National Health Service

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate. I thank the Opposition for bringing the matter to the House for consideration. The one thing that unites the whole House is a love of our health service. We have different opinions on either side of the House, but we are united by the need for an NHS that delivers services for our constituents.

It is important to look at the regional issues affecting our devolved Administrations, but a nationwide strategy for the overarching issues facing the whole of the UK is of paramount importance. My concerns relate to barriers to accessibility and the quality of NHS provision. I shall focus on the availability of vaccinations and the issue of nationwide strategies. Sometimes we should not be parochial about the NHS, but rather consider nationwide strategies that can be put into practice across the entire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

With the undeniable strain on NHS resources and their ability to provide services efficiently, quickly and to the high standard that we strive to meet, in the past few days the Northern Ireland Assembly announced an extra £203 million for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. That will alleviate some of the pressure, but there are continuing financial demands to provide the new drugs and new technologies that are vital for the provision of essential services. It is a great pity that as a result of Sinn Fein’s delay in agreeing welfare reform measures, fines were imposed, impacting upon the moneys available.

As other hon. Members have mentioned, mental health services are struggling to deliver urgent care, particularly for younger people. Some 17% of young people have been sectioned under mental health legislation since 2010. That is an indication of the issues that permeate our whole society. For those of us of a certain vintage and those of us who are younger, the issues of mental health are clear.

Cancer care is a subject close to my heart. One in every two of us is expected to have cancer. The devolved Administration in Northern Ireland have been maintaining funding for clinical trials that will benefit the whole of the United Kingdom, but it is a challenge to find the money for that. The statistics from Cancer Research UK emphasise the prevalence of the disease: every two minutes someone in the UK is diagnosed with cancer. The NHS must deliver the necessary care.

The Northern Ireland Budget has made promising provision for health. The demand for health care is greater in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the United Kingdom. How we deliver that care, how we manage our services, and what preventive strategies are in place are all crucial aspects. The problems affecting A and E departments in Northern Ireland are as acute as those in some parts of the mainland. Education campaigns in GP surgeries and on television and radio could encourage people to use A and E departments appropriately and to consider using the other systems that are in place.

In Northern Ireland we seek to increase the number of patients participating in clinical trials, but we need to maintain the funding for that and meet the costs involved, among the many other demands on the NHS budget.

I know that the Minister is usually responsive on the issue of cancer drugs, so in his summing up perhaps he will explain why six cancer drugs have been reduced, restricted or withdrawn and how that fits in with the strategy across the whole United Kingdom.

I want to put on record my thanks to our medical practitioners and nurses for the hard work that they do. Will the Minister consider increasing the number of agency staff on a contract basis to assist in alleviating the pressures on NHS services, or will he consider some sort of scheme whereby graduates are brought in to help them gain experience and training? This would not only benefit young people who need experience, but would put more staff on hospital wards and in A and Es, and could be financed from the existing budget.

Autism: Diagnosis of Children, Hull

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

First, I would like to thank you, Mr Speaker, for selecting for the Adjournment debate this evening the important subject of the unacceptable length of time families in Hull are having to wait for a diagnosis of autism for their children. It is an issue I have grown increasingly concerned about over the course of the past year.

I was first contacted in spring 2014 by constituents about how long they were having to wait for a diagnosis. The National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence produced a report in 2011, “Autism: Recognition, referral and diagnosis of children and young people on the autism spectrum”, which states that

“the autism diagnostic assessment”

should start

“within 3 months of the referral”.

The three-month target has since been reinforced by a NICE quality standard on autism, but the service level agreement set by Hull NHS clinical commissioning group is for children to be assessed within 20 weeks of referral, and what is actually happening is very different: families are waiting for well over 12 months, and even for 18 months, to get the diagnosis.

I am particularly concerned about the role of Hull clinical commissioning group, whose job it is to make sure that health services are available and delivered to the local population in a timely manner. I believe the CCG is failing to do that in relation to diagnosing children with autism. It appears not to have a plan on how to tackle the backlog and is also failing to communicate with parents about how long they will really have to wait for a diagnosis. I hope that tonight the Minister will be able to reassure me and my constituents that he will take action on the growing problem in Hull—and, I believe, in other parts of the country.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this matter to the House for consideration. She has eloquently outlined the position in Hull. Across Northern Ireland, we have had a 67% increase in the number of individuals with autism and we have 1,300 children waiting to be assessed. The problems in Hull are replicated across the whole United Kingdom. One way in which the issue can be highlighted is, of course, through education in schools and hospitals, but the recognition of Dr Cassidy, chief executive of Autism Northern Ireland, in the new year honours list was another step in raising the profile of those with autism across the whole United Kingdom, but especially in Northern Ireland.

[Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which sets the context very well.

Let me tell the House about the experience of three families in my constituency and what the delays actually mean to families and children in Hull. Jayden was three years old when his family first contacted me. His mum, dad and grandmother were desperate to make sure that Jayden received the help he needed. His parents had tried to arrange an assessment with the autism panel in Hull. Without that diagnosis from the panel, Jayden’s parents could not access the specific local services that he needs. They were told that even if they obtained a private diagnosis from a doctor, it would not be acceptable.

Jayden’s parents have found the whole situation very difficult, and I know that Jayden’s grandmother, Mrs Spivey, has really tried hard to fight for her grandson to get the help he needs. Despite initially being told that it would take 20 weeks for a diagnosis to be made, Jayden’s parents were eventually told that in fact it would take 57 weeks. Jayden is now four years old; he still has no diagnosis and he has no speech. His family wanted him to attend the Early Bird programme, an early intervention scheme, but this is available only to children who have received a diagnosis, and Jayden is still waiting.

Thomas is 11 years old. His parents contacted me in June 2014. They believe that Thomas is on the autistic spectrum and have been trying for several months to obtain support. Thomas is high functioning and the long delay is adding to his anxiety. Thomas was referred to the autism panel in October 2013 and his parents were advised by child and adolescent mental health services that, owing to the severity of his needs, he would be seen within 12 weeks. His parents have now been told that he is on the February 2015 list to start his assessment—15 months since the referral. This is what his parents say:

“Thomas is suffering, he is an intelligent, beautiful little boy whose world is collapsing. He is confused by the behaviours he displays and cannot understand the responses which other people present. He is lonely and desperately in need of support. Likewise we are a family in crisis. We feel that Thomas deserves to know why there is insufficient funding to provide the diagnosis he so desperately needs. A diagnosis would bring him support and access to services which he needs to function.”

Thomas’s parents have had little contact from the CCG. They too were initially told that the waiting time was 20 weeks.

Isaac is three years old, and he suffers from severe social and communication difficulties. His parents requested an assessment for autism/sensory processing disorder He was referred to the autism panel in January 2014. His parents were initially told that he would be assessed within 20 weeks, but they have now been told that it will be Easter 2015 before he is assessed. Isaac’s parents were particularly concerned about applying for schools for him in September without having a formal diagnosis in place.

These families in Hull are clear examples of unacceptable and lengthy delays in a diagnosis of autism causing real stress, hardship and worry to families, as well as to the children themselves who are missing out on services and help.

Sickle Cell Anaemia

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to debate this matter under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. Sickle cell anaemia affects an estimated 12,000 to 15,000 people in the UK and around 400 people in the west midlands, where my constituency lies. The associated condition, thalassaemia, affects around 1,000 people, although hundreds of thousands more in our country carry the trait for these conditions. They mainly, but not exclusively, affect the Afro-Caribbean community.

Sickle cell anaemia is the most common genetically inherited condition in the UK. Roughly one baby every day is born with the condition in our country. There is no known cure and for those who have it, the symptoms can vary from relatively mild, infrequent pain to much more serious episodes of crisis, frequent hospital admissions, strokes, often in very young people, organ damage and reduced life span. At the heart of the debate about treatment for the condition lies one simple question: why, with all the progress that has been made—there has been progress—is there still such variability in the treatment for sufferers, leading to enormous and debilitating pain, unnecessary and expensive hospital admissions and damaging consequences for the families of those who suffer from sickle cell anaemia?

