1-20 of 358 results for subject:Surgery
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.347 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.004 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Surgery
- We searched for
- subject_t:Surgery OR subject_t:Operations OR subject_t:Surgeons OR subject_ses:93173
Type
House
Session
More
Year
Department
Member
More
Primary member
More
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
My hon. Friend will know that the safe and sustainable review was established independently within the NHS by the joint committee of primary care trusts and that it is being sustained by NHS England on the same basis. Those are decisions for NHS England and I, of all people, must...
My hon. Friend will know that the safe and sustainable review was established independently within the NHS by the joint committee of primary care trusts and that it is being sustained by NHS England on the same basis. Those are decisions for NHS England and I, of all people, must...
My hon. Friend will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary said in response to an urgent question about these issues. I share the Health Secretary’s confidence in the decisions that Sir Bruce Keogh took and, indeed, his precautionary approach. As my hon. Friend will recall, in...
My hon. Friend will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary said in response to an urgent question about these issues. I share the Health Secretary’s confidence in the decisions that Sir Bruce Keogh took and, indeed, his precautionary approach. As my hon. Friend will recall, in...
To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the (a) total and (b) non-legal costs to his Department has been of legal processes as a result of the Safe and Sustainable Review to date.
[152798]
To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the (a) total and (b) non-legal costs to his Department has been of legal processes as a result of the Safe and Sustainable Review to date.
[152798]
It has not been possible to provide an answer in the time available before Prorogation.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health what costs there have been to individual parties arising from the Safe and Sustainable Review in each year for which figures are available.
[152987]
To ask the Secretary of State for Health what costs there have been to individual parties arising from the Safe and Sustainable Review in each year for which figures are available.
[152987]
It has not been possible to provide an answer in the time available before Prorogation.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total cost to the public purse was of legal action in relation to the Safe and Sustainable Review.
[152998]
To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total cost to the public purse was of legal action in relation to the Safe and Sustainable Review.
[152998]
It has not been possible to provide an answer in the time available before Prorogation.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total cost to the public purse is of the Independent Review Panel looking at the Safe and Sustainable consultation procedure to date.
[152999]
To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total cost to the public purse is of the Independent Review Panel looking at the Safe and Sustainable consultation procedure to date.
[152999]
It has not been possible to provide an answer in the time available before Prorogation.
Figures released in answer to a written question I tabled on the safe and sustainable review show that costs to date include over £300,000 in legal fees, £1.7 million for external communication consultants and over £6 million in other costs. That is around £8 million in total. Now we hear...
Figures released in answer to a written question I tabled on the safe and sustainable review show that costs to date include over £300,000 in legal fees, £1.7 million for external communication consultants and over £6 million in other costs. That is around £8 million in total. Now we hear...
A few weeks ago we had a debate on the lack of accountability in the NHS and I am afraid it appears that we need another one. On 19 April, these comments were made in Computer Weekly about Sir Bruce Keogh’s decision to suspend surgery at Leeds:
“Keogh, first by requesting...
A few weeks ago we had a debate on the lack of accountability in the NHS and I am afraid it appears that we need another one. On 19 April, these comments were made in Computer Weekly about Sir Bruce Keogh’s decision to suspend surgery at Leeds:
“Keogh, first by requesting...
To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much NHS Specialised Services has spent on external communications consultants for the Safe and Sustainable Review of children's heart surgery services in England and Wales and JCPCT decision-making process to date;
[152903]
To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much NHS Specialised Services has spent on external communications consultants for the Safe and Sustainable Review of children's heart surgery services in England and Wales and JCPCT decision-making process to date;
[152903]
The figures requested are tabled as follows:
| Costs
incurred by NHS Specialised Services on the Safe and Sustainable review
of children's heart services in England and Wales and the Joint
Committee of Primary Care Trusts decision-making process, to March
2013 | |
| £ | |
| Legal
costs for the judicial review case brought by Save Our Surgery
Ltd | 301,000 |
| External
communications
consultants | 1,740,000 |
| Other
costs incurred (from 2009-10 to 2012-13
inclusive) | 6,036,000 |
(2) how much has been spent by the NHS on legal costs for the judicial review case brought by Save Our Surgery Ltd;
[152904]
Stuart Andrew:
(2) how much has been spent by the NHS on legal costs for the judicial review case brought by Save Our Surgery Ltd;
[152904]
Stuart Andrew:
The figures requested are tabled as follows:
| Costs
incurred by NHS Specialised Services on the Safe and Sustainable review
of children's heart services in England and Wales and the Joint
Committee of Primary Care Trusts decision-making process, to March
2013 | |
| £ | |
| Legal
costs for the judicial review case brought by Save Our Surgery
Ltd | 301,000 |
| External
communications
consultants | 1,740,000 |
| Other
costs incurred (from 2009-10 to 2012-13
inclusive) | 6,036,000 |
(3) how much NHS Specialised Services has spent in total on the Safe and Sustainable Review of children's heart surgery services in England and Wales and the JCPCT decision-making process to date.
