1-12 of 12 results for subject:Sutton
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.233 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.002 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Sutton
- We searched for
- subject_t:Sutton OR subject_ses:13148
Type
House
Session
More
Year
Department
Member
Primary member
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
Publisher
I am grateful for this opportunity to address the House and to explain to it and to the Minister the disaster that is playing out in slow motion in the NHS in south-west London. I am talking, of course, about a programme named the “Better Services, Better Value” programme, which...
I am grateful for this opportunity to address the House and to explain to it and to the Minister the disaster that is playing out in slow motion in the NHS in south-west London. I am talking, of course, about a programme named the “Better Services, Better Value” programme, which...
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) for his long service and the great work he did as a Department of Health Minister and for securing this debate. He has made a number of very good and important points—although I do...
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) for his long service and the great work he did as a Department of Health Minister and for securing this debate. He has made a number of very good and important points—although I do...
The Minister is responding fully to the points I have made so far, but let me demonstrate the distinction between my point and that made by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). She has conflated the BSBV programme, which is a reconfiguration, with the Nicholson challenge. The...
The Minister is responding fully to the points I have made so far, but let me demonstrate the distinction between my point and that made by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). She has conflated the BSBV programme, which is a reconfiguration, with the Nicholson challenge. The...
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend because I was going to agree with him that the hon. Lady’s analysis was not correct. The point that I am trying to make is that she seeks to defend her hospital, as my right hon. Friend does. She does not want...
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend because I was going to agree with him that the hon. Lady’s analysis was not correct. The point that I am trying to make is that she seeks to defend her hospital, as my right hon. Friend does. She does not want...
That is a peculiar, old-fashioned procedure, but none the less valuable and enjoyable, Mr Deputy Speaker.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central argued in the same debate in favour of the BSBV review on the basis that, according to one of the many reports that form part of the...
That is a peculiar, old-fashioned procedure, but none the less valuable and enjoyable, Mr Deputy Speaker.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central argued in the same debate in favour of the BSBV review on the basis that, according to one of the many reports that form part of the...
The hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) made some important points in that debate, but he did not go on to make the key point that when we look at the figures for BSBV, we see that the cost of delivering the improvement that he and I both want...
The hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) made some important points in that debate, but he did not go on to make the key point that when we look at the figures for BSBV, we see that the cost of delivering the improvement that he and I both want...
All I can say is, a good point well made, and move on towards my concluding remarks.
My right hon. Friend has asked me a number of questions. If I do not reply in full, I assure him that I will in a letter. I am told that a “do minimum”...
All I can say is, a good point well made, and move on towards my concluding remarks.
My right hon. Friend has asked me a number of questions. If I do not reply in full, I assure him that I will in a letter. I am told that a “do minimum”...
That is very helpful. Given that CCGs will be in the driving seat from 1 April, does that mean they can hit the ejector button and get BSBV out?
That is very helpful. Given that CCGs will be in the driving seat from 1 April, does that mean they can hit the ejector button and get BSBV out?
I do not know the answer to that, and of course I would not put it in those terms, but I shall make further inquiries and certainly write to my right hon. Friend so that he has a proper and full answer to that very important question, which I have...
I do not know the answer to that, and of course I would not put it in those terms, but I shall make further inquiries and certainly write to my right hon. Friend so that he has a proper and full answer to that very important question, which I have...
Agreed on question.
Agreed on question.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria were used to determine the level of public health transition funding for the London boroughs of Merton and Sutton; and if he will make a statement.
[134049]
To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria were used to determine the level of public health transition funding for the London boroughs of Merton and Sutton; and if he will make a statement.
[134049]
In common with other primary care trusts (PCTs), Sutton and Merton PCT received transitional support funding which included a combination of fixed, reflecting transition costs felt by all public health services irrespective of size, and population based costs, reflecting costs that vary with the size of the public health unit that is moving to the local authority.
Where a PCT covers more than one local authority we recommended that these monies be divided on the basis of population.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health what dedicated withdrawal services are provided for involuntary tranquilliser addiction in (a) South Cambridgeshire, (b) Sutton and Cheam and (c) Chelmsford and Guildford constituency; and how many patients were successfully treated in each of those constituencies in each of the last three...
To ask the Secretary of State for Health what dedicated withdrawal services are provided for involuntary tranquilliser addiction in (a) South Cambridgeshire, (b) Sutton and Cheam and (c) Chelmsford and Guildford constituency; and how many patients were successfully treated in each of those constituencies in each of the last three...
The National Drug Strategy focuses on tackling all drugs of dependency, including prescription and over-the-counter medicines. Services should be responsive to the needs of the individual, irrespective of an individual's route to dependence.
The determination of a diagnosis of dependence is a clinical judgment. It does not depend on the cause of dependence, although this would be a consideration in care planning.
The system of classification commonly used by practitioners in the United Kingdom for such diagnoses is the International Classification of Diseases System (ICD-10), developed by the World Health Organisation (WHO). ICD-10 gives clear criteria for a diagnosis of tranquilliser dependence under code F13.2—Mental and behavioural disorders due to use of sedative hypnotics.
These guidelines suggest that a cluster of three or more problems are required for a definite diagnosis of dependence. Anyone identified with a tranquilliser withdrawal syndrome who is showing two other listed problems would meet these ICD-10 criteria for dependence.
It has not been possible to establish a definite prevalence estimate of dependency on prescription or over the counter medicine. However, the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System (NDTMS) does collect information on the numbers of people in structured treatment for drug dependence.
The analyses for the report on Addiction to Medicine which was published by the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse on 11 May 2011 identified NDTMS data about the treatment of people being treated for addiction to medicines. It is not possible to analyse NDTMS data by parliamentary constituency. Information recorded on NDTMS about numbers treated for addiction to medicine in the local drug partnerships which include the constituencies listed by the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) is given in the following table.
The columns headed "licit only" show the numbers of people treated for dependence to prescribed or over-the-counter medicine when there is no concurrent use of illicit drugs. The columns headed "licit and illicit" show the numbers of people treated for dependence who are using licit and illicit drugs concurrently. The methodology for analysing the NDTMS data is explained in Annex 1 of the NTA's report in May 2011.
| Cambridgeshire | Sutton | Essex | Surrey | |||||
| Licit
only | Licit
and
illicit | Licit
only | Licit
and
illicit | Licit
only | Licit
and
illicit | Licit
only | Licit
and
illicit | |
| 2009 | 35 | 141 | 7 | 70 | 58 | 266 | 78 | 207 |
| 2010 | 34 | 137 | 6 | 83 | 62 | 290 | 75 | 239 |
| 2011 | 32 | 149 | 13 | 80 | 61 | 333 | 78 | 267 |
Services to treat dependence are commissioned locally. Information about whether service providers organise clinics or sessions specifically for people addicted to medicine is not collected centrally.