Some hospitals and some specialist care units do a fantastic job, but patients with sickle cell anaemia do not want islands of excellence. They want an excellent system that offers high quality integrated care that minimises hospital admissions, manages pain treatment and enhances quality of life wherever they live in the country. The experience of patients, as told to me and to others, is that we are still a long way from having a system in place that delivers that standard of care wherever people live.

I pay tribute to the work of the Wolverhampton sickle cell care and social activity centre based in Bilston in my constituency and to the other patient-led groups around the country, to the Sickle Cell Society, which is the national organisation that speaks up for sufferers, and to the work of the all-party group on sickle cell and thalassaemia, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott).

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The right hon. Gentleman and the House know that people are living longer. On average, people live into their 80s or thereabouts, but life expectancy for those with sickle cell anaemia is 40 to 50, which is better than it was. Can the Minister and the NHS do more with private pharmaceutical companies to try to find a method of prolonging their life? It may not be as good as 80, but it could certainly better than 40 to 50.

[Mr McFadden]

That is a very good point. Shortened life span is one effect of the condition, and there is certainly more to do on the research and treatment fronts.

Organisations such as those I mentioned are doing a tremendous job in explaining what the condition means for sufferers, calling for more attention to it, and pressing for better training for NHS staff and a more rounded way of providing treatment. I have had extensive contact over the past seven years or so with the Wolverhampton sickle cell care group. It provides hugely needed and valuable support for sufferers, which may be anything from helping patients to deal with different governmental agencies and helping their families through crises when they have to be admitted to hospital, to a broader advocacy role. The group praises many NHS staff locally, but their biggest and most consistent complaint is about lack of understanding of the condition among GPs, A and E staff and some other NHS staff, leading to pain and delay for sufferers and bad consequences for their families.

The group told me about Sharon, a single parent of two children under the age of 10 who has full sickle cell disease and is in frequent crisis. Every time she is admitted to hospital, there is a desperate scramble among friends and relatives to ensure care for her children. There is no proper system in place to support her children, and the stress on her and her family is enormous. She discharges herself from hospital early, often before proper treatment is complete, because she has to look after her children, so the whole pattern soon begins again. Is there not a better way to manage Sharon’s pain than through frequent hospital admissions and incomplete treatment? If she does have to be admitted, should there not be a better system of support for her children?

The group also told me about a local man in his 40s who has gone for years without treatment for bleeding at the back of his eyes as a result of sickle cell disease. His sight is now at risk, but earlier treatment might have brought about a different outcome.

The Sickle Cell Society told me about a patient who was costing the NHS a fortune through repeated hospital admissions, exacerbated by the fact that her children slept in the one bed in her flat and she did not have a bed. Eventually, the charity was able to help her to buy her a bed and that made a huge difference. The cost of her hospital admissions could have paid for a hundred beds.

We will never reach the stage where no patient with sickle cell anaemia needs to be admitted to hospital, but getting the care right has the potential to reduce hospital admissions, making the condition easier to manage for the patient and saving the NHS a considerable amount of money. The fact that there is no cure does not mean that good professional care cannot make a difference.

That brings me to the national picture and the peer review of specialist care carried out by the west midlands quality review service and the UK Forum on Haemoglobin Disorders, which was published last year. The review visited 29 hospitals and reviewed the care provided. The aim of the care standards that have been developed is quite simple: there should be specialist haemoglobinopathy teams based in hospitals, backed up by a local haemoglobinopathy team. In other words, the system should have both the expertise to offer the best care and properly connect primary and hospital care. That is a good aim, but the reality is much more varied and therein is one of main causes of frustration for sickle cell disease sufferers and the organisations that speak out for them.

The peer review process found instances of excellent joined-up practice. It found committed staff going the extra mile to deliver the best care, but it also found overstretch, patchiness, breakdowns in care pathways and an unacceptable degree of variability across the country. The report says:

“Cooperation between acute and community nursing teams was sometimes very good but this was not universal. The availability of social work and psychology support was variable”.

It continued:

“In many teams there were inadequate numbers of nursing staff for the number of patients, or in some cases no acute nurse specialist at all. Even where these posts were in place they often had a very high workload which included inappropriate tasks”

such as

“filling in benefit forms…with very poor cover arrangements.”

The peer review process also found that, particularly in non-haematology parts of the system, patients

“perceived they were viewed as ‘second class’ haematology patients.”

That point about how sickle cell patients view their own experience is critical. They often feel that they are treated either with a lack of understanding or, even worse, sometimes with suspicion when they try to explain their condition or arrive at A and E in need of urgent pain relief. Lack of understanding can lead not only to poor care, but to patients feeling they have not been treated with dignity and that their need for treatment is not respected.

I do not need to remind the Minister that the very principle of the NHS means there should be no such thing as first-class and second-class patients. I do not want to see anyone treated as, or feeling as though they have been treated as, a second-class citizen. The whole basis of the NHS, paid for collectively with treatment on the basis of need, is that everyone is a first-class citizen. If there are sufferers of a genetically inherited condition who do not feel they are being treated as such, that is not acceptable and something we should take very seriously indeed.

Another issue identified by the peer review process is poor quality of data. That leaves us unsure about the number of sufferers and unsure, beyond emergency admissions, about the resources devoted to treating the condition. How can we ensure that there is the right treatment if we do not know how many sufferers there are or where they are? What is the Minister doing to improve those clearly identifiable data problems?

The peer review made a number of good and important recommendations about access to specialist care, staffing levels, training, psychological support and managing the important transition between paediatric and adult care. Those issues are absolutely central to the experience of sickle cell patients. Can the Minister tell us this morning what is happening to those peer review recommendations? Will he undertake to go through them not in a general way, but point by point, and to give a progress report to the House if not today, then soon and in writing? Such a report would be welcomed by sufferers and would ensure that there was follow-up on these important recommendations.

Then there is, for patients, the basic cost of living with the condition. To live with sickle cell is to live with pain, and that often means frequent prescriptions. For some patients, the cost can be prohibitive. This is not just a matter of money, but of behaviour. If people do not use their pain relief efficiently because they cannot afford more, it can affect their condition. I appreciate the cost pressures on the NHS, but will the Minister agree to commission a departmental analysis on whether free prescriptions for sickle cell sufferers would cost money or lead to net savings because they would reduce avoidable hospital admissions?

What of how sickle cell care is to be delivered in the future? NHS England is currently the body responsible for commissioning care for rare diseases. That is sensible, because sufferers might be concentrated in different parts of the country and sometimes there may be few sufferers. However, a review is taking place into how that will be done in the future, the results of which are due next year. There are three possible models: continuing with national commissioning, co-commissioning with clinical commissioning groups locally, or leaving it all to CCGs. Given that concern already exists about the large variation in the quality of treatment, knowledge of the condition and the priority given to it, sickle cell organisations fear that a move to only local CCG commissioning will exacerbate the problems. Can the Minister ensure that the way treatment is organised in future is in line with the central aim of the peer review exercise—to deal with the variability of treatment issue—rather than its being organised in such a way as to make it more difficult? I repeat that our aim should be a system that makes the best the norm, rather than balkanising care and creating a lottery, depending on where sufferers live.

Sickle cell anaemia is an issue that deserves more attention than it has received and a greater priority in the delivery of high-quality health care. In some ways, it is less about knowing what the best care looks like and more about ensuring that it is delivered to the highest standard throughout the country, regardless of where patients live. The condition also requires some smart, joined-up thinking between different agencies. Repeated hospital admissions because of a lack of a bed to sleep on is not a smart way to deal with a condition such as sickle cell.

