Justice must be seen to be even-handed

This is a short film about my experience of attending the Scottish Parliament on Thursday 29th June 2017.

I was there to support Marion Brown in her presentation of petition PE01651: Prescribed drug dependence and withdrawal:

However this film is based on an old petition that was being reconsidered by the Petitions Committee, that being, PE01458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary.

Lord Carloway was giving evidence. I was sitting right behind him. I found that I did not share his views on this subject.

This film is an edit of the full evidence session which can be watched (in entirety) here:

Credits:

‘Chasing Time’ by Dexter Britain (free, under common licence)

A Diary of Injustice in Scotland

The Scotsman – Leader comment of 30 June 2017

Painting of Holyrood, Scottish Parliament was sourced from here

Submission on PE1517: Polypropylene Mesh Medical Devices

Submission on PE1517 on Polypropylene Mesh Medical Devices

Made by Dr Peter J Gordon

Date of submission: 17th May 2017
Submission made in a personal capacity.

The Agenda for the Public Petitions Committee meeting of the 18th May 2017 includes a most helpful summary “Note by the Clerk” on PE1517: Polypropylene Mesh Medical Devices (Document PPC/S5/17/10/1). Having read this carefully, and in accordance with the first suggested “Action” (point 45, page 8), I would like to offer evidence. Before doing so I have listed below the most relevant sections of PPC/S5/17/10/1 in relation to the points of evidence that I wish to make.

In Annexe B of PPC/S5/17/10/1 the Interim and Final Conclusions of the Independent Review are listed side-by-side.

Conclusion 1, both Interim and Final, was that “Robust clinical governance must surround treatment”

Conclusion 3, both Interim and Final, was that “Informed consent is a fundamental principle underlying all healthcare”

In  Annexe C: Parliamentary Action (page 21 of PPC/S5/17/10/1) the Cabinet Minister for Health, Shona Robison answered question S5W-07749 by Neil Findlay, MSP on the 17 March 2017, by stating:

“Informed consent and shared decision making are expected prior to any procedure being carried out. The Chief Medical Officer goes into this in more detail in her Realistic Medicine report.”

The Clerk, in point 7, (page 2 of PPC/S5/17/10/1) confirms that:

“The Scottish Government does not have the power to regulate what medical devices are licensed for use in the UK. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) regulates medical devices in the UK”

The Clerk, in point 12 (page 3 of PPC/S5/17/10/1) includes quotations from the Preface of the Review’s Independent Report:

“We found some concerning features about how new techniques are introduced into routine practice”  and that

“We are aware that some of our conclusions have wider implications and see the need to embed this in patient Safety and Clinical Governance strands of the NHS”

Points of Evidence by Dr Peter J Gordon  (GMC number 3468861)

• HDL62:  the Scottish Government has acknowledged that this 
Guidance is not being followed by NHS Boards

• There have been media reports that NHS professionals working in 
Scotland, who are involved in educating NHS staff about Mesh
procedures, have been paid by commercial sectors who have 
financial interest in Mesh products. 

• PE1493, A Sunshine Act for Scotland, was closed in February 2016 

• A Public Consultation on PE1493 was undertaken by the Scottish 
Health Council. The Scottish  public, in majority, were of the view 
that it should be mandatory for  all financial payments made to 
healthcare workers and academics to be declared in a publically 
accessible form 

• No meaningful update has been provided by the Scottish Government 
since this Public Consultation was published more than a year ago.

• I  fully support the Chief Medical Officer’s “Realistic Medicine” 
initiative and I have suggested that Sunshine legislation should be 
considered an essential part of this development  

• I agree with the Independent Review that “robust clinical 
governance must surround treatment”. I am concerned that if the 
current situation continues, where “education” of health 
professionals may be significantly based on marketing, further 
examples of iatrogenic harm may occur in NHS Scotland.

