- Asked by: Neil Findlay, MSP for Lothian, Scottish Labour
-
Date lodged: Friday, 31 March 2017
-
Current Status:
Answered by Shona Robison on 28 April 2017
To ask the Scottish Government, further to the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport on 30 March 2017 (Official Report, c. 57), in light of reports that patients asked for them to be published, for what reason the patient-friendly shared decision tables were not included in the final report.
Answer
The Independent Review members considered it appropriate that all evidence considered by the Review be grouped together in chapters 4 and 5, whilst chapter 6 includes commentary on that evidence. The table that was included in chapter 6 of the Interim Report is, however, included in the Final Report as an annex. The tables developed by a single clinician are included in chapter 5 where agreed by the Independent Review, and for transparency the tables are published in totality on the website.
- Asked by: Neil Findlay, MSP for Lothian, Scottish Labour
-
Date lodged: Friday, 31 March 2017
-
Current Status:
Answered by Joe FitzPatrick on 28 April 2017
To ask the Scottish Government, further to the question by Fulton McGregor to Maureen Watt on 30 March 2017 (Official Report, c.53), whether any civil servant had any role in drafting the question, and what its policy is on civil servants supporting parliamentary liaison officers in their roles.
Answer
Questions asked in the Chamber are the responsibility of the Member. Scottish Government officials serve the Scottish Ministers and provide no support to Members appointed as Parliamentary Liaison Officers.
- Asked by: Neil Findlay, MSP for Lothian, Scottish Labour
-
Date lodged: Friday, 31 March 2017
-
Current Status:
Answered by Shona Robison on 28 April 2017
To ask the Scottish Government, further to the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport on 30 March 2017 (Official Report, c. 57), for what reason the final mesh report does not mention the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) warning regarding counterfeit mesh, including from Boston Scientific, or that three US states have launched legal action on this issue.
Answer
The Independent Review was established due to wider concerns around mesh usage. It is the job of the MHRA to regulate medical devices across the UK, and it has not issued a Medical Device Alert regarding the implants concerned. The MHRA has found no evidence to indicate that polypropylene mesh implants are unsafe, and has not been required to initiate any enforcement action against Boston Scientific, or any other manufacturer in the UK. Under current arrangements, regulation is a reserved matter, and the MHRA will therefore continue to monitor and evaluate the safety and performance of these devices, and will inform the Scottish Government if circumstances change.
- Asked by: Neil Findlay, MSP for Lothian, Scottish Labour
-
Date lodged: Friday, 31 March 2017
-
Current Status:
Answered by Shona Robison on 28 April 2017
To ask the Scottish Government, further to the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport on 30 March 2017 (Official Report, c. 57), for what reason mesh procedures for prolapse continue to be offered despite concerns that there is a lack of evidence regarding their effectiveness and reports of both Scottish and international studies regarding possible high risks.
Answer
The Independent Review's Final Report concludes that mesh procedures should not be offered routinely in the case of prolapse, and the Chief Medical Officer has accepted this conclusion. However, in each individual patient's case it is necessary to apply individually focused clinical care, and there will be exceptions where this type of operation is considered suitable, subject to agreement by the patient and her clinicians. The Oversight Group that is being established will be expected to continue to be provided with - and review - the routine data on number of cases and complications.
- Asked by: Neil Findlay, MSP for Lothian, Scottish Labour
-
Date lodged: Friday, 31 March 2017
-
Current Status:
Answered by Shona Robison on 28 April 2017
To ask the Scottish Government, further to the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport on 30 March 2017 (Official Report, c. 57), whether it provided assurances to Elaine Holmes and Olive McIlroy that their chapter would be withdrawn from the final mesh report and, if so, for what reason it was included.
Answer
When I met with Ms McIlroy and Ms Holmes they requested that their minority report be removed from the Independent Review's Final Report. I relayed this to the Chair of the Review and she acceded to this request. Subsequently, Ms McIlroy and Ms Holmes asked that further material be removed and this request was, again, relayed to the Chair. However, the Chair confirmed that, by that point, the Final Report had been submitted to the Chief Medical Officer, and no further changes could therefore be made. Any changes to the Report were a matter for the Chair to decide upon, not Scottish Government Ministers or officials.
- Asked by: Neil Findlay, MSP for Lothian, Scottish Labour
-
Date lodged: Friday, 31 March 2017
-
Current Status:
Answered by Shona Robison on 28 April 2017
To ask the Scottish Government, further to the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport on 30 March 2017 (Official Report, c. 57), what its response is to concerns that evidence regarding the risks arising from the commonest continence procedures was removed from the final mesh report.
Answer
Chapter 5 reviews evidence relating to risk. The evidence on risk was considered together with the patient survey (chapter 3), the evidence from the routine data sources (chapter 4) and the clinicians views (chapter 6), in order that the Independent Review could reach its final conclusions. All the evidence considered is included in the Final Report.
- Asked by: Neil Findlay, MSP for Lothian, Scottish Labour
-
Date lodged: Friday, 31 March 2017
-
Current Status:
Answered by Shona Robison on 28 April 2017
To ask the Scottish Government, further to the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport on 30 March 2017 (Official Report, c. 57), for what reason the declaration of interests of the members of the review group refer only to company work over the last 12 months.
Answer
Members were asked to complete standard Scottish Government declarations of interests, which cover a 12 month period.
- Asked by: Neil Findlay, MSP for Lothian, Scottish Labour
-
Date lodged: Friday, 31 March 2017
-
Current Status:
Answered by Shona Robison on 28 April 2017
To ask the Scottish Government, further to the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport on 30 March 2017 (Official Report, c. 57), whether it will bring forward a proposal for a Parliamentary debate on the final mesh report.
Answer
The Chief Medical Officer has accepted the conclusions made by the Independent Review in its Final Report, Health Boards have been asked to take them forward, an Oversight Group is being established to work with Health Boards in doing so, and an expert will be appointed to examine the process of the Independent Review. Furthermore, arrangements are presently being made for my appearance at the Public Petitions Committee on 18 May. I have also agreed to meet with the opposition spokespeople on health to discuss these matters further.
- Asked by: Neil Findlay, MSP for Lothian, Scottish Labour
-
Date lodged: Friday, 31 March 2017
-
Current Status:
Answered by Shona Robison on 28 April 2017
To ask the Scottish Government, further to the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport on 30 March 2017 (Official Report, c. 57), what its response is to concerns that avoidable and unnecessary procedures take place when there are safer alternative treatments for stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse.
Answer
The evidence considered by the Independent Review, and the conclusions drawn from it, are outlined in its Final Report. The conclusions reflect the need to offer mesh and non-mesh procedures for stress urinary incontinence, and also that mesh should not be offered routinely in the case of prolapse surgery. The conclusions also note that women should be given all necessary information and advice to allow them to make an informed decision on the best treatment in their case.
- Asked by: Neil Findlay, MSP for Lothian, Scottish Labour
-
Date lodged: Friday, 31 March 2017
-
Current Status:
Answered by Shona Robison on 28 April 2017
To ask the Scottish Government, further to the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport on 30 March 2017 (Official Report, c. 57), for what reason the evidence suggesting that (a) non-mesh procedures are safer than mesh procedures for incontinence, (b) transobturator mesh tape can be too risky a treatment to treat incontinence and (c) prolapse mesh has no benefit and can be risky is in the annexe of the final report only.
Answer
Appendix D of the Final Report contains the table from the Interim Report's Chapter 6, and Annex A contains the evidence tables referenced in the Interim Report's chapter 5. The evidence from the Interim Report was built upon by new evidence to provide the Independent Review with its final conclusions. For transparency, all the evidence has been published.