Sufferers have to put up with a life of pain, but good treatment, the right information and the right lifestyle can make an enormous difference. That treatment, information and help vary so much is not acceptable. Dignity and respect are essential for all NHS patients: sickle cell patients feeling they do not always get that should be a concern for us all. It is time we ensured that the best care is available to all sufferers, delivered by a system that understands the condition, fully respects the patient and allows sufferers to live as full a life as possible. I hope the Minister can respond to the issues I have raised today in a way that makes that more likely. On the issues for which he does not have immediate answers, I hope he will go back to the Department and press his officials to make sure the changes we know are needed happen.

Patient Safety and Medical Innovation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[George Freeman]

I am sure my hon. Friend is right. She makes an excellent point about the nature of the question having an impact on the answer one gets. I have repeated the concerns because they bear repetition and are important, and I want to signal that I am taking them seriously.

I want to set the scene in terms of the Government’s commitment to patient safety, the context in which innovative medicines are being developed, and the changes in the sector that are challenging some of the traditional methods of drug development. I will then address some of the specific points that my hon. Friends the Members for Totnes and for Cambridge have made and say something about the Government’s position on the Bill.

The Government’s response to the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust public inquiry, led by Sir Robert Francis, “Hard Truths: The Journey to Putting Patients First”, demonstrated beyond any doubt, I hope, the Government’s absolute commitment to creating a new culture of openness, compassion and accountability and a renewed focus on patient safety right at the heart of the NHS.

The truth is that the NHS is one of the safest health care systems in the world. I am delighted to report that, in the recent Commonwealth Fund report comparing the US health care system with those of 11 other nations, the UK came top. However, there is always scope to improve health care standards universally and to reduce avoidable harm further. That is why the Secretary of State set the ambition this June, at the launch of the Sign up to Safety campaign, to reduce avoidable harm by half and save 6,000 lives over the next three years.

We have put patient safety right at the heart of the Government’s agenda for health. For that reason, I am delighted that the Government are actively supporting the Bill on patient safety sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). The Bill has several important provisions on the use of data to drive safety across the system and to ensure transparency and accountability in health outcomes.

Why do we need to look at mechanisms for promoting innovation? My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes was kind enough to signal her awareness that the Government—particularly me, as the first Minister for life sciences—have taken an active role in trying to promote it. The reason is that we face a challenge in the field of drug discovery and development, as well as in medical technology generally. There is a challenge and an opportunity.

The challenge is that the more we know about disease, genetics and data—the datasets at our disposal in the NHS, and the history of drug reactions and the way in which patients respond to diseases differently—the more we realise that patients respond to the same disease or the same drug in different ways, and that those ways can often be predicted. These insights are beginning to change the way in which drugs are developed.

Increasingly, we do not need the one-size-fits-all, blockbuster drugs that we have traditionally expected the industry to bring us after long, slow, protracted and increasingly expensive clinical trials and randomised, double-blind trials. Of course, those trials have a strong part to play in our system, but the more we know about the nature of disease and the extraordinary breakthroughs that our biomedical and life sciences sector is making, the more the agenda shifts to designing around patients, as well as around tissues, data and genomics. That is why the Government are so committed to shifting our policy landscape to support the extraordinary role that our NHS can play globally. It is a uniquely well positioned, integrated national health care system, with extraordinary leadership in genomics and informatics, which the Government are actively supporting.

My hon. Friend made the point that the randomised, double-blind trial has given medicine great service in the 20th century, and I agree. As we move further into the 21st century and see the transformational power of new technologies, it is equally true that the system of expecting the industry to go away and spend 10 to 15 years, and an average of £1.5 billion, to develop a new drug—many of them fail in late-stage clinical trials, because of some toxic side effect in one patient or a few small number of patients—is leading to a crisis in the industry and in the pipeline for new drugs and new treatments, and to patients increasingly suffering because we cannot give them innovative medicines.

Part of the agenda for this Government and all western Governments is to look at how to accelerate the way in which our health systems support research and to bring innovative medicines, as well as devices, diagnostics and other innovations, to benefit patients more quickly.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I apologise for not being in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I did not realise that the business had moved on so fast. In the university in Belfast, we have developed some great partnerships in relation to finding new drugs. Nearby Belfast city hospital works together in partnership with the university to address the issue of innovation for new drugs and to address how best to utilise them and make them available. I know that the Minister is aware of that, but does he recognise that such a partnership—with Queen’s university, financed by big business, alongside the NHS in the form of Belfast city hospital—is a precedent for how to innovate?

[George Freeman]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work being done in that cluster at Queen’s. I am delighted to say that I will be coming in the new year to support it and to show, as the UK Minister, that there are great clusters in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. I very much look forward to that visit.

The truth is that the landscape is changing. Part of the challenge that we all face is to find ways to accelerate earlier access to innovative treatments for patients, and earlier access for those developing innovative drugs, devices and diagnostics to our health system, so that we can more quickly design innovations that are more targeted and personalised. We are seeing the first genuinely personalised cancer therapies and drugs that, in the unfortunate event that one is diagnosed with cancer, can be designed around one’s genetic profile. I was at a seminar on that development this morning. It is changing the landscape of drug development. We are keen to ensure that we benefit from it in the UK and that we use every mechanism in the NHS to support it.

Breast Cancer

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Annette Brooke]

I thank my hon. Friend, and yes, it is so important. We have the good news that life expectancy is increasing under these circumstances, but that makes it all the more important to think about the quality of those extra years.

There are far fewer clinical nurse specialists for secondary breast cancer. There is no definitive figure, but estimates from Breast Cancer Care suggest that there may be no more than 20 clinical nurse specialists who have expertise or experience of working with secondary breast cancer. This is despite there being approximately 36,000 people living with a secondary breast cancer diagnosis. Given the results of the cancer patient experience survey, and anecdotal evidence from those living with secondary breast cancer, we can assume that many secondary breast cancer patients are not having as positive an experience in their care as those with a primary diagnosis. Unfortunately, we do not know for certain as the cancer patient experience survey does not include a specific stand-alone question on secondary breast cancer. It is essential that the survey continues, so could it not include a question on secondary breast cancer?

Breast Cancer Care ran a taskforce on secondary breast cancer in 2006. Its final report, published in 2008, highlighted a number of issues, other than those already mentioned, that patients with secondary breast cancer face. Those include multi-disciplinary teams not discussing secondary breast cancer routinely, the information needs of patients not being met, and patients not being assessed for their psychological or social needs following a diagnosis—the point that my hon. Friend has just made. Unfortunately, it seems that little progress has been made in the six years since that report was released.

Underpinning the problems with care and treatment for secondary breast cancer—and key to much of this debate—is the lack of data and information about patients diagnosed and living with the disease. As I have already mentioned, we still do not have an accurate figure for the number of people who have been diagnosed with secondary breast cancer, only an estimate. We do not have enough quantitative evidence about the experiences of secondary breast cancer patients.

I had the opportunity to meet some women at a recent Breast Cancer Care event to mark secondary breast cancer awareness day last month, and they told me that the care they received was often inadequate, and certainly not at the same standard as the care that followed their primary breast cancer diagnosis. Some typical comments from patients with secondary breast cancer include:

“A diagnosis of secondary breast cancer changes your life completely—nothing is ever the same again”;

“When you’re diagnosed with secondary breast cancer you can have no idea of just how far and in how many different ways it’s going to change your life. So many people don’t understand what a secondary diagnosis means”;

“So many people tell me how great I look, or tell me that I can beat it with chemo and surgery. They don’t understand that I am in pain and I can’t be cured”;

“The pain I had, from when I was diagnosed, basically it was excruciating. But the pain had started slowly and I’d always had aching pains in my chest area. To the point that it was so bad that I couldn’t hold a glass in my hand or put a handbag on my shoulder. I couldn’t touch my head, I couldn’t dress myself. I couldn’t sleep. I couldn’t turn on my side. And also I couldn’t breathe properly”;

“One thing that does distress me is the lack of continuity in my care and I think that if I had one person who was with me through it all that would help a lot”;

and

“The strange thing about this whole disease is that they don’t really prepare you at all. It’s almost finding out as you go along”.