• The Independent Review concluded that “informed consent is a 
fundamental principle underlying all healthcare”. If the advice 
given to patients is based on marketing, either partially or wholly, 
then informed consent may be denied patients. Further examples of 
Iatrogenic harm may then  unfortunately occur and healthcare 
in Scotland may risk being considered as  unrealistic 
rather than “realistic”.

 

Update, 22 May 2017:

Public Petitions Committee – Scottish Parliament: 18 May 2017 (click on image below to watch the full meeting)

The official report of the Public Petitions Committee of 18 May 2017

Sunday Post, 21 May 2017: ‘Probe to examine possible conflicts of interest in troubled mesh implant inquiry’

May it be granted the older you are

On the 26th of April 2016 I attended the Cross Party Group on Mental Health and Older People, Age and Ageing, held at the Scottish Parliament. The following is an  account of my experience of this meeting and some reflections on conversations that have followed it.

At the end of this post are included two papers that were submitted ahead of the Cross Party meeting: a paper by me entitled “May it be granted the older you are” and a paper by Mr Hunter Watson entitled “Psychoactive Medications”.

I have been to quite a number of Scottish Parliamentary Committee meetings but this was the first Cross Party Meeting that I have attended. How welcome it was to see such a good turn out with a packed committee room. I am inclined to conclude that this indicates how important it is that we value our older generation. It was however unfortunate that other parliamentary business meant that various parliamentarians had to absent themselves.

I was  keen to attend this meeting for a number of reasons. Having an interest in the Scottish Government’s “Ten Year Vision” for Mental Health I had attended one of its consultation events in Edinburgh and had also submitted a written response. There were  574  written responses in total, which again seems most encouraging.

Given that opportunities for anyone to raise discussion, at parliamentary level, about the Scottish Government’s ‘Ten Year Vision’ may not come along very often, I felt it was important, as the only NHS psychiatrist for older adults at this Cross Party meeting, to do my best to put forward the experiences of my patients.

I was very impressed that the convener, Sandra White, MSP made sure that as many voices as possible were heard at the meeting. I wrote to thank her for this.

I was particularly struck by the compelling and worrying testimonies of Rosemary Carter and Dianna Manson whose experiences as older adults with mental health issues remind us starkly how important it is that policy makers consider very carefully the consequences of visions set for the years ahead.

Rosemary Carter highlighted her experience of how the dominance of cognitive assessments in my profession has reduced capacity to care for those who have non-cognitive mental ill health. As a professional working in this area I share her concern and am of the view that Rosemary is far from alone in her experience. When the Dementia Strategies and Targets were first introduced in Scotland from 2010 onwards, it was my concern about this potential for inverse care, and for increased stigma associated with ageing, that led me to advocate publicly for a timely approach to the diagnosis of dementia. I did so at a time when this approach had no support whatsoever from policy makers, healthcare or the Mental Welfare Commission.

I thought that Angela Dias of “Action in Mind” spoke with clarity and genuine concern about what she termed “institutional discrimination” relating to older adults with mental health issues living in Scotland today.

Mr Hunter Watson’s concerns about human rights for older adults do, in my opinion, need to be carefully considered.

The Principal Medical Officer for Scotland, Dr John Mitchell, acknowledged several times the evidence that those with chronic mental health disorders die 15-20 years earlier than those who do not. He stated at this meeting that this is a “huge finding, a universal finding, a huge inequity”. Academics are increasingly of the view that one of the potential reasons for such early death has been the prescribing of psychiatric medications. This is why I mentioned a number of times at the meeting the widely gathered evidence (PE1493, Sunshine Act for Scotland) that the pharmaceutical industry continues to have a significant role in the “education” of Scottish doctors in the prescribing of psychiatric medications.

I thought the presentation by Dr David Christmas was most interesting and share his concern that there is an imbalance in research studies across the age ranges. I raised a number of questions with Dr Christmas because he works as a “super-specialist” and so deals with a very select group of patients.

