- 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.
- 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 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), 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), 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), 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 the final mesh report does not make clear that the EU classifies mesh as "high-risk".
Answer
The Independent Review’s Final Report made clear that, at the time of writing, it was anticipated that the new EU Medical Device Regulations would include a change to the classification of surgical mesh devices intended for long-term or permanent use.
It is now confirmed that the new EU Regulations, subject to their formal adoption, will up-classify surgical meshes to Class III. The new Regulations can be viewed here: http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10728-2016-REV-4/EN/pdf.
- 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, despite being agreed by all members of the review group in 2015, the draft version of the mesh report was changed "beyond all recognition" when the final report was published.
Answer
The Final Report builds upon the findings of the Interim Report, taking into account additional evidence and experiences that were not yet available at the time the Interim Report was produced.
- 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), 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.