Chamber and committees

This is a matter for lawyers and the patients concerned. As such, the Scottish Government does not hold the information sought.

Any woman who is experiencing difficulties, including where she suspects this may be due to partial mesh removal, should not hesitate to speak to her GP or other clinicians involved in her case. Those clinicians are fully expected to treat the patient’s concerns seriously and to take appropriate action. The pathway of care for women who are experiencing complications is set out in answer to S5W-23623 on 6 June 2019.

All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament’s website, the search facility for which can be found at http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/28877.aspx .

As indicated in response to S5O-03674, it is important that we give further consideration to those reports. This is a serious issue and the proper process requires careful review of selected patient cases. We therefore need to establish which cases require review and, importantly, to identify individuals with the required knowledge, authority, standing and independence to carry that out. Health Board accountable officers discussed the matter at their October meeting. I have asked NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to propose a means, scope and timeline for that review to be conducted, with assurance from the Accountable Officers group and the Chief Medical Officer that that is the required level of response to determine the basis of the reports.

All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament's website, the search facility for which can be found at: http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/28877.aspx

Earlier this year I asked that a short-life working group be set up to examine the present course of care for women who experience mesh complications. The group agreed a remit to consider what additional steps could be taken to offer choice to women who want – and are clinically suitable for – removal of mesh. The group further agreed to review and identify areas of best practice in the United Kingdom and beyond, and if not already available, consider how these can be provided in Scotland. The group's remit is set out in more detail in response to S5W-23623 on 6 June 2019.

Given the action already taken by the Scottish Government, it is not clear what a public inquiry would achieve.

All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament’s website, the search facility for which can be found at http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/28877.aspx .

Neither the Scottish Government nor NHS Central Legal Office holds the information sought.

The General Medical Council (GMC) sets the professional standards to which all UK doctors must work as a condition of continuing registration; recording their work, establishing and maintaining partnerships with patients, and acting with honesty and integrity. Where serious concerns are raised about a doctor’s behaviour or professional performance, the GMC will investigate and take action where necessary. The GMC will normally work with employers (where applicable) in the first instance, to see if there are any wider concerns about a doctor and identify if concerns relate to contractual matters or potentially impaired fitness to practise. Where a doctor’s fitness to practise is found by a panel of the Medical Practitioners’ Tribunal Service (MPTS) to be impaired for any reason, that panel will impose appropriate professional sanctions such as a period of supervised practice or, for the most serious failures, erasure from the medical register and removal of licence to practise.

Any visit by Dr Veronikis will take place after discussions with the Chief Medical Officer who, as set out in response to S5W-25664 on 8 November 2019, is visiting him in the US this week. As previously advised in answer to S5O-03531 on 12 September 2019, Dr Veronikis has indicated that he has clinical commitments until at least January 2020.

All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament’s website, the search facility for which can be found at http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/28877.aspx .

NHS Central Legal Office is not aware of any of any case where a pursuer has been required to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

Scottish clinicians were not requested to provide evidence of skills prior to travelling to the US. However, comparison of techniques and review of available objective evidence of both benefit and harm, will form part of the discussions clinicians are undertaking during their visit there.

The award of any contract is a matter for the Health Board concerned, once it has applied due diligence. The Health Board providing the contract determines how it would assure itself, depending on the nature of what is being proposed. An important consideration is the evidence of practice it is in a position to assess, for example previous contacts and experience with existing clinicians, the availability of published papers, etc. In addition, there are a number of details that would need to be clarified prior to any visit, including patient selection, pre-op assessment and imaging, after-care and follow-up, time period, terms and conditions, remuneration, and so on.

The precise detail of any contract, including in the case of Dr Veronikis, will therefore be considered on this basis as for other visiting clinicians.