At the Cross Party meeting Dr Christmas stated that “depression is under-recognised across all age groups” and that “maintenance treatment has a good risk-benefit ratio.” He did so without acknowledging that these statements cannot be made with absolute certainty.

I have attended a wide range of GMC-required Continuing Medical Education (CME) and so over the years have found that I have attended a number of educational talks given by Dr David Christmas. He always carefully talks through his declarations of interest which for at least the last five years do not  include any financial interests other than his employment with NHS Tayside as the Clinical lead of the Advanced Intervention Service.

Dr Christmas is a member of the Psychopharmacology Committee of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The Chair of this most influential committee (in terms of the prescribing of psychiatric drugs) is Professor Allan Young, a “key opinion leader”. Professor Allan Young declares his extensive financial interests as follows: “Paid lectures and Advisory Boards for all major pharmaceutical companies with drugs used in affective and related disorders” . A similar key opinion leader, Professor Stephen Stahl, gave a keynote talk at the British Association of Psychopharmacology in 2015. As he is American, and they have a Sunshine Act, it is possible to establish Professor Stahl’s earnings from promoting psychiatric drugs. When last looked at, this was more than $3.5 million dollars. In the absence of a similar Sunshine Act in the UK we cannot establish the scale of payments made in the UK.

Dr Christmas has given educational lectures alongside Dr Hamish McAllister-Williams who is also a member of the Psychopharmacology Committee of the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych), and who was appointed in 2012 as Director of Education for the British Association of Psychopharmacogy (BAP).

Dr McAllister-Williams declares a wide range of financial interests with the Pharmaceutical Industry. Dr McAllister Williams is “a major contributor” to the RCPsych and BAP Continuing Professional Development programme.

It was with this knowledge, of the influential position that Dr Christmas has in terms of the education of UK psychiatrists, that after the Cross Party Meeting I wrote to ask Dr Christmas to ask if he might support a Sunshine Act for Scotland?  At the meeting Dr Christmas took time to carefully address other biases (which I share his concern about) but did not do the same for the financial biases that may affect the advice given by key opinion leaders. The same potential exists for research itself.

In my correspondence with Dr Christmas I  reminded him that I prescribe both antidepressants and antipsychotics but explain to patients that the best evidence we have is generally based on short-term studies and that all interventions (including psychological interventions) can have both benefits and harms.

I have  confirmed with Dr Christmas that I share his determination to seek science that is as objective as possible and that this means that I realise that biases do indeed come in all forms and not just financial. I simply argue that science should be based on transparency or it ceases to be science. My view is that it is not necessarily a bad thing if doctors are paid for their time and expertise working outwith the NHS. For example, working for NICE, or giving expert views to court. However, when a doctor has a financial “conflict of interest”, this can affect the treatment decisions they make, or recommend. These conflicts cannot be entirely avoided, and in many cases they are entirely reasonable. However, it is important that information is available on which companies have paid a doctor, so that colleagues and patients can decide for themselves what they think. For example, there is longstanding evidence that exposure to industry promotional activity can lead to doctors recommending worse treatments for patients.

I have also discussed with Dr Christmas the view that proportionality of understanding should come in words as well as numbers and  that the quantitative and qualitative require ‘parity of esteem’.

In summary, I thought the Cross party meeting on Mental Health, Ageing and Older People was an excellent opportunity for a range of voices to share their thoughts and experiences. Such involvement is to be commended and I hope that both my profession and policy makers of all sorts may agree.

Dr Peter J. Gordon

(writing in my own time)

GMC registration: 3468861

Member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists: number 12351

I have worked in NHS Scotland for over 25 years and I am employed 
with NHS Lothian as a Consultant in Psychiatry for Older Adults. 
As well as being a doctor and scientist, I am a philosopher, 
ethicist, and artist.

 

‘May it be granted the older you are’

Prepared to share with the Cross Party Group on Older People, Age and Ageing ahead of the meeting on the 26th April 2017

In this summary I will present original articles, reports and writing. I wish to keep my words spare.

