance across care settings and improving communication across providers in and out of hours. It is being supported by £3 million to introduce a palliative care-directed enhanced service for Scotland.

Members will see from the briefing paper that we have mapped the national action plan against the recommendations in our report. Overall, the action plan, the further development work, the supporting guidance that has been issued to boards and the new directed enhanced service address the recommendations. The only recommendation that is not addressed is that boards' commissioning and monitoring arrangements should ensure value for money. As the briefing note says:

"There are no specific actions on recording consistent information across NHS boards, but these are expected to follow from the actions on consistent use of recognised tools and the work of the Palliative Care eHealth advisory group",

which is a new group.

Boards are required to produce local delivery plans detailing their local priorities and actions against the national action plan and to submit them to the Scottish Government by the end of March 2009. The short-life working groups are due to report by March 2010. Audit Scotland will keep a watching brief on the implementation of the plan.

Thank you for that.

Andrew Welsh (Angus) (SNP):

I would like to clarify what is meant by:

"There are no specific actions on recording consistent information across NHS boards, but these are expected to follow from the actions on consistent use of recognised tools and the work of the Palliative Care eHealth advisory group."

Does that mean that the recording of consistent information is built into the boards' processes, or that it is implied from the actions on the "use of recognised tools" and the work of the e-health advisory group? What does it mean? I note the use of the phrase

"are expected to follow from",

rather than "will be implemented through". Perhaps they will not be implemented through the actions in question.

Tricia Meldrum (Audit Scotland):

The action plan makes reference to a number of recognised tools and techniques that boards should use. Recommendations that are targeted at boards, at community health partnerships and at council partners should result in consistent records being kept of patients' needs, how they are addressed and what has been put in place as regards carers' assessments. A standard set of information should be recorded for all patients who are identified as having palliative or end-of-care needs and their carers.

In parallel to that is the work of the e-health advisory group, which has a fairly broad remit. As well as identifying specific actions on out-of-hours work and the electronic care summary, it has a broader remit, which is to do with making the best use of information that is already available. It should be building on the fact that that standard information is now in place and assessing how that can best be used across the country.

Andrew Welsh:

In other words, the recording of consistent information will evolve from the actions that are outlined. There is a big difference between driving the situation and allowing matters to evolve. Surely the boards must be aware of the targets that they are aiming at.

Tricia Meldrum:

Yes.

Andrew Welsh:

One thing that bothers me is that although nine of the 26 recommendations have been addressed, 17 have not. Although your briefing looks good at first, alongside the heading "Addressed" are categories such as "Partly addressed", "Mostly addressed", "Work in progress", "Implied/work in progress", "To be addressed", "future development", "Not specifically addressed", "Not addressed" and "Addressed/Work in progress". What at first appears to be solid progress begins to break up on further examination.

Angela Canning:

In the briefing, we tried to outline issues that are specifically addressed in the action plan, but you will see that the third column in the table is "Other developments/Further information", so even though it might not be detailed in the action plan, we are aware of other work that is going on, such as the short-life working groups that are being set up to progress specific actions.

Andrew Welsh:

You can probably understand our concern about vagueness. Everyone wants the finest palliative care to be available, but I am not sure that we have been provided with a clear pathway towards that. There is a lot of in-built vagueness. Although Audit Scotland made 26 recommendations, 17 of them have not been addressed. I would have liked much more precision on the way forward.

Before I bring in Willie Coffey, I would like to ask what the key issues are that have not been taken into account or addressed.

Tricia Meldrum:

The only issue that we identified that the action plan did not pick up or address specifically was that of ensuring that boards have robust commissioning arrangements with their partners for the delivery of palliative care services and that those arrangements are monitored to ensure value for money. Through the review, we picked up on the arrangements that boards have with the voluntary sector, for example, and the contracts that are in place there. We had difficulty identifying exactly what those contracts looked like, how much funding was going to individual providers and how that was monitored. We could not see any specific actions that related to that recommendation.

We note that the Government has asked the boards and their partners to say how they expect the action plans that they develop under "Living and Dying Well" to be funded and to flag up any affordability issues. We think that that is a separate issue; it does not relate to the contracts that are in place between the boards and the other providers. That was the only issue that we felt that the action plan did not address.

Other issues arose, particularly on the do not attempt resuscitation policy. We saw that things were happening there, but it was not clear that those would fully address our recommendation for a national approach. We felt that there was still the potential for our recommendation to be followed in different ways throughout the country.