[152905]
Stuart Andrew:
(3) how much NHS Specialised Services has spent in total on the Safe and Sustainable Review of children's heart surgery services in England and Wales and the JCPCT decision-making process to date.
[152905]
Stuart Andrew:
The figures requested are tabled as follows:
| Costs
incurred by NHS Specialised Services on the Safe and Sustainable review
of children's heart services in England and Wales and the Joint
Committee of Primary Care Trusts decision-making process, to March
2013 | |
| £ | |
| Legal
costs for the judicial review case brought by Save Our Surgery
Ltd | 301,000 |
| External
communications
consultants | 1,740,000 |
| Other
costs incurred (from 2009-10 to 2012-13
inclusive) | 6,036,000 |
My Lords, the Government did not play any role in the decision to suspend children’s heart surgery at Leeds. By agreement, this was a local decision taken by the trust, in agreement with Sir Bruce Keogh, NHS England’s medical director, and the Care Quality Commission. The Government strongly believe that it was the right thing to do. It is absolutely right that the NHS should act quickly and decisively if there is any evidence that patient safety may be at risk.
My Lords, the Government did not play any role in the decision to suspend children’s heart surgery at Leeds. By agreement, this was a local decision taken by the trust, in agreement with Sir Bruce Keogh, NHS England’s medical director, and the Care Quality Commission. The Government strongly believe that it was the right thing to do. It is absolutely right that the NHS should act quickly and decisively if there is any evidence that patient safety may be at risk.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the extent of their involvement in the decision to suspend surgery at the Leeds General Infirmary Children’s Heart Unit.
I thank the Minister for his Answer and for the concern that I know he shares for those who have been affected by the decision. We all wish to see the safest surgery possible for our children. The Minister quite rightly understands that specialist doctors and experts, not politicians, should be responsible for asking and answering questions of safety. In the particular circumstances of Leeds, however, a number of the experts—
I thank the Minister for his Answer and for the concern that I know he shares for those who have been affected by the decision. We all wish to see the safest surgery possible for our children. The Minister quite rightly understands that specialist doctors and experts, not politicians, should be responsible for asking and answering questions of safety. In the particular circumstances of Leeds, however, a number of the experts—
My Lords, my noble friend raises quite a large number of points. I simply say to her that in regard to Leeds, which is the matter on which I have
been briefed, the decision to suspend surgery was taken because concerns had been raised from a variety of sources about the safety of surgery at the unit. Mortality data were supplied to the National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research with significant flaws, and until those flaws had been rectified, it was impossible to be sure that the trust was operating within acceptable mortality thresholds. Those mortality concerns have, I understand, been resolved, which is why low-risk children’s cardiac surgery has been resumed at the hospital. However, NHS England’s appeal on the Safe and Sustainable review—which, I emphasise, is quite separate from the events of late March and early April—has to be a matter for NHS England. The review of children’s heart services was an NHS review, independent of government, and if NHS England wants to appeal the decision and thinks that there are good grounds for doing so, that is a matter for it.
Question!
Question!
My question is coming. The experts in Leeds have been causing understandable concern because of their partiality and apparent vested interest. In Bristol and Birmingham, children’s heart units have recently had mortality alerts and 14 NHS trusts are under investigation. Will the Minister explain why surgery has not been suspended...
My question is coming. The experts in Leeds have been causing understandable concern because of their partiality and apparent vested interest. In Bristol and Birmingham, children’s heart units have recently had mortality alerts and 14 NHS trusts are under investigation. Will the Minister explain why surgery has not been suspended...
My Lords, my noble friend raises quite a large number of points. I simply say to her that in regard to Leeds, which is the matter on which I have
been briefed, the decision to suspend surgery was taken because concerns had been raised from a variety of sources about the safety of surgery at the unit. Mortality data were supplied to the National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research with significant flaws, and until those flaws had been rectified, it was impossible to be sure that the trust was operating within acceptable mortality thresholds. Those mortality concerns have, I understand, been resolved, which is why low-risk children’s cardiac surgery has been resumed at the hospital. However, NHS England’s appeal on the Safe and Sustainable review—which, I emphasise, is quite separate from the events of late March and early April—has to be a matter for NHS England. The review of children’s heart services was an NHS review, independent of government, and if NHS England wants to appeal the decision and thinks that there are good grounds for doing so, that is a matter for it.
My Lords, my noble friend raises quite a large number of points. I simply say to her that in regard to Leeds, which is the matter on which I have
been briefed, the decision to suspend surgery was taken because concerns had been raised from a variety of sources about the safety of surgery at the unit. Mortality data were supplied to the National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research with significant flaws, and until those flaws had been rectified, it was impossible to be sure that the trust was operating within acceptable mortality thresholds. Those mortality concerns have, I understand, been resolved, which is why low-risk children’s cardiac surgery has been resumed at the hospital. However, NHS England’s appeal on the Safe and Sustainable review—which, I emphasise, is quite separate from the events of late March and early April—has to be a matter for NHS England. The review of children’s heart services was an NHS review, independent of government, and if NHS England wants to appeal the decision and thinks that there are good grounds for doing so, that is a matter for it.