William H. Thomas said this in 2004 in his book “What are Old People For?”:

On the 1724 ruin of Mavisbank (considered as Scotland’s finest ruined building) and carved on the sculpture “The Ageing Stone” by Dr Peter J. Gordon:

May you grow old either never or late,
and that you experience earthly changes late.
May what the numerous ages erode be restored intact,
may it be granted that the older you are,
the more beautiful you may shine.

[Dr Peter J Gordon was formerly a Trustee of Mavisbank House, Loanhead, Edinburgh.]

Ballatt and Campling in their acclaimed book (2011) “Intelligent Kindness” offered this concern about current approaches to healthcare:

I have argued in a number of publications that prevailing approaches in medicine, and particularly a primary focus on biomedicine may risk this outcome for our older generation:

The Scottish Government and Alzheimer Scotland had this recent four-page spread in a National newspaper:

The Scottish Government has indeed made progress with dementia care but we should be wary of repeated statements made by them that this is “world leading”.

Barak Obama, when President of the United States, said:

Scotland is a relatively small country and this may be one reason why biomedical determinism has prevailed without challenge. This approach to mental wellbeing has its place. I have reasoned in a number of publications, that unless philosophy is irrelevant, then biomedicine should not be the only determinant to wellbeing.

Owen Jones, in his 2014 book “The Establishment” insisted:

Personally I have very much valued the views and writings of individuals like Mr Hunter Watson and Mrs Chrys Muirhead. It disappoints me to have witnessed the ways that those in genuine positions of power have sometimes treated them. Simply because their views may not be shared.

Prescribing of psychotropic medications (of all types) has been rising year-on-year in Scotland for the last decade (ISD figures, Scottish Government). Rising in all age groups: including our children and our older generation. Reporting on this on the 5th October 2016, The Scotsman had as its front-page headline “Prescriptions for mental health drugs at 10-year high”.

Annette Leibing in an Editorial in Cult Med Psychiatry explored the origins of the widely used label/acronym “BPSD”:

One of the consequences of this has been the very wide practice of prescribing ‘off-label’ of antipsychotics in Scotland to those living with dementia. Unfortunately this wide practice has always lacked evidence for the “appropriateness” of such prescribing:

Promotion of “off-label” use of drugs is still widespread practice in the UK and, if anything, has become more embedded since the introduction of GMC required ‘Continuing Medical Education’ (CME):

The above was the concern of the Royal College of psychiatrists in 2005 (twelve years ago). However the Royal College of Psychiatrists has stated recently that this is “now a thing of the past” and that psychiatry is “puritanical” in its relationship with the pharmaceutical industry. Unfortunately real-world evidence does not support this statement (see the wide-ranging evidence gathered for ‘A Sunshine Act for Scotland’ )

Dr Catherine Calderwood, Scotland’s Chief Medical Officer is to be commended for her initiative Realistic Medicine. I have presented the reasons to the Scottish Government why a Sunshine Act for Scotland must be a necessary part of this.

[For instance: If we had a Sunshine Act perhaps the MESH scandal and so much harm might have been avoided.]

Dr Margaret McCartney, Glasgow GP, author, BMJ columnist has outlined the harmful consequences of Industry being in the driving seat. One aspect of this is ‘inverse care’. More than two years on since Dr McCartney wrote this and we find that no NHS Board area in Scotland is achieving more than 54% of the “guaranteed” Post-Diagnostic Support:

More than two years ago this “Change Paper” was published in the British Medical Journal. Professor Burns is the National Clinical Director for Dementia in NHS England and Wales:

In response, I submitted this published rapid-response to the British Medical Journal:

I welcome this “change page”. [1]

The authors describe the routine prescription, off-label, of 
antipsychotics to our most vulnerable elderly. At a recent 
international conference one presentation referred to the estimate 
that “2/3rds of current UK prescriptions for antipsychotics in 
people with dementia are inappropriate”.[2] These reports remind us 
that those living with dementia are often considered to lack 
“capacity” and their voice is easily lost.

