Chamber and committees

The information referred to within the question relates to the 2009-10 External Quality Assurance (EQA) scheme. The EQA scheme uses interpretive assessment utilising anonymised slides which have already been reported and are no longer required for clinical management. The results of the EQA scheme therefore do not affect women’s cervical screening results or management.

Every member of laboratory staff in Scotland responsible for reporting smears participates in interpretive assessment. If an individual has a substandard performance in two of three consecutive circulations, the individual and consultant in charge of the laboratory are informed and a professional development plan agreed.

Within the 2009-10 EQA scheme no individual had a substandard performance in two of three consecutive circulations and therefore no intervention was required.

Information on MMR vaccine uptake and deprivation rates is contained in the published information on the ISD website, which looks each year (by NHS board) at vaccine uptake by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD). This is available at the following link: http://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Child-Health/publications/2011-03-24/Imms_by_HB_and_SIMD_2010.xls

These figures (for 24 month olds) currently show a slight linear trend in uptake of first dose of vaccination (MMR1) with deprivation, with 94.4% uptake at 24 months in the least deprived quintile compared with 92.2% uptake in the most deprived. This pattern is consistent with the pattern seen for the other immunisations given at the same time (at age 12 to 13 months) i.e. PCV Booster, and Hib/MenC Booster.

Previously with MMR, unlike other vaccines there was also reduced uptake in the more affluent sectors of society, which was attributed to selective refusal of this vaccine. This pattern is now not evident among Scottish children overall.

A delay in uptake of the first dose has also been observed in the most deprived populations as defined by SIMD. This has been improving over time with both a smaller delay and evidence that children catch up on overall uptake levels with their peers.

Information regarding MMR vaccine uptake rates is available on the ISD website, where trends in uptake over time are published and maintained. The most recent uptake information is available at:

http://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Child-Health/publications/2011-06-23/child_imms_Scot_qtr111.xls.

The following table reflects tables 6 to 8 from the above publication. Since 2000, the mean uptake of first dose of MMR (MMR1) in Scotland, routinely monitored and published at 24 months, was lower than 90% for the five-year period 2001 to 2005. For the same period, the mean uptake of second dose (MMR2), routinely monitored and published at six years, was less than 90% for five years, 2001 and 2005 to 2008.

Since 2006 uptake of MMR2 is also monitored at five years of age, and this is reflected in the second table.

Table 1

Table 2 Mean Uptake of MMR1 & MMR2 (all Scotland) at Five Age Years 2006-10 (data did not record at age five prior to 2006)

Note: The first dose of MMR vaccine (MMR1) is routinely offered at around 13 months and uptake is monitored at 24 months. The second dose (MMR2) is offered to pre-school children between age three years, four months and five years of age, and uptake in Scotland is monitored at age six. In 2007, the age that the second dose was offered was standardised at around three years and four months throughout Scotland. This change was phased over a period of a year and a half.

The numbers of (a) neonatal and (b) infant deaths for each NHS Board area, and the rates that these represent per 1,000 live births, are published annually by the National Records of Scotland in Vital Events Reference Table 1.3.

The most recent figures are available here:

http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files2/stats/ve-reftables-2010/ve10-t1-3.xls.

Source: National Records of Scotland.

The information requested is shown in the following table. Data from the Scottish Immunisation and Recall System (SIRS) has been used to estimate the figures. SIRS data are primarily used to facilitate the correct call and recall of children up to the age of six years for their routine childhood vaccinations. Figures for children in older age groups are therefore likely to underestimate vaccine uptake and overestimate susceptibility.

Table 1: Children Aged 10 to Under 16 Years as at 31 March 2011; Estimated Susceptibility to Measles by NHS Board

Source: ISD Scotland, SIRS May 2011.

Notes:

1. Children aged 10 to under 16 as at 31 March 2011 (i.e. born 01-04-1995 to 31-03-2001).

2. For records from the former NHS Argyll and Clyde (which was dissolved on 31 March 2006), NHS board is derived from postcode. There are a small proportion of records which do not have a postcode recorded and therefore NHS board is unknown. These records are included in the Scotland total.