I think that those comments highlight how much progress we have made on primary breast cancer, with all the advice and support that is given to patients very early on. I want to use this debate to highlight not only that progress, but the need to address those issues for secondary breast cancer, some of which have been faced with primary breast cancer.

Although the comments I have just read out highlight the human story, they are not enough to help us find the solutions. Without firm data and evidence, it is impossible to understand fully the impact of secondary breast cancer. We do not really know enough about the types of treatment that patients are receiving or how the quality of a patient’s life changes over time. That lack of information makes it virtually impossible for commissioners to be able to plan and commission services properly that meet local needs. That, in turn, makes it much harder for clinical nurse specialists with the right knowledge and skills to be recruited, particularly when NHS budgets are under pressure. The result is that patients continue to miss out on the vital support and care they need.

As I mentioned earlier, the Government have committed to improving the collection of data on secondary breast cancer, making it mandatory for the NHS in England. When my colleagues and I met the Prime Minister, he agreed that adequate data collection was required. Following that meeting, in January 2011, the Department of Health published its national cancer strategy, “Improving Outcomes”, which committed to collecting data on secondary breast cancer for the first time, stating:

“During 2011/12 we will pilot the collection of data on recurrence/metastasis on patients with breast cancer with the aim of undertaking full collection from April 2012.”

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way and apologise for not being here for the beginning of her speech; I was at a do down below and could not get here in time. She has just outlined the importance of collecting and then using data to respond to those who have breast cancer. She will also be aware that Breast Cancer Care has campaigned strongly to ensure that data are collected in England. I understand that it hopes to have a similar initiative in Scotland, Wales and, hopefully, Northern Ireland. She refers to the NHS in England. Does she share my opinion that the data should be collected for the whole of the UK so that we can agree a strategy that all four regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can benefit from?

[Annette Brooke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I hope that the Minister has taken that point on board, because it is really important. Although data are being collected, they are not being received by various groups, and the purpose of this debate is to address that.

The pilot was run by the National Cancer Intelligence Network in collaboration with Breast Cancer Care, and it involved 15 breast cancer units across England. The pilot report, published in March 2012, identified 598 patients with recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. Of those, only 53% were recorded as being referred to a clinical nurse specialist, palliative care nurse specialist or other key worker at the time of diagnosis. That is despite the NICE quality standards and the evidence in the cancer patient experience survey of the benefit to patients of a named nurse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Ellison]

I certainly pay tribute to all those who are trying to drive awareness of this issue. There are a number of very important campaigns. Prevention is so important; for example, it was good that it was right at the heart of the recent NHS “Five Year Forward View”. There is a lot more to do, and I have recently had discussions with some of the breast cancer charities about how we use their reach and undoubted public credibility, which is enormous, to raise awareness more about some of the things that people can do on the prevention front, as well as about their important work on care and drugs. I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to those campaigners.

The NHS is treating more people with cancer than ever, as I have said. Survival rates for breast cancer are improving, with more than 85% of women with breast cancer in England and Wales now living for more than five years. The work that all the charities have done in that regard is really important. They have all made significant contributions, but we know that more needs to be done, and that is the focus of this debate. We need to catch breast cancers earlier, and to avoid the risk of secondary breast cancers. We also need to improve the detection and treatment of secondary breast cancer, as my right hon. Friend has highlighted.

My right hon. Friend spoke very movingly about pain and its management. I am sure that we all agree that our NHS doctors and nurses do everything that they can to alleviate pain. In fact, it was good to see from the 2014 cancer patient experience survey that only 1% of patients reported that they did not think that hospital staff did everything they could to control their pain. Indeed, 86% of patients—the highest level in the four surveys so far—reported that staff did everything they could to control their pain. She is right to say that referral to specialist palliative care services can provide more by way of effective pain relief. The NHS must do what it can to ensure that women with secondary breast cancer have access to the right services. She is also right to highlight the room for improvement on that.

On the patient experience for women with secondary breast cancer, the results of the 2014 cancer patient experience survey show improvements in many areas, with 89% of all patients reporting that their care was either excellent or very good. As my right hon. Friend said, there are two specific references to secondary breast cancer in the NICE quality standard. The first states that people who develop it should

“have their treatment and care discussed by the multidisciplinary team”,

and the second states that people with recurrent or advanced breast cancer

“have access to a ‘key worker’, who is a clinical nurse specialist whose role is to provide continuity of care and support”—

she mentioned that—

“offer referral to psychological services if required and liaise with other healthcare professionals, including the GP and specialist palliative care services.”

NICE clinical guidelines represent best practice, and we expect commissioners and clinicians to take them into account when making decisions, including on the provision of cancer nurse specialists. On the whole, breast cancer patients reported a more positive experience than many other cancer patients, and 93% were given the name of a clinical nurse specialist. My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that we are not doing as well for patients with secondary cancer or a recurrence of cancer—those patients reported a worse experience and were less likely to have a clinical nurse specialist. NHS England is working with NHS Improving Quality, Macmillan Cancer Support and strategic clinical networks to improve the cancer patient experience and spread good practice across hospitals providing cancer care. That includes support from a clinical nurse specialist for those with secondary breast cancer.

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister is good in debates such as this and we always appreciate her response. One thing that is not always mentioned is the work done by pharmaceutical companies and their investigations to find and perfect new drugs to combat cancer. Current TV programmes often show people saying, “We’re almost there” when speaking about a cure for cancer—well, we are halfway there anyway. Together with pharmaceutical companies, universities such as Queen’s university in Belfast do fantastic work to find new drugs to address cancer and many other things. Sometimes that point is missed in debates such as this, so perhaps this is an occasion to get that on the record.

[Jane Ellison]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman who is always present in health debates and makes an important contribution. If he were to secure a debate on research and clinical trials, I would be delighted to respond. He is right to say that that topic is sometimes a bit unsung, and it is enormously hope-giving for people to hear what is in the pipeline. He is right to highlight that issue, and perhaps we could explore it in a bit more detail on another occasion.

I alluded earlier to work that is taking place to bring everybody up to the best standard. That includes pairing highly rated cancer trusts with those that have potential to improve, regional events for commissioners to consider how patient experience survey results inform commissioning decisions, and the publication of guidance on using survey data to drive improvement. The survey is used in very hands-on ways, and in previous debates I have been impressed at the extent to which data are used right at the front line to say, “This is what really good looks like”, or to highlight where services can be improved by reference to those who are doing things well.

The need to improve is recognised by the NHS. In his forward to the 2014 survey report, Sean Duffy, NHS England’s national clinical director for cancer, recognised the importance of clinical nurse specialists and the need to be particularly sensitive to the needs of patients with a recurrence of cancer. We all recognise the picture that my right hon. Friend painted of people telling others of their diagnosis and what they say and the enormity of the news they are trying to convey not really being understood. Sean Duffy also highlighted the need for sensitivity when the cancer has not responded to treatment as had been hoped.

I understand that NHS England has no plans to discontinue the cancer patient experience survey. I have drawn on it a number of times when responding to debates, and it has been extremely valuable to front-line clinicians for understanding where excellence is being practised. I am keen and have stressed to NHS England on a number of occasions how much Members of the House appreciate the survey and feel that it informs our debates and the knowledge of our constituents.

The survey is overseen by the cancer patient experience advisory group, chaired by Neil Churchill, NHS England’s director of patient experience. Suggestions for amendments or additions to the survey can be addressed to that group. I will obviously draw this debate to the attention of NHS England, and the all-party group on breast cancer will continue to engage with it on ways that the survey could be improved or amended.