My previous correspondence to the BMJ has demonstrated my view that 
our profession should not be “educated” by commerce or industry. 
[3]

In 1999, as a doctor in training, I was handed a document by my 
trainer. This I was told was “the way forward”. The document had an 
acronym: “BPSD”. I had not heard of “BPSD”. I learned that this 
acronym stood for “Behavioural and Psychological Symptoms 
in Dementia”.I accepted it with little thought. The comprehensive 
BPSD document was produced by Pharma: though at the time, and for 
almost a decade thereafter, I was not aware of this fact.

I am aware that a number of NHS guidelines are in existence for the 
treatment of “BPSD”. [4] Haloperidol, in lowest possible dose, is 
generally the drug recommended. My concerns over prescribing of 
antipsychotic drugs like Haloperidol in a frail elderly population, 
led me to raise a petition for a “Sunshine Act” with the Scottish 
Government. [5]

It has been my experience that marketing activity by the 
pharmaceutical industry, and also “education” by key opinion 
leaders paid for by the pharmaceutical industry, have in the past 
encouraged the off-label use of antipsychotic drugs. Until we 
acknowledge this mechanism, we risk losing the opportunity to 
minimise the harm of such an approach.

References 1-5

Four months later this research was published:

It should be noted that antipsychotics also can cause side-effects (morbidity) as well as increasing risk of mortality. Such side effects include: parkinsonism, sedation, mental dulling, excess salivation, weight gain, cardiac disturbances and hormonal dysregulation. This is why, as an NHS doctor for older adults, I use antipsychotics as sparingly as I can and generally when all other options have reasonably been tried. If I do prescribe antipsychotics I try to do so for as short a period as possible.

The SIGN 86National Clinical Guideline” on “Management of patients with Dementia” was published in 2006. A review of national guidelines on dementia, published in 2013, established that this was found to be almost the worst national guideline for dementia in the world (certainly in terms of consideration of ethics)

I have written about my concerns that financially vested interests may have played a significant part in the development of SIGN Guideline 86 on Dementia:

Last year Sign 86 Guideline was withdrawn. There has been no replacement – despite the promise made within SIGN 86 – to have it reconsidered by 2011.

The following slides consider failures of governance for National Guidelines such as SIGN:

One of my interests is in ethics. I share the ethicists’ view that we all may suffer if our shared determination scientific objectivity is compromised for vested reasons. It was this consideration that led me (in 2013) to petition the Scottish Parliament to consider introducing a Sunshine Act for Scotland:

My petition was closed in February 2016 after wide gathering of evidence and a Public Consultation.

The public consultation revealed that the Scottish public support the petition and that in majority they would like to see all payments made to doctors, healthcare workers and academics to be publically declared on an open, central register.

More than a year on since this consultation was concluded and the public has had no meaningful update from the Scottish Government.

In the Observer newspaper of 1st October 2016 an Editorial our older generation ended:

I also want to end by celebrating the real value of our older generations.

This was a rapid response to the British Medical Journal by myself that was published 2nd September 2015

The contributions of those “retired” often prove invaluable:

Yesterday I was at a consultation event held by Healthcare 
Improvement Scotland which sought wider views on a proposed 
national approach to “Scrutiny” of health and social care in 
Scotland (1). At the meeting I met a number of individuals who had 
been designated “retired” on their name badge. I was not surprised 
to find that during the course of the consultation event, the 
contributions of those “retired” proved to be invaluable.


Returning home on the train I thought about this a little more. 
Names like J K Anand, L Sam Lewis and Susanne Stevens, all regular 
submitters to the BMJ rapid responses came into my mind. All 
describe themselves as “retired” and one happily calls himself 
“an old man”. The contributions by retired folk have always struck 
me as having a different quality to those by people who are still 
employees of today’s NHS. In “retirement” there may be a greater 
freedom to ask questions of prevailing approaches. Our older 
generation also has great experience which should be considered 
as “evidence” in itself.


