Chamber and committees

I will go to the clinician to give a response to that, because it would not be right for me, without clinical knowledge, to assert what will happen in relation to long Covid and its comparison to ME and chronic fatigue syndrome. There are clearly some similarities in how the conditions present. The disbelief that Murdo Fraser referred to in his question we also sometimes hear from ME and CFS sufferers. However, if you do not mind, I will pass to Dr Harden to give a view on the question.

We have run a marketing campaign on the symptoms that people might suffer in order to direct them to NHS Inform. I refer Brian Whittle to a YouGov poll of 1,001 members of the public that came out in February, which found that 94 per cent of people had heard of long Covid and that 76 per cent of people agreed with the statement that

“Long Covid is a serious condition for those that experience it.”

There is good understanding of long Covid, although perhaps not an understanding, such as those around the committee table and long Covid sufferers have, of all the intricacies of the condition. There is acknowledgment that long Covid exists and that it can have a serious impact on people’s lives.

We will continue to do more to make sure that people know about long Covid and—which is important—the local services that are available. The YouGov poll certainly suggests to me that there is good public awareness of long Covid, at least at a high level.

Yes—Brian Whittle and I share that interest. I do not think that I am misquoting Brian Whittle when I say that he has described himself as a data geek or a data nerd. I am the same: I think that data is crucial and key to the issue. So many of the challenges that we have faced across health and social care have happened because we simply have not dismantled the barriers to sharing data effectively.

That is why I refer to our health and social care data strategy. I am certain that I offered Brian Whittle the chance to sit down with me and my team to go through it in greater detail. I hope that he will forgive me, as we have not yet had that chance. He should meet my officials. We are not necessarily trying to have one system across the NHS and social care, but to see whether we can use the cloud infrastructure to ensure that anyone in either system who has to access data can do so through a cloud-based system. Sharing of data is incredibly important.

There are eight priority areas for action in the work of the data strategy group; I will mention a couple of the key pillars. One is data access, and sharing data is also high up there. I could not agree more with Brian Whittle about data. If he would find it helpful to have such a meeting with my officials who are leading on the strategy, I would be happy to ensure that it is arranged.

A number of research and data points are important to us. We have referenced the ONS study. The EAVE II—early pandemic evaluation and enhanced surveillance of Covid-19—study is helpful in that regard, too. There is a variety of data sources.

I have also asked my team—we will have such discussions on a four-nations basis—to look at the international data and research that exist. I mentioned our nine research projects and I mentioned international data, but accurate local data is required. The national strategic network, which I have also referenced, has a dedicated workstream to agree outcomes, indicators, monitoring and evaluation to accelerate progress on capturing data. That will inform planning of our health service provision for people suffering from long Covid. The strategic network is trying to get consistency across the country.

I mentioned the EAVE II study, which I think you all know about. If you do not, we can provide detail on it. The initial report on prevalence of long Covid among adults in Scotland was published earlier this month; it is another helpful data source. Dr Harden is indicating that he wants to come in.

We are doing work on long Covid with colleagues in fair work and employment. There are issues. Long Covid sufferers have told me that they did not have the most supportive employers. We are working with a variety of organisations to try to assist in that regard and to get the message out there. I have been heartened by the fact that the majority of interactions that I have had on business indicate that people have felt supported by their employers in relation to Covid and long Covid. However, that is not universal and it is not consistent enough.

We are engaging with employment colleagues. I can ask them to write to the convener with more detail about the actions that they are taking with employers in relation to long Covid, if that would be helpful.

I will need to check. I am not sure whether my colleagues know exactly when that money was given to the third sector organisations. However, we worked with those organisations, made it clear that the money was coming as part of the money that health boards could not spend, and asked whether they were confident that they would be able to meet the criteria for it. That is why, as you will see, the amounts are, in some cases, relatively small and, in some cases, larger. The organisations are building on existing programmes. However, the fundamental point is that we have given a guarantee to health boards and others that the £10 million will be available over the next few years.

There was no need for that, Ms Baillie. [Laughter.]

There could be an advantage from such coalescing, but I do not think that it is necessary. I see from the Lanarkshire model that we have had well over 500 referrals—585 or thereabouts—so there is a rich data source.

Ashleigh Simpson would like to say more on that.

I thank you for your question and, indeed, Jane Ormerod for her comment. She, too, has been at those meetings at which I have met people suffering from the effects of long Covid.

In your question, you have expressed the purpose of the national strategic network, in which people who provide local services, those with lived experience and our clinical experts are making contributions to get the level of consistency that we require. I am certain that the committee will have pored over the detail of the funding allocation for each NHS board. From that, you will see that many health boards are looking to have a single point of access and to develop the pathways better. It is clear that they are looking at where such an approach is working well—NHS Lanarkshire provides a good model in that respect—and are trying to get that level of consistency, but Jane Ormerod is not wrong: there is a lack of consistency and a difficulty in accessing pathways.

That is why the implementation support note is so important. It ensures that when somebody goes to their GP—who will be the first port of call for the vast majority of people, if not everyone—the GP will have a flowchart, telling them where the referral pathways should be and what other support services will be available. Work on that is under way; indeed, it is one of the key areas that the funding will support.

I take Jane Ormerod’s point entirely. We are trying to strike a balance here; we are looking for national consistency, as that is important, but that does not mean taking a one-model-fits-all approach. I can highlight a great example from NHS Highland. We all know about the geography of the Highlands and how disparate the population is; NHS Highland has a good virtual model that is working well, and which it is developing further, but clearly, the model has been developed for that health board and is suitable to local needs. There will not be a blanket approach, but Jane Ormerod is correct to say that there must be consistency in access to pathways.

That is a really good question. Recruitment undoubtedly is, and continues to be, a challenge. What we are doing is making it clear to health boards that the £10 million funding, which comes on top of their core allocation, will be available over the next few years. We know that there are some issues with recruitment, but we are working—and will continue to work—with the boards to see what more we can do about those challenges.

The challenges will be different from board to board; our colleagues in NHS Grampian, for example, will face different challenges from those in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. The recruitment challenges are one of the reasons for the full £3 million not being spent this year, but I have made it very clear to health boards that the £10 million will still be available over the next few years.

Yes, in short. Initially, £3 million was allocated, and there was an underspend of, I think, £1.1 million of that. We then went out to third sector organisations because health boards could not spend that money because of recruitment challenges. We have given a clear and absolute guarantee that the profile of the £10 million of funding might well change and might not be just over £3 million per year.

To answer your question in short, that money is part of that underspend.