My right hon. Friend mentioned the need to improve detection and treatment of people with secondary breast cancer. We need to have good data about those affected. As she said, in the 2011 cancer outcomes strategy we committed to pilot the collection of data about metastatic disease, which had previously not been recorded. In March 2012, a report on the pilot data collection project was published. The pilot programme included data from 15 units and enabled the National Cancer Intelligence Network to identify deficits in the information recorded for those patients. Lessons learned from the pilot have now been applied to a country-wide programme. Since April 2012, all breast units have been required to submit information on all patients diagnosed with a new recurrence or with metastatic disease through the cancer waiting times process.

Analysis of the cancer waiting times data, based on referrals to hospital between 1 April 2012 and March 2013, shows that 7,176 patients were diagnosed or treated for recurrent breast cancer in England. However, we know we need to improve the quality of the data to ensure that we are getting the full picture. There are significant discrepancies between trusts and the analysis will need to be updated with more recent cancer waiting times data to ensure that the figures are robust. The NCIN, Macmillan and the Public Health England knowledge and intelligence teams are working collaboratively on a system to detect patients with recurrent breast cancer by looking at treatment patterns. Results from that collaborative work should be available in 2015. I know it is a source of frustration that they have not been available to date, but that work is at least ongoing. I will pursue that point further with Public Health England after the debate. We have regular meetings. I will of course raise the issue and ensure we keep the House up to date.

On the national peer review programme, I would like to assure my right hon. Friend that NHS England is currently reviewing the national cancer peer review programme with a view to considering how its success might be extended into other new areas of specialised commissioning. Regardless of the outcome of the review, cancer peer review will continue to play a critical part in any broader peer review programme the NHS might introduce. Further details will be published shortly as part of the wider review into specialist commissioning.

The clinical commissioning group outcomes indicator set is not designed for use as an accountability tool. For that, NHS England uses the CCG assurance delivery dashboard—I apologise for the jargon, which, unfortunately, is a feature of these debates—to hold CCGs to account. “Everyone Counts: Planning for Patients 2014/15-2018/19” was used by NHS England to identify the relevant indicators for reporting in the CCG dashboard. In addition, as new data have come on line throughout 2013-14, as well as feedback received on the indicators that are currently being used, NHS England has reviewed whether there is potential to make improvements in 2014-15. The cancer indicators used in the CCG assurance dashboard are based on cancer waiting times. NHS England is continually looking to improve the delivery dashboard. I know the all-party group will continue to engage with that process, as will the charity that supports it and the other charities.

As well as improving patient experience, we want to ensure that women are informed about the risks of metastatic disease so it can be diagnosed early. NHS England breast cancer clinical reference group is determined to ensure that everything possible is done to reduce the risk of secondary breast cancer. It is preparing a service specification for the provision of breast cancer services in England. NHS England knows that the information currently given to patients on the risk of secondary breast cancer is variable and frequently inadequate. That was brought to life for all of us in the Chamber by the deeply moving extracts from the comments of sufferers that were read out by my right hon. Friend. I do not think that any of us could have been unaffected by them. The clinical reference group’s service specification will require that all patients should have an end of primary treatment consultation, which will include advice on signs and symptoms that might indicate secondary breast cancer. That information needs to be delivered together with an holistic needs assessment as part of a recovery package. The evidence that this has been done will have to be recorded in the records of every breast cancer patient.

Touching briefly on research, the National Institute for Health Research is enabling patients to take part in trials of new treatments for metastatic breast cancer through its clinical research network.

As we all know, early diagnosis is key. Alongside the work to increase awareness, the Government have committed £450 million to achieve earlier diagnosis and the associated improved cancer survival rates. On breast cancer specifically, in February and March, we ran a Be Clear on Cancer campaign to increase awareness of breast cancer in women over 70. The proportion of women spontaneously mentioning breast cancer rose significantly, as did confidence in people’s knowledge of signs and symptoms of breast cancer. The campaign was well recognised, with many agreeing that the advertising would prompt them to talk to somebody close to them about the symptoms to watch out for. As well as increasing awareness, the campaign appears to have resulted in a large increase in referrals to secondary care in the target age group. The analysis, although only interim, suggests a significant increase in the number of women over 70 self-referring for breast screening. We are encouraged by that.

In addition, Public Health England is funding the biggest randomised control trial in the world and extending the NHS breast screening programme to women in the 47 to 49 age group and the 71 to 73 age group. As the trial is studying the effects of screening on breast cancer mortality rates over time, the results will not be known until the early 2020s, but it is an important and extensive study.

To conclude, I thank my right hon. Friend once again for bringing this debate to the House, the manner in which she introduced it and her important work on this subject throughout her parliamentary career, and I thank my other hon. Friends who have supported her and who also take a great interest in this subject. She is right to point out that fundamentally there is a message hope: so great is our progress that we can now compare of where we want to be with secondary breast cancer with where we increasingly are with breast cancer. However, she also rightly reminds us that more progress needs to be made.

I shall draw this debate to the attention of the national clinical director, Sean Duffy, and make him aware of the concern expressed in the House on this subject. I reassure my right hon. Friend of the Government’s commitment to reducing the incidence of secondary breast cancer and to improving outcomes for everyone diagnosed with this terrible disease. I offer a message of hope and improvement to all of them.

Question put and agreed to.

Physical Inactivity (Public Health)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) on bringing this issue forward for consideration.

When we look at the figures for physical inactivity, some of them are horrendous. In a world where we are so image and health conscious, it makes me wonder why we have not moved forward in the way that we should have done.

We followed the Olympic games in 2012 by putting an emphasis on making more people do forms of exercise. Cycling was in, the gas-guzzlers were out and pedal power seemed to be winning the day.

We also have to look at ourselves, because we are all different—in fact, unique. We are all different shapes and sizes. Also, some of us have faster metabolisms than others. Some of us could eat buns and cakes until the cows come home and not get fat; others just look at buns and cakes and their waistline expands straight away. That is what we are—different—so sometimes we have our own in-built systems that have to be addressed as well, and physical activity is a way of doing that. We want to try to ensure that those who are inactive consider physical activity; if they do not do more physical activity, their lives could be shortened.

Thirty minutes of exercise—three 10-minute blocks of exercise—can increase our life span, and reduce our chances of developing a wide variety of diseases. I am a type 2 diabetic myself. My developing diabetes was not necessarily down to a lack of exercise; it was down to diet. What we eat is therefore also important. Physical activity is important, but so is diet.

There are international figures to show the number of people who are not getting the recommended levels of physical activity. In the Netherlands, the figure is just 18% of the population; in Germany, 28%; in France, 33%; Finland and Australia are tied at 38%; they are followed by the USA, the stereotypical view of which is that everything is supersized, including people’s thighs, and 41% of its population are not reaching the levels of activity recommended; but the figure for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is 63%, so we are at the wrong end of the scale, unfortunately.

Why is that important? It is important because Finland in 1970, for example, had the highest rate of heart disease in the whole of Europe, but now Finland has one of the lowest rates of premature cardiovascular deaths in Europe, the figure having dropped by 65% since 1970. In Finland, men are now living for an average of seven years longer, and women for an average of eight years longer, than they did in 1970. The right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Kevin Barron), who spoke before me, was absolutely right when he said that it has taken decades for that type of change to happen, but we have to start somewhere and hopefully we can start here.

At present, physical inactivity is responsible for 17% of premature deaths in the UK. According to ukactive, if everyone in England achieved their recommended amount of physical activity, 37,000 lives would be saved each year. Unfortunately, the other part of that equation is that if action is not taken, that figure of 17% will increase by another 15% by 2030. That is why the Government need to encourage the general public to be more active. In her response, perhaps the Minister could consider defining physical activity as a stand-alone public health issue, as has been requested by the World Health Organisation.

In its report, “Steps to solving inactivity”, ukactive found a clear correlation between physical inactivity and deprivation. That is also why this issue should be prioritised in public health, education, social care and transport policy. Active children are more likely to be active adults, so the education in this area must start at home at an early stage. It is for not only the Department of Health, but the Department for Education and other Departments to consider. When it comes to the education of children, we all know the benefits of eating well and exercising.

