Chamber and committees

I want to follow up on the point about how local government has worked across the piece to drill down into people’s experiences and what services they require. I am interested in the work and recommendations of Professor Bruce Guthrie, at the University of Edinburgh, in this area—in particular, the idea that we can use NHS data, such as unique addresses, to understand whether people are living in sheltered housing or a care home, or in a care-at-home scenario.

I am keen to understand how we ensure that, in the national care service, we still get good-quality, localised data and information about a person. That helps us to see the bigger picture with regard to housing mix, housing need and requirements in an individual area, whether it is rural or urban, and other such issues.

The point is well made that the approach cannot be one size fits all and that we need to look at varying aspects. NHS England operates an app that covers all the things that Chaloner Chute mentioned, such as GP appointments, prescriptions and Covid status. What are we learning from that? That has been in place for a period—why do we not have an equivalent? Does Jim Miller or anyone else know anything about that?

Thank you for that comprehensive answer. Following on from that, I have two questions. How will we use the data that we hope to bring on stream to chart somebody’s journey through health and social care? A person might present to their GP but then go elsewhere, or might feel that it is appropriate to present at an accident and emergency department. There is a discussion at the moment about where presentations happen. How will we link the data to look at people’s journeys?

Secondly, how will we chart unmet needs? Some people are not having their needs met in the most appropriate place. I ask in particular in relation to digital formats, which people are using more and more.

Good morning. Witnesses have already touched on the necessity during Covid to upscale and move forward what we are doing in relation to digital. Obviously, NHS 24 has had a key role in developing many of the services, and it is fair to say that, within that, there has been a degree of quick movement and upscaling of projects that were already planned.

I want to get a sense of Jim Miller’s reflections on what has worked well and what has been challenging. In my experience, certain applications have worked better than others and have needed refining and testing. Jim, can you kick off with your reflections on that issue?

Your assessment is fair. There is a sense that there were challenges in relation to getting things up and running initially—for example, on proof of vaccination, which took a while to come on stream in a digital format.

You make an interesting point about that younger cohort. However, my sense from my inbox is that it goes across age ranges—people have a real desire to have things in one place, such as in one app, particularly when it comes to their vaccination status. There have certainly been issues around where people can book vaccinations and so on. Covid has brought all that to fore.

There is ambition to bring those seams together and to have that one-digital-door approach. More broadly, it is also about how we access services. The question is how we bring all the parts of that together. Is there an ambition to have a one-door app that would allow us to access our medical records if we require them and also to use services? That might be Jim Miller’s bailiwick.

Good morning. Obviously, primary care is very much in focus at the moment, particularly in the context of the pandemic. However, it is fair to say that there has, over many years, been commentary that the data in relation to primary care, and an understanding of who is using primary care and where the trends are, have not always been good or available enough. As an overview, will the witnesses outline what information about primary care activity and demand is currently publicly available?

I am verbose if nothing else, minister.

The point has been made about accountability. We have had structural change already in social care with the introduction of integration joint boards and seven years, I think, of work on the integration of health and social care that has not yet been well analysed.

Local authorities are concerned about the changes that are proposed to accountability, because it will move to ministers rather than being with them. It would be helpful for the committee to understand what discussion is going on with local authorities about their role. COSLA has been critical of the proposal, so it would be useful if the minister could explain what discussions he is having before we get to the publication of a bill.

I appreciate that the minister touched on suicide prevention in his earlier answers, which were very informative. Currently, Scotland has an increasing suicide rate. When we take that as a comparator across the UK, we see that our rate is higher than those in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Are we engaging with other parts of the United Kingdom to understand their experience and what has been done in them? How can we share best practice? Notwithstanding the work that is already being done, I think that we can learn from other people.

All of us on the committee would want to associate ourselves with your comment that one suicide is one too many and to welcome any decrease in the figures.

On “Scotland’s Suicide Prevention Action Plan: Every Life Matters”, the outcome of the review in March was that progress was perhaps slower than expected in some areas. Indeed, I think that you alluded to the need for us to go further and do more. Notwithstanding the challenges that we have all experienced through the pandemic and lockdown and the fact that they have exacerbated the situation with services and people’s lived experience, I am keen to understand how we will drive towards the plan’s very ambitious target of reducing the rate of suicide by 20 per cent by 2022. How achievable is that target? What further actions need to be taken to reach it?