Yet in my job as a doctor for older adults, I see the world around 
me as seeming to do its best to reduce our elders. The language 
used in discussing our elders commonly denotes some sort of loss. 
For example the “guru” of Healthcare Improvement Don Berwick talks 
about the “Silver Tsunami”. Other healthcare leaders talk of 
“epidemics” and “challenges”, implying that our elders are a burden 
to younger generations. To address these “challenges” the 
healthcare improvers, it seems to me, are devising shortcuts. 
Today these are often termed “tools” and may be part of “toolkits”. 
I have even heard healthcare improvers discussing the need to 
“invent” a “tool” for patient centredness. I think our elders, 
or those “retired”, might consider this to be particularly 
ridiculous.


So I would like to say three cheers for the “retired” folk. 
To discourse they bring wisdom, to the prevailing methodologies 
they are more willing to ask critical questions, and when it comes 
to cutting through to what matters, being true to oneself, 
our elders are superior to many, if not most, policy makers.

References 1 and 2


 

Mr Hunter Watson also submitted a paper ahead of the Cross Party Meeting on Mental Health and Older People, Age and Ageing. It is included below:

In the report entitled “Remember, I’m still me” psychoactive medication is described as “medicines used to treat behavioural symptoms, like agitation, verbal and physical aggression, wandering and not sleeping”. From this description it seems clear that psychoactive medication is regarded by some as medication which can be used as chemical restraint rather than for the purpose for which it was developed.

That report, which was published in April 2009, was based upon what was found when the Care Commission and the Mental Welfare Commission made joint visits to a sample of 30 care homes in Scotland. The authors observed that “While we saw some examples of good practice, our findings reveal that overall, care in Scotland’s care homes needs to improve significantly in order to meet the needs of people with dementia who live in them”.

The report also noted that “Although most staff were aware of different types of therapies recommended for caring for people with dementia, they told us they were not using them or encouraging them to be used as they did not feel their knowledge was sufficient and they did not have enough time.”

In May 2014 there was published a report entitled “Dignity and respect: dementia continuing care visits”. This report was based upon what the Mental Welfare Commission found when it visited 52 NHS units providing longer-term care for people with dementia. Among its findings were the following:

84% of people were on at least one psychotropic medication 
(i.e. psychoactive medication) with 30% on three or more, 
in many cases without evidence of regular reviews

175 people (52%) were taking anxiolytic medication, mainly 
Diazepam or Lorazepam, with 65 of the 175 (37%) receiving this 
on a regular basis. This level of use is disturbing and is much 
higher than the level of use we found in Remember, I'm still me 
where only 19% of people with dementia in care homes were 
prescribed anxiolytic medication. The British National Formularly 
(BNF) states "Anxiolytic medication should be limited to the 
lowest possible dose for the shortest possible time".

166 people (45%) were taking antipsychotic medication. While this 
may be helpful in relieving symptoms such as hallucinations, 
delusions, agitation or aggression, there are known risks for 
people with dementia. All antipsychotic medications increase 
the risk of stroke and death, many can impair mobility and 
increase the risk of falls.


Although people with dementia in NHS care may present with more 
challenging and complex problems than people with dementia in other 
care settings, staff skills and knowledge and staff numbers should 
be better. We were concerned at the high usage of antipsychotic 
medication often in combination with anxiolytics or sedative 
antidepressants.

In October 2016 there was issued a National Statistics Publication for Scotland entitled “Medicines used in Mental Health”. It provided statistics for the years 2005/06 to 2015/16. Among the facts contained therein are the following:

All NHS Boards show increased prescribing of antipsychotic drugs 
since 2009/10.

The total number of prescription items dispensed for psychoses and 
related disorders increased between 2014/15 and 2015/16 ...  
This follows a gradual increase over the last ten years. 

The majority of the drugs used in the treatment of psychoses and 
related disorders are antipsychotic drugs.