The right hon. Member for Rother Valley said that when we were younger we had physical exercise; we did not have Facebook or Xboxes. That is a fact. Some parents even tell me that their children contact them in the kitchen below by texting or Facebooking them from the bedroom above. That is ridiculous, but it is a fact; that is sometimes how things are done. That is where we are moving to, and we have to address those issues. We are also in a different age, one where the vulnerability of children is greater than before, and we are obviously concerned about that.

In his introduction to the debate, the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent referred to the anti-smoking campaign. It has been so successful that since 1998 1.5 million people have stopped smoking. Physical inactivity is the fourth largest cause of disease and disability in the UK, contributing to one in six deaths here. When we consider what the anti-smoking campaign achieved, I believe that we can do the same when it comes to promoting physical activity. Exercise is necessary for everyone’s health, regardless of their shape and size.

Care Workers

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I will certainly keep to that figure if I can, Mr Robertson. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) on bringing the matter to the House for our consideration. For us in Northern Ireland, the role of care workers is important, as it is across the whole United Kingdom. Every one of us will have personal knowledge from our constituents, and perhaps in some cases from a family point of view, of the good work that care workers do. As the spokesperson for health for the Democratic Unionist party here in Westminster, I am delighted to make a contribution.

There are a great many different kinds of care offered in the UK; a cross-section includes care homes and home care, which we probably all know about as individual MPs. There is also dementia care—we have to recognise that the population is growing older and that there are more cases of dementia and Alzheimer’s—palliative care and care for those with learning or physical disabilities, to name just a few. In the case of palliative care, Britain is the only country in the world where it is a recognised medical specialism with a full four-year training programme. We have the best palliative care in the world, and it is good to recognise that.

In a recent survey by The Economist, Britain was ranked first in the world for quality end-of-life care. The survey took in 40 OECD and non-OECD countries, including the USA, the Netherlands, Germany and France. When we are beating all those countries—many of us look across at them with some awe when we hear some stories about what they can do—and hearing that we are in the front line, that is something we can be proud of, as it is extremely important to provide the best possible care right through a person’s life, and particularly at the end of their life. I stand in awe of how care workers, of every kind, in every type of care, do their jobs. It takes a certain kind of person to be able to do those jobs—I am not sure whether I could do it, but I admire those who can and who do it well.

A variety of organisations throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland offer these vital services. The NHS is, of course, the main one, but Care UK is also one of the leading independent providers of health and social care services across the UK. For those who do not need to go into a respite or care home, home help is available and care workers can help in a number of ways, from domiciliary care to shopping, cooking and cleaning, and driving the person to and from community events.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is sometimes a double whammy, in that the standard of care is put at risk because of the often condensed nature of a 15-minute visit, while that also puts stress and pressure on the care worker, because of the severe intensity of trying to ensure that they get there in time knowing that they have a very limited window? That is causing problems doubly, both for the carer and for those for whom they care.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend and colleague for mentioning that. Every one of us will adhere to that and will have examples of that as well.

Care workers are responsible for looking after older people, including, as mentioned previously, the provision of dementia care and palliative care, and people with learning disabilities, in order to provide a full and independent life—it is important that we try to make their lives as normal as possible. My hon. Friend highlighted the issue of care workers rushing in for a 15-minute slot, in which they interact with the person verbally and help them physically, or whatever their duties may be. To do that and be out of the house in that time is, I would suggest, impossible.

Care workers also work alongside those with physical or mental health disabilities, as well as people who have acquired a brain injury and are working along the pathway to rehabilitation. On that matter, my brother Keith had a motorbike accident some 10 years ago. He had very serious brain injuries, but care workers gave him attention during their four visits a day. Without those care workers, it is clear that he would not be able to have a normal life at home—as much of a normal life as he could have—so again, everyone is aware of the work that care workers do and the difference that they make.

As was referred to earlier, dementia will affect one in six people over the age of 80. Some 750,000 people in the United Kingdom live with dementia, and having that disease does not always mean that someone goes to a care home. People can stay at home and have a good quality of life at home—that involves not only those who are at home, the family members, but those who call—and undoubtedly, that is due to the fantastic work and support of the care workers who enable men and women with the disease to enjoy an independent and rewarding lifestyle.

Hospice care can run for days, months or years. Most care is provided in people’s homes, but people also visit hospices for day therapy and stay as in-patients. Hospices provide expert care and support for 360,000 people—those are not just figures, they are people. They are individuals and their families, and that is a point I want to hit on as well. The care and support is based on the belief that everyone matters all the way through their life until the moment they die, and that no one should die in avoidable pain, suffering or emotional distress. Such care is very important, as Britain’s older population is set to rise sharply over the next few decades, with the number of people aged 85 and over expected to double in the next few years—some in this room may fit into that category, I suspect, and hope that they will have a good quality of life at that time as well.

Undoubtedly, the job of care workers is not an easy one, and we are deeply indebted to them—people have got to recognise that rather than miss it and not speak of it. However, in recent years, they have not always hit the headlines for the right reasons. Abuse is something that we take extremely seriously, but when we hear of it taking place in care and respite homes at the hands of care workers, who are employed to support and care for them, it is truly sickening. We have heard reports of physical, sexual and emotional abuse. Earlier this year, BBC 1’s “Panorama” did a story on some homes where residents were physically beaten, verbally abused and left in their own excrement for hours.

A Government initiative in England was set up in 2000 called “No Secrets”, aiming to set out the ways in which workers were expected to treat patients with dignity, respect and compassion, as well as ensuring that health and social care services work together effectively. It was a great initiative back in 2000, but given what has come to light in recent months, I feel—perhaps the Minister can respond to this point—that much more needs to be done to ensure that what was set out in the “No Secrets” initiative at that time works better.

The majority of care workers do fantastic work. They do their jobs because they are passionate about helping those who are in less fortunate positions than themselves. However, as with every job, there are those who take advantage, and we have to ensure that vulnerable patients are well looked after and that no abuse takes place. We all recognise the great work that care workers do. They are undoubtedly overworked and do a phenomenal job, and for many people, they are the only contact that they have with the world outside their door.

Transient Ischaemic Attacks

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Helen Jones]

I of course accept the Minister’s apology. I am sure that she would not be deliberately discourteous to any Member of the House.

Part of the reason why action is not being taken is that public awareness of TIAs is low. A 2012 poll for the Stroke Association found that few people understood the symptoms. In a recent survey of people who had experienced TIAs, the association found that 44% had no knowledge of TIAs prior to having had one and, astoundingly, 61% did not know that it was a warning sign of a possible future stroke. Those were people who had already had TIAs, so it is unsurprising that a third of people take no action following a TIA. Others do not realise that it is a medical emergency and wait for appointments. Astonishingly, the Stroke Association found that a quarter of the people surveyed did not take any action even though they had had TIA symptoms more than once. People may not know where to go for help, and some think that nothing can be done.

When people do seek help, however, it is fair to say that the service that they receive is variable. The all-party group on stroke heard from two former patients, one of whom had been treated quickly and efficiently, but the other had had the opposite experience. The Stroke Association found that while many people have a great deal of praise for how they were treated and for the care provided by health care staff—it is important to put that on the record—16% felt that they were not taken seriously and 25% said that their symptoms had been misdiagnosed. One person at the all-party group meeting had actually heard a paramedic say those classic words, “It’s just a funny turn.” Another person told the Stroke Association:

“Our GP has told us not to bother to attend GP surgery or A and E as it is not worth it for TIAs.”

Another said:

“I had numerous TIAs that were misdiagnosed as migraine.”

