Chamber and committees

Patients often see the GP receptionist as being a kind of gatekeeper who can, on occasion, be determined to keep them out. How can we improve the perception of GP receptionists and support staff in the practices? Is Health Improvement Scotland’s practice administrative staff collaborative a route towards that, or is there something else that could change?

I have a quick follow-up question for Julie Mosgrove, who spoke about diabetes being spotted really early and about referring people to their GPs. Does she refer people directly to other primary care pathways or to specialists? Is that appropriate? I am trying to figure out how this fits together. Do people always have to go back to a GP or can onward referrals be made that skip that step if it is unnecessary?

No. It is for whoever feels that it is most appropriate for them to answer.

We touched on the single electronic patient record during Gillian Mackay’s questions, and I have a further question on that. Going back to what Clare Morrison of the previous panel said—all the other witnesses agreed with her—having a single electronic patient record would be transformational, with all the different health professionals being able to access things at the same time, together with social care, social work and so on. Clare also suggested having a single cloud system that all the other different systems can talk to, so that the information is available to everyone.

My first question is whether you guys agree that it would be transformational to have a single electronic patient record. Secondly, does it sound realistic to have an integrated cloud-based system that all the other different systems could talk to? That would be really helpful. I suppose that that pulls in the previous question about link workers, with everyone having access to all the information.

That is great. I think that we all know the joys of having to copy and paste stuff, and we would rather avoid it.

Like Fergus Ewing, I want to highlight the point about saving lives. Although that is something that we need to put front and centre, it was not mentioned that much at last week’s committee meeting. Certainly, the first priority for any Government is to protect its citizens, and the bottom line is that the buck stops with it. After all, the very first human right is the right to life, and we need to be alive to exercise all the other rights that come underneath that.

Just as the actions of a future Scottish Government cannot be predicted, so we are in exactly the same situation with partners. We cannot guarantee that organisations such as those whose representatives we were speaking to last week will act very responsibly in future circumstances.

It was good that the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland said that he believed that all the actions that had been taken so far during the coronavirus had been necessary, proportionate, lawful and time limited and that we had met all those things. Mr Rennie and others talk about the Government being in the majority in the Parliament and pushing the bill through, but is it not true that we all have an equal interest here? As we do not know what Scottish Government will be in charge in the future, all of us, from every party, have an equal interest in ensuring that safeguards are in place and that we have a balanced right to offer adequate protections in the future.

I was wondering whether the possibility of a sunset clause was discussed. Was consideration given to refreshing or reviewing the proposed legislation at the start of each parliamentary session?

I have a couple of questions. How does the Scottish Government’s proposed approach compare with what is happening elsewhere in the UK and in other countries?

I have a wee question that came from the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland and a member of the Scottish Youth Parliament about involving young people. How can we ensure that involvement is not just having an individual young person sitting at the table who gets to put their voice across a couple of times, but means really involving young people and enabling them to influence the decisions that are being made? How does that play into the legislation?

I am also interested in representation for young people with additional support needs who might not find it as easy to express their views. We have looked at the childcare hubs that were set up, which were not about education but were for looking after the children of key workers. Those hubs later incorporated some young people with additional support needs, too. How do we ensure that we are looking out for those young people and prioritising and protecting their needs?

I have a question for Hannah Tweed. Do link workers have formal qualifications or undergo formal training, or is there a huge advantage to drawing in people who have a range of experiences, skills and community connections and who can connect well with patients?

One point that has been made is that service design should be informed by evidence. How can we build a more effective evidence base to improve service design? What lessons do we need to learn to improve the future design of alternative pathways? That question is for Dr Williams, first.