In June 2010 there was published a document entitled Scotland’s National Dementia Strategy”. This document made clear that the Scottish Government was committed to “ensuring that people receiving care in all settings get access to treatment and support that is appropriate with a particular focus on reducing the inappropriate use of psychoactive medication …”

In May 2013 there was published a document entitled “Scotland’s National Dementia Strategy: 2013 – 16”. In this document it was stated that “The first Dementia Strategy identified that a key driver to ensure care and treatment is always safe, effective and appropriate is working with partners to reduce the inappropriate prescribing of psychoactive medication for people with dementia”. In order to try to achieve this goal an expert working group was asked “To agree and recommend a national commitment on the prescribing of psychoactive medications (excluding cognitive enhancers), as part of ensuring that such  medication is used only where there must be a likelihood of benefit to the person with dementia and where there is no appropriate alternative”.

In a 1998 edition of the International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry (No 13) there appeared an article entitled “Medication Use in Nursing Homes for Elderly People”. In the summary it was stated “Residents of nursing and residential homes are often prescribed medication for physical and mental ill-health with resultant polypharmacy and the possibility of iatrogenic disorders. (Disorders caused by medication.) Sometimes drugs are prescribed inappropriately and a number of studies have highlighted the overuse of psychotropic drugs. Legislation in the USA has been effective in controlling their use in that neuroleptic prescriptions (i.e. antipsychotic prescriptions) for the treatment of behavioural disturbances have been significantly reduced and non-pharmacological  strategies aimed at ameliorating behavioural disturbances have been proposed.”

In the editorial of the BMJ of 1 April 2006 it was stated, with reference to an article entitled “Managing challenging behaviour in dementia”, that “… the behaviour of staff … may play a central role in the manifestation of challenging behaviours in patients … a new culture of dementia care should focus on meeting individual patient’s needs rather than on restraint.”

On 3 June 2011 I was sent from the USA a copy of an article entitled “The wrong drugs in nursing homes. Too many antipsychotics” The article was written by Daniel Levinson, the inspector general in the Department of Health and Human Services. Within that article it is stated that “Researchers found that 88 percent of the time, these drugs (antipsychotics) were prescribed for elderly people with dementia. This is precisely the population that faces an increased risk of death when using this class of drugs, according to the FDA.The report didn’t investigate why patients with dementia are prescribed antipsychotic drugs so often. But a series of lawsuits and settlements that my office helped to bring about suggests that many pharmaceutical companies have improperly promoted these drugs to doctors and nursing homes for many years.”

Observations and recommendations:

The production of dementia strategies has been ineffective in 
reducing the prescribing of life-threatening antipsychotic drugs 
to people with dementia in care homes and hospitals. The Scottish 
Government should, therefore, agree that, as recommended by the 
Mental Welfare Commission, there be a wide review of mental health 
and incapacity legislation when the place of learning disability 
and autism in current mental health legislation is reviewed. 
When carrying out that review full account should be taken of 
the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Guidelines should be produced for the use of antipsychotics and 
otherpsychoactive drugs for people with dementia. 

These guidelines should take full account of the recommendations in 
the British National Formularly. 

Note should be taken of the fact that the guidelines in SIGN 86 
have now been withdrawn since they became out of date.

New National Care Standards for Care Homes for Older People 
should be produced. These new standards should not suggest 
that medication could be used as restraint in response to 
"restless or agitated behaviour" as do the existing care standards. 
This suggestion positively encourages care home staff to request 
that a doctor prescribes an antipsychotic for a resident whose 
behaviour is perceived as challenging. Unfortunately some doctors 
are too ready to accede to such a request and do not properly 
consider whether the known risks outweigh the potential benefits 
nor attempt to obtain the informed consent of the patient. 
There seems to be an incorrect assumption by some that care home 
residents, especially those with dementia, would be incapable of 
passing the recognised test of capacity to make a treatment decision.