Such comments are worrying, particularly given that parts of the NHS deal with the matter well and show great examples of good practice. The south-western ambulance service, for example, has pioneered direct referral of suspected TIA patients to a TIA clinic. It has invested in training its staff and all ambulances carry details of TIAs, of the referral pathway and, importantly, information for patients. I have also heard a great deal about what has been done at Southend university hospital, which went from having a Monday to Friday TIA clinic to having an online rapid referral system, using new technology, that helps GPs and health care staff to assess patients and to transmit information directly to the clinic or even to the consultant’s mobile. It trained more clinical staff to do ultrasounds and changed the protocol for MRI scans, so that patients can be accommodated in between the normal list. As a result, its service operates seven days a week and sees all high-risk patients within 24 hours and others within a week, as recommended. That service saves lives and enables tests to be done and treatment to be begun on the same day. If that can be done in Southend, it can be done elsewhere. The first problem is actually getting patients to realise that they need treatment.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and I appreciate her bringing this matter before the House. The Government run the FAST campaign, which covers symptoms similar to those of TIAs. Could the issues be addressed through that campaign? The Government, officials, GPs and families could use it in the same way. That might be a way forward.

[Helen Jones]

The hon. Gentleman takes the words right out of my mouth. I was going to put it to the Minister that the FAST campaign has been excellent and has raised awareness of stroke symptoms and of the need to call an ambulance. We need to extend the campaign to TIAs, because people still wait for treatment or do not access it at all. There are also people who go to the wrong person for treatment, such as an optician, because they mistake their symptoms for something else.

Investment in staff training is vital, in particular for front-line staff, because TIAs are difficult to diagnose. Often when a patient is seen, their symptoms have gone and health care workers rely on reports of what happened. It is also true that TIAs can mimic other illnesses, such as epilepsy, migraine or visual disturbances, which is all the more reason why front-line staff—the first point of contact for patients—should be trained to recognise the symptoms. We must also ensure that referral systems are in place, so that people can access treatment rapidly. I hope that the examples I have given show that it is possible to meet the guidelines contained within the national clinical guidelines for stroke, so that people can be treated quickly and easily. However, the Stroke Association found that 22% of people wait more than a week for their first appointment, which is quite outside what the guidelines recommend.

The provision of information is absolutely vital. The Stroke Association’s report, “Not just a funny turn”, contains many examples of people who have changed their lifestyles and diet after being given proper information following a TIA, so that they hugely reduce the risk of a future stroke, but that does not always happen. Some 40% of people say that they are given little or no information following an attack, and some 50% do not know about the risk of a possible future stroke. The report contains some worrying comments. One person says:

“After TIA I had no support or advice or information… I didn’t know about risk of stroke—was not told this by anyone.”

I find that profoundly shocking. It is not even a case of spending a lot of money; it is simply about having information to give to patients. What will the Minister do to ensure that that actually happens?

My next point, which the Minister and I have debated with regard to stroke, is about the provision of emotional support after a TIA. Like a stroke, a TIA is an event that someone does not expect or plan for. Many people lack support afterwards, but with support they can make changes that reduce their future risk. Some people feel that they need counselling, others simply want to talk to someone who has experienced a TIA and others want to be in contact with patients’ groups or organisations such as the Stroke Association. If people are given the right information, they can do all that, but the information is often not given to them at all. That, too, could be done with little expense.

We have some good care in the national health service—some excellent care—but it is patchy. I want to hear from the Minister how she plans to raise public awareness of TIAs and to extend the FAST campaign to cover them, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said.

What will be done about training front-line staff so that we bring everyone up to the level of the best? That is a difficult matter. We cannot blame staff for misdiagnosis if they are not trained properly. We need to train them. What will be done to ensure rapid access to treatment everywhere in the country, not simply for those who happen to be lucky and live near an excellent hospital? The NHS works best when its organisations co-operate and learn from one another. We need to ensure that that co-operation takes place.

Finally, what will the Minister do to ensure that people get the right information following a TIA, as well as support afterwards to deal with the emotional issues and to help change their lifestyles to lessen the risk of stroke in future? That would be a sensible investment for the NHS. It would ensure not only that we saved a great deal of money, but that we prevented a great deal of disability and heartbreak and even deaths.

I look forward to hearing the Minister tell us what is to be done about the important issue of TIAs. We could save lives if we invested in it properly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Ellison]

I note the hon. Lady’s comments.

Turning to the Act FAST campaign, when people have a TIA, getting medical attention quickly is key, as the hon. Lady said. Ensuring that the general public are familiar with the signs and symptoms is important. Public Health England continues to run the highly impactful Act FAST stroke awareness campaign, which covers similar signs to those of a TIA—I note that she is right to draw the distinctions—and the simple message to call 999 if such signs are witnessed. The campaign was run again in March this year, and new adverts feature an Afro-Caribbean man to underline the fact that people from some ethnic groups, whether south Asian, African or Caribbean, are at higher risk of TIA and stroke than others. PHE plans to run the adverts again later in the financial year. Over the summer, the Stroke Association also ran a campaign to raise awareness of TIA, “Not just a funny turn”. It was welcome and many of us saw it.

The hon. Lady also referred to front-line staff and to raising awareness of signs and symptoms. Act FAST and the Stroke Association’s campaign were aimed at public and professionals alike to ensure that everyone acts swiftly. PHE plans to run its adverts, which do not only face the public, again before April 2015.

In addition, NHS England has produced a resource for clinical commissioning groups, to support them in setting and delivering on the level of our ambition to reduce premature mortality. TIAs form an important part of that. The resource includes information on the most high-impact interventions that CCGs can consider commissioning to reduce premature mortality, and TIAs fit into that description. One such intervention is to increase the proportion of patients suffering a TIA treated within 24 hours from 71% to 100%. Let us recognise that TIAs sit right at the core of all the resources being distributed to our front-line staff and produced by NHS England.

NHS England has also been working with the 111 service to ensure that the protocols and triaging systems on the phone lines are used to identify as many people with stroke and TIAs as possible. We recognise that there is more to do and that such work is ongoing.

On getting patients the treatment that they need, quite a lot of work is under way in many parts of the country to reorganise services. That involves reconfiguring care for patients with TIAs as well as acute strokes. For example, in Birmingham and the black country, Warwickshire, Surrey and Sussex standards for TIA care have been set and services are being redesigned to ensure that patients with high-risk TIA can be seen and managed within 24 hours.

The reorganisation of vascular surgery services into a smaller number of higher-volume units is also improving the efficiency of the provision of surgery for TIA. There have been huge improvements in TIA patients’ access to neurovascular clinics in recent years. That is important because, as the hon. Lady said, we know that the risk of stroke in the first four weeks after a TIA can be as high as 20%. It is vital that people are seen urgently and their symptoms investigated, and that a management plan is put in place.

The hon. Lady said that services can be inconsistent. We want to ensure that we work towards making all services as good as the best, but part of that work is to define what the best standards are and to disseminate best practice. I will talk about some of the ways in which that is done.

The 2012 national clinical guidelines for stroke recommend that patients who have had a TIA are seen, investigated and treated in a neurovascular clinic within one week. A few years ago, such clinics were relatively unusual and waiting times could run to weeks or months. Information from the latest Sentinel stroke national audit programme organisational audit published in 2012 shows a picture of real improvement. According to the audit, 100% of trusts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland now have a TIA or neurovascular clinic, with a median of 20 clinics held in each four-week period. There has been a really big improvement in access to those clinics.

The same audit also said that there are very few areas of the country where a high-risk TIA patient would need to wait more than a week, and that over half of high-risk in-patients could be seen the same day, seven days a week. We are waiting for an update of that audit, which is due to be published quite soon. I hope to see further improvement.

In the mini-exchange I had with the hon. Lady at the beginning of my contribution, we touched on best practice. The strategic clinical networks are important for that. They bring together clinicians from across health care settings and the wider health and care system in 12 geographic areas. The SCNs share best practice and promote initiatives on their core service areas, which include cardiovascular disease. The networks hold regular meetings to enable communication and information sharing. As an MP for a London constituency, I saw the benefit of bringing that clinical excellence to bear in the reorganisation of stroke services in London. Such work is ongoing, to make sure that best practice is disseminated around the country.

