Chamber and committees

Not at all. It is just that he was obviously part of the input into the NHS so far.

My interest is in knowing whether you are going to change direction in terms of making some of those things actually happen.

I am interested in the response times that you were talking about and the confidence that the public should have in the newer model that you have. Have you undertaken any evaluation of how those response times are working for patients and their families?

As I am sure that you well know, the public hugely values the service, but there are definite problems in the system, particularly around ambulances being available for people. What key things do you recommend that the committee could ask for or speak to the Scottish Government about with regard to the delays that people have, particularly in life-threatening situations?

Thanks very much.

Good morning. I have quite a specific question about the route through the mental health hub, which constituents have raised with us. When someone who is already known to mental health services phones NHS 24 and is looking to be directed onwards, is that a smooth flow through, or do people have to go through a number of assessments before being linked into the service where they are already known?

I lodged amendment 28 in response to the stage 1 report, which highlighted the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman’s comments with regard to clarity on the relationship between the patient safety commissioner for Scotland and the broader landscape.

My amendment puts the necessary requirements on

“Each person named in section 15(2)(d)”

to

“co-operate with the Commissioner in the exercise of their respective functions”

and on the commissioner to

“co-operate with each person named in section 15(2)(d) in the exercise of their respective functions.”

I believe that that would be a positive step towards ensuring strong working relationships between the patient safety commissioner and the relevant individuals listed, in order to meet statutory obligations. It also acts on the recommendations that the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman made in evidence.

As was mentioned in the stage 1 report, the manner of dealings can vary, but I urge the minister to reconsider amendment 28 as an initial step towards ensuring that the parameters of the relationship are set out and that there is co-operative working across the board in the exercise of statutory obligations. Again, I ask the minister to reconsider her previous comments.

I have lodged amendment 25, because I am firmly of the view that patient safety and staff safety go hand in hand, and I thank the minister for her comments in support of the amendment.

We must take all the steps at our disposal to optimise co-operation between this legislation and the Health and Care (Staffing) (Scotland) Act 2019, which has yet to be implemented. We know from recent evidence and media coverage that our healthcare workforce is feeling overworked and underresourced, and the challenges across the board with recruitment and retention are putting additional pressure on the existing workforce. We know that if high safety standards are not being met for our staff it becomes challenging to achieve the same standards for patients. As I have said, the two go hand in hand.

I am therefore of the view that we ought to amend the 2019 act to incorporate a necessary information-sharing function that will allow the patient safety commissioner, when appointed, to be fully briefed on the progress of the safe staffing legislation and to be cognisant of the impacts on patients of its implementation, or lack thereof. Sharing that information annually will reaffirm the commitment of the Parliament and the Government to ensuring that both pieces of legislation work well in the interests of patients and staff. Indeed, incorporating this amendment into the 2019 act will give the position of patient safety commissioner further credibility, and the commissioner themselves will be in a stronger position to carry out their duties, supported by strong information sharing and transparent co-operation.

I thank the minister for agreeing to amendment 25. With the introduction of a bill on patient safety, we must remember the importance of implementing legislation to ensure safe staffing, too, and we need to see both pieces of legislation working well together.

As amendment 26, also in my name, seeks to act on some of the recommendations in the stage 1 report, I intend to move it. The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and the General Medical Council offered suggestions for broadening the list of individuals whom the commissioner would expect to partake in the sharing of information, with the Health and Safety Executive and professional regulators being highlighted. I certainly found such suggestions to be reasonable, and I encourage the minister to think again and broaden the scope of the provision by including those listed in my amendment. The SPSO stated that the current list “is fairly narrow”. It is not our intention to broaden it significantly beyond a manageable level, but I believe that acceptance of the amendment would be positive for the bill and future co-operation and working.

Something has been raised with me on a couple of occasions by long-term staff who have worked in core services. They have mentioned that some of the challenges that they face in their teams are related to the way in which modern funding streams work. Specific pieces of work are funded, which drains out some of the really experienced nursing staff into specialties that are then fixed. The core teams sometimes struggle with getting experienced staff, which has a knock-on effect on their ability to support new staff who are coming through. Do you recognise that in your services? Are there particular areas where that seems to be happening?

Are you confident that people are well supported on whistleblowing? Do you feel that they would do it if it was necessary?