The information requested is shown in the following table. Data from the Scottish Immunisation and Recall System (SIRS) has been used to estimate the figures. SIRS data are primarily used to facilitate the correct call and recall of children up to the age of six years for their routine childhood vaccinations. Figures for children in older age groups are therefore likely to underestimate vaccine uptake and overestimate susceptibility.

Table 1: Children aged 10 to under 16 years as at 31 March 2011; estimated susceptibility to measles by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) 2009 category:

Source: ISD Scotland, SIRS May 2011.

Notes:

1. Children aged 10 to under 16 as at 31 March 2011 (i.e. born 01-04-1995 to 31-03-2001).

2. Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 2009 category (SIMD) is derived from postcode. There are a small proportion of records which do not have a postcode recorded and therefore the SIMD category is unknown. These records are included in the Scotland total.

Informal consultation on the policies behind the proposed secondary legislation in relation to the Patient Rights (Scotland) Act 2011 was undertaken with a number of groups and organisations during the development stage of the act. Officials met with the Scottish Human Rights Commission on 25 August 2010, and with the State Hospital on 13 September 2010 for this purpose.

Officials also wrote to a number of stakeholders, including the State Hospitals Board for Scotland, and the Scottish Human Rights Commission, to make them aware of the launch of the consultation on 22 July. The consultation closes on 14 October and includes draft regulations and directions relating to patient feedback, comments, concerns and complaints.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/07/21152328/0.

I refer the member to the answer to question S4W-01906 on 15 August 2011. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament’s website, the search facility for which can be found at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/Apps2/MAQASearch/QAndMSearch.aspx.

Section 297 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 provides a power to police constables to remove a relevant person from a public place to a place of safety where the constable reasonably suspects the person to have a mental disorder and to be in immediate need of care or treatment. Volume 1 of the Code of Practice which accompanies the 2003 act makes clear that “all relevant local agencies should work closely together to ensure the provision of sufficient places of safety within their localities”. The code also makes clear that “the process by which relevant local agencies work together to agree on suitable designated places of safety should be carried out in parallel to their development of Psychiatric Emergency Plans”. In this way, joint protocols are clearly required of the local agencies in respect of place of safety orders.

Once an order is made, section 298(2) of the 2003 act (Removal under section 297: further provision) places a duty on the relevant police constable to ensure that various parties are informed of a range of issues connected to a removal under section 297. The code of practice provides further guidance about this duty at chapter 15 of Volume 1 (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/08/29100428/04431).

The parties who must be given information about any removal are: the local authority in whose area the place of safety is situated; the nearest relative of the person, and the Mental Welfare Commission. The code of practice further states that a police constable will also wish to involve a medical practitioner once the patient has been removed to a place of safety. There is no form prescribed in regulations for reporting removals; however, a form (POS 1) is available on the Scottish Government website for this purpose. There is no statutory requirement that this form be used, but its use is strongly recommended.

How police forces and NHS boards determine the way in which they deal with place of safety orders made under section 297 is ultimately a matter for them to decide, taking into account local circumstances. However, they must operate clearly within the statutory framework for such orders, as supplemented by the material in the accompanying Code of Practice.

Section 298 of the 2003 act makes provision for notification of various persons where a police officer uses the section 297 power to remove a relevant person to a place of safety. There are, therefore, already statutory duties on the constable to notify bodies such as the Mental Welfare Commission. Form POS1 simply provides a useful format for the constable to use in complying with the statutory requirements to record the removal, taking them through the main procedural steps, including notifying the commission. Its use is strongly recommended, and this is stated clearly on form POS 1. There are no plans to make the use of POS 1 mandatory.

I also refer the member to the answer to question S4W-01906 on 15 August 2011. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament’s website, the search facility for which can be found at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/28877.aspx.