[Jim Shannon]

One problem I am aware of—I suspect the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) is as well—is that TIAs pass in two or three minutes and there is no real understanding of what is happening among friends, relatives or others who are close by when they occur. The hon. Lady is trying to push for raising the level of awareness, and I am sure the Minister would wish to achieve that as well. How can we better achieve that within the Act FAST campaign? That was what I was hoping the Minister would set out.

[Jane Ellison]

I am happy to put that issue on the agenda for my next meeting with Public Health England, which puts together such campaigns. We all wish to raise awareness of the symptoms of a lot of different conditions, but one has to be realistic about how many public information campaigns we can run and how those can be organised. However, I am happy to have that discussion with Public Health England, because we are pleased with the way in which the Act FAST campaign has been received. There is clearly something to build on. I also know that the Stroke Association feels strongly about the issue. I am happy to discuss it and perhaps feed back in due course.

Hon. Members might be interested to know that the National Institute for Health Research has recently funded research on TIAs to look at the pathways taken by patients, from symptom onset to specialist assessment. That research found that factors contributing to delay included incorrect interpretation of symptoms and failure to involve the emergency services. The research is something else we can build on in order to understand what needs to be put in place so that we can do better.

Work is under way, and I am happy to look at what has been said today about public information. However, we have made a really good start. The picture for stroke care is also really improving. Sometimes I respond to debates on issues where we have not seen improvements of the kind that I set out on specialist clinics and surgery. We can see some real momentum, so it is case of building on that and on awareness of symptoms. I pay tribute to the work of the Stroke Association and its report. I saw the “Not just a funny turn” campaign over the summer, which I thought was well judged and was put across well. It did a good job of attracting publicity to stroke and TIA, so I congratulate the association on the campaign.

I hope that what I have said will reassure the hon. Member for Warrington North that the Government and the NHS both recognise that it is vital to ensure that people who have had a TIA receive the right treatment and care to help them to recover. I have not touched on the issue of psychological support, which was the subject of our debate last year, at which time there were encouraging signs. I will write to her about how those have been built upon over the past year and whether we have continued to make progress.

The picture is improving, but we recognise that there is more work to do. I congratulate the hon. Lady on keeping this issue very much at the forefront of Parliament’s attention. As ever, I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for contributing to this debate on health in the way in which he always does. We are all keen to see the best possible services for people to ensure that TIA care is of the highest quality and that we minimise the number of people who go on to suffer a stroke.

Question put and agreed to.

Ovarian Cancer (Gene Testing)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman his intervention. I agree that it is all about early diagnosis. Women who are diagnosed in the early stages of ovarian cancer have a 90% chance of surviving the next five years, but if the cancer is found at a later stage the five-year survival rate is reduced to 22%—quite a startling statistic. Clearly, early diagnosis and treatment is vital.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this important issue to the House’s consideration. Some 39% of women carry the harmful BRCA1 gene and up to 70% carry the BRCA2 gene. Does the hon. Lady think that those with a family history of the disease should be tested earlier to ensure they have regular check-ups and screenings? Does she also think that those outside that 39% should have checks?

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree that early diagnosis of ovarian cancer is the key for women.

UK survival rates for ovarian cancer are among the lowest in western Europe, with one woman dying every two hours from the disease. Sadly, according to the Department of Health in Northern Ireland, survival rates for the cancer have not improved significantly since the early 1990s. Dr Miriam McCarthy of the Public Health Agency in Northern Ireland pointed out at a recent hearing in Stormont that the northern European and Scandinavian countries have five-year survival rates above 40%, so we could clearly do more to combat the cancer.

Anybody who has personal or familial experience of this dreadful illness knows the devastating impact it has. In Northern Ireland, a lady called Una Crudden courageously documented her fight with the disease and inspired many others to do the same. I know of a young lady, a teacher in my constituency called Oonagh Carson, who died last year shortly after diagnosis, which took her a long time to get.

NHS Services (Access)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The motion is entitled “Access to NHS services” and I wish to comment on four categories of the NHS where services can be improved. Today we have heard one of the central themes of the next Westminster election on 7 May next year, because the battleground will clearly be the NHS. We have heard different opinions from both sides of the Chamber about the best way forward.

Parkinson’s disease is a progressive neurological condition that affects 127,000 people in the UK with an average age of 50 to 60. One person in every 500 has Parkinson’s disease, and there is no prospect of a person’s condition improving over time as there is currently no cure. Medication is the main treatment for the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease, and many people require multiple doses at specific times throughout the day. People with Parkinson’s who are admitted to hospitals are often prevented from managing their own medication, or are not given it in time. That leads to a deterioration in their condition, or even to permanent harm. It is clear that that costs the NHS some £20 million a year and that it is down to medication mismanagement in hospitals. It is a simple matter of receiving medication in time. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that people with Parkinson’s always receive their medication on time in hospital, which in turn would mean that patients could return home sooner and that those costs could be greatly reduced? We talk about access to NHS services, but we need to know about funding, too.

Other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), have referred to Alzheimer’s. The numbers are horrific. Some 856,000 people in the UK have it: 720,000 in England; 45,000 in Wales; 70,000 in Scotland; and 21,000 in Northern Ireland. It will cost the UK £26 billion a year. Yet again, the question is: can access to NHS services happen? The costs are astronomical. How does the Minister plan to prepare for providing the necessary services in the years to come, perhaps at a reduced cost, and ever mindful of the access to the NHS services we all wish to have?

My third concern is diabetes. It is a great concern to many. It has been referred to in the Chamber and other places as a ticking time bomb that will cost the NHS the most money. It is also a question of access to services. I declare an interest as a type 2 diabetic—other hon. Members have the same problem. Diabetes UK says that, in this year alone, 280,000 people will be diagnosed with diabetes, which is the equivalent of the population of Newcastle—if we want to put the problem into perspective and relate it to a town or a city, that is the figure. The number of people living with type 1 and type 2 diabetes has increased throughout the UK: by 33% in Northern Ireland; by 25% in England; by 20% in Wales; and by 18% in Scotland. Some 738 people are diagnosed with type 2 diabetes per day.

The cost is significant. A report on diabetes in the NHS estimates a total cost of £3.5 billion per annum, or £9.6 million per day. An estimated 10% of the NHS budget is spent on diabetes, which is some £286 a second. The problem is funding and access to services. How do we ensure that people who are diabetic access NHS services?

A health survey in Northern Ireland—I am sure the figures are equivalent for the rest of the UK on the mainland—showed that some 62% of adults were classified as overweight or obese. The interesting thing that worries me a wee bit is children. Some 19% of children were reported to be overweight, and a further 6% were reported to be obese. When it comes to access to NHS treatment, what steps is the Minister taking to address childhood obesity and diet?

My final point is on cancer drugs. A central theme of the motion is cancer referrals and treatment waiting times. The problem impacts not only on those on the mainland, but on those of us in Northern Ireland and on our access to cancer drugs, despite Northern Ireland being an integral part of the United Kingdom and despite it being covered by the work of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, unlike Scotland, for example. Patients in Northern Ireland do not have access to 40 cancer drugs simply because of their postcodes.

In my discussions with Jim Wells, the Minister who has responsibility for health in Northern Ireland, he has referred to access in Northern Ireland to the individual funding request, whereby a consultant can submit an application for one of those 40 drugs on a patient’s behalf. However, there is a high hurdle, known as the “exceptionality test”, which is very hard to pass. Many consultants in Northern Ireland do not apply to use the IFR and know that the application will not pass. What discussions has the Minister had with the Minister in Northern Ireland on that? It is totally unfair. I am baffled and find it totally unacceptable that the access to treatments for my constituents who are diagnosed with cancer—they live in Northern Ireland and pay UK tax—is far more limited than it is for patients in the rest of the UK. With that in mind, I believe it is time for the provision of cancer drugs across the whole United Kingdom, and to the 331,487 people in the UK with cancer, irrespective of postcode.