There is also the issue of consistent recording.

Mr Black:

We have highlighted in our report that three recommendations were not covered, the most important of which relate to information recording, and commissioning and monitoring arrangements, without which there cannot be absolute certainty that the implementation of the strategy is on track.

Those are three fairly big issues, which I will come back to.

Willie Coffey (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP):

The question how palliative care services are delivered in remote and rural communities was not specifically addressed. Although it is a generic strategy, there are presumably peculiar needs in those communities, which, as I understand it, were not picked up by the Government's action plan. I was hoping that there might be further details on that.

I recall a previous discussion in which we noted an imbalance between palliative care services for non-cancer related diseases and those for cancer-related diseases. There are historical reasons for that, obviously, but I did not see anything in the action plan that might begin to redress the balance. Can you provide any further information on that?

Tricia Meldrum:

The introduction to the action plan makes it clear that the plan is expected to apply equally to people throughout the country, wherever they live and whatever their condition. There are no specific recommendations about how the plan might be delivered in remote and rural communities. We would expect that when the boards develop their delivery plans they will spell out how the plan will be delivered locally. The boards are due to produce their delivery plans by the end of March next year. We will want to consider those documents to see how the issues in the action plan have been picked up. It is very much in the spirit of the action plan that we have not got down to that level of detail and described how the action plan might work for such communities.

On the issue of services for people with cancer and those for people who have other conditions, a big thrust of the action plan has been to ensure that there are moves towards more equity. It is recognised that there has been inequity, and the foreword to the document and the document itself talk about ensuring that services are not purely focused on people with cancer and that services are opened up.

Cathie Craigie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab):

My question has perhaps been addressed. I am sure that we are all aware of the large contribution of the voluntary sector in providing palliative care. As my committee colleague Andrew Welsh said, it is a matter of concern that we do not have a process in place to ensure that joint working between the health service and the voluntary sector takes place and that we are getting value for money. The issue of resources is a difficult one for the voluntary sector in particular. Perhaps we can pursue that further, convener.

We will decide later in the meeting what we want to do about the action plan. Are there other issues that require clarification at this point?

George Foulkes (Lothians) (Lab):

Paragraph 38, on page 18 of the action plan, says that

"the timely sharing of information between primary and secondary care, especially at times of admission and discharge and including transfer between home, care homes and hospitals, remains a challenge to be addressed."

In my experience, one of the biggest problems is that when elderly people move from their home to hospital or from hospital to a hospice and so on, information is not transferred. Doctors use all sorts of spurious reasons for not doing so. The situation does not seem to have improved over the years.

The report refers to

"a challenge to be addressed."

Do we know how it will be addressed and by whom, so that the information is not knocked about from pillar to post when elderly people are being moved around?

Tricia Meldrum:

A new national e-health group has been set up and is looking at issues around palliative care. I believe that that is being led by the national clinical lead—that is a key appointment by the Government. The e-health group is one of the short-life working groups that have been set up and is trying to explore electronic communication and more ready access to information at points of transfer, such as between in-hours services and out-of-hours services. The action plan talks about involving all partners in that discussion—boards, the voluntary sector and council partners. It is work in progress.

George Foulkes:

I wish that the Government would find a better term than "short-life working group", which is a bit inappropriate.

The glossy publications are lovely, but things do not seem to improve much on the ground. Are we able to quantify how things are improving for elderly people who are being dealt with by different agencies over what might be a two, three or four-year period? Are there any ways of measuring that or monitoring it better?

Tricia Meldrum:

In our work, initially we want to look initially at what is happening in relation to processes. We want to consider what the delivery plans look like, what is coming out of the working groups that are being set up and what is happening with care for elderly people in hospitals and care homes. The report focuses on training for generalist staff, such as general practitioners, district nurses and staff who work in care homes. We know that there has been action on that. NHS Education for Scotland is recruiting somebody to lead a new programme of work to develop that generalist training. We are starting to see some of the actions that should put in place the processes that will lead to improved outcomes and improved quality of care for the groups involved.

Caroline Gardner (Audit Scotland):

That is another example—like the example raised in Mr Coffey's questions—that shows why it is so important that the health service has consistent information. It needs that information so that it can monitor what is actually happening in relation to palliative care, rather than just the processes. That is one of the gaps that we have highlighted.

That is going to be followed up.

Caroline Gardner:

Yes.

I thank the Audit Scotland staff for their contribution.