I thank the Minister for his Answer and for the concern that I know he shares for those who have been affected by the decision. We all wish to see the safest surgery possible for our children. The Minister quite rightly understands that specialist doctors and experts, not politicians, should be responsible for asking and answering questions of safety. In the particular circumstances of Leeds, however, a number of the experts—
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the people most affected by this are the children and many of the families who do not understand and cannot comprehend what is going on at the moment across these services? I declare an interest as the patron and trustee of Little Hearts Matter, which deals with hundreds of children who have half a heart and therefore all have surgery across the country. The Government may not have a direct interest in dealing with this matter but what are they going to do to make sure that the health services reassure these families that wherever they get surgery it will be safe for their children?
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the people most affected by this are the children and many of the families who do not understand and cannot comprehend what is going on at the moment across these services? I declare an interest as the patron and trustee of Little Hearts Matter, which deals with hundreds of children who have half a heart and therefore all have surgery across the country. The Government may not have a direct interest in dealing with this matter but what are they going to do to make sure that the health services reassure these families that wherever they get surgery it will be safe for their children?
My Lords, children’s heart surgery has been the subject of concern for more than 15 years. Clinical experts and parent groups have repeatedly called for change, and there is an overwhelming feeling in the NHS that the time for change is long overdue. The review that has taken place was about making sure that children’s heart services are as good as they possibly can be, and that has to be the message to the parents involved. It is of course an extremely complex issue but it is generally accepted that concentrating surgical expertise will deliver better outcomes for the children concerned. In view of the legal proceedings, it is very difficult for me to go any further than that at the moment.
My Lords, children’s heart surgery has been the subject of concern for more than 15 years. Clinical experts and parent groups have repeatedly called for change, and there is an overwhelming feeling in the NHS that the time for change is long overdue. The review that has taken place was about making sure that children’s heart services are as good as they possibly can be, and that has to be the message to the parents involved. It is of course an extremely complex issue but it is generally accepted that concentrating surgical expertise will deliver better outcomes for the children concerned. In view of the legal proceedings, it is very difficult for me to go any further than that at the moment.
My Lords, children’s heart surgery has been the subject of concern for more than 15 years. Clinical experts and parent groups have repeatedly called for change, and there is an overwhelming feeling in the NHS that the time for change is long overdue. The review that has taken place was about making sure that children’s heart services are as good as they possibly can be, and that has to be the message to the parents involved. It is of course an extremely complex issue but it is generally accepted that concentrating surgical expertise will deliver better outcomes for the children concerned. In view of the legal proceedings, it is very difficult for me to go any further than that at the moment.
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the people most affected by this are the children and many of the families who do not understand and cannot comprehend what is going on at the moment across these services? I declare an interest as the patron and trustee of Little Hearts Matter, which deals with hundreds of children who have half a heart and therefore all have surgery across the country. The Government may not have a direct interest in dealing with this matter but what are they going to do to make sure that the health services reassure these families that wherever they get surgery it will be safe for their children?
My Lords, if NHS England decides, under its new responsibilities, to undertake and control the specialised commissioning functions within the NHS, and if it chooses to implement the McKay panel’s recommendations on paediatric surgery, can the Minister say whether they would accept that judgment by NHS England or whether they would seek to overturn it?
My Lords, if NHS England decides, under its new responsibilities, to undertake and control the specialised commissioning functions within the NHS, and if it chooses to implement the McKay panel’s recommendations on paediatric surgery, can the Minister say whether they would accept that judgment by NHS England or whether they would seek to overturn it?
I take the noble Lord’s question to mean: would the Government accept that decision? Yes. This is a matter for the health service to determine. As I mentioned earlier, the Safe and Sustainable review was an NHS review. The Government and Ministers
were not in any way involved in it, and that is appropriate. Therefore, the answer to the noble Lord’s question is that the Government would stand back from any such decision.
I take the noble Lord’s question to mean: would the Government accept that decision? Yes. This is a matter for the health service to determine. As I mentioned earlier, the Safe and Sustainable review was an NHS review. The Government and Ministers
were not in any way involved in it, and that is appropriate. Therefore, the answer to the noble Lord’s question is that the Government would stand back from any such decision.
I take the noble Lord’s question to mean: would the Government accept that decision? Yes. This is a matter for the health service to determine. As I mentioned earlier, the Safe and Sustainable review was an NHS review. The Government and Ministers
were not in any way involved in it, and that is appropriate. Therefore, the answer to the noble Lord’s question is that the Government would stand back from any such decision.
My Lords, if NHS England decides, under its new responsibilities, to undertake and control the specialised commissioning functions within the NHS, and if it chooses to implement the McKay panel’s recommendations on paediatric surgery, can the Minister say whether they would accept that judgment by NHS England or whether they would seek to overturn it?