New regulations should specify that doctors must take due account 
of prescribing guidelines when they prescribe antipsychotics to 
care home residents and also that they must give a written 
explanation of any decision to do this. The care inspectorate 
should confirm that due account has been taken of prescribing 
guidelines and also that acceptable written explanations have been 
provided. The regulations should specify sanctions which could be 
taken against care homes in which there has been evidence of an
excessive and inappropriate use of antipsychotics or other 
psychoactive drugs

It should be recognised that in Scotland, as in the USA, 
pharmaceutical companies could have been improperly making payments 
when marketing their psychoactive drugs as suitable for use in the 
treatment of care home residents and others. 

The Scottish Government, therefore, should make it mandatory for 
doctors, healthcare workers and academics to disclose publicly all 
payments from the pharmaceutical industry. 

Peter Gordon, a consultant in old age psychiatry, submitted 
petition PE1493 to the Petitions Committee in the hope that it 
would lead to the Scottish Government agreeing to enact the 
necessary legislation which he suggested could be named the 
Sunshine Act. However, in an email dated 14 April 2017 sent to 
the Minister for Mental Health and others he stated 
"A year on and there has been no meaningful public update 
from the Scottish Government on PE1493 and a Sunshine Act".

The Scottish Government should give serious consideration to 
Peter Gordon's proposal.

Caring for elderly people with dementia is a demanding task but the 
care homes which have the responsibility for their care are 
commonly under-staffed and under-funded. Such homes are unable to 
pay staff sufficient to ensure that they do not leave for better 
paid and less demanding work elsewhere, such as in a supermarket. 
The consequence is that in some care homes there is a high turnover 
and hence a lack of properly trained staff. In these circumstances 
it is not surprising that care homes resort to the use of 
psychoactive medication when residents present problems.

It should be recognised that in order to ensure that people with 
dementia are properly cared for more resources must be devoted to 
social care and that, if necessary, taxes should be raised to 
achieve this.

“appropriate” and “correct” concerns in NHS Scotland

After sending an update of my petition for a Sunshine Act to the Chief Executive Officer of NHS Forth Valley I received this reply. Whilst I was employed by NHS Forth Valley I raised concerns that HDL 62, the Scottish Government Circular sent to all Chief Executives in NHS Scotland, was not being followed.

Jane-Grant,-NHS-Forth-Valle

Two aspects of this letter from the Chief Executive Officer for NHS Forth Valley are worth further consideration:

(1) Transparency:

When I was an employee of NHS Forth Valley I was formally written to by Dr Rhona Morrison, Associate Medical Director. In this letter from the Associate Medical Director, which was both unsigned and undated, I was described as “unprofessional” and “offensive” for raising concerns that NHS Forth Valley was not following extant Scottish Government guidance on transparency regarding declarations of interest.

This letter confirmed that I would be “invited” to  an “informal” meeting by the Associate Medical Director’s immediate peers.

My experience of this “informal” meeting was that my character, reputation and probity were robustly questioned by the Medical Director, Dr Peter Murdoch, and the General Manager, Mrs Kathy O’Neill. This meeting was not minuted. This meeting left me distressed.

A number of weeks after this meeting I resigned from NHS Forth Valley. On my resignation I had this  feedback from those who I had cared for and worked with

(2) Freedom to Speak Up:

The Chief Executive Officer reinforces in her letter the “importance of a culture of openness and candour”. However, Jane Grant, the Chief Executive Officer for NHS Forth Valley then goes on to give qualifications: that any concerns raised should be “appropriate” and “correct”.

Whistleblowing in NHS Scotland from omphalos on Vimeo.

To conclude: it appears to me that there are still significant barriers to raising concerns in NHS Scotland. If you click on the image below you can read the full review by Sir Robert Francis. I have selected one particular recommendation which I think will require a different mindset to that suggested in the letter from Jane Grant, Chief Executive Officer for NHS Forth Valley:

Freedom05002

Update: November 2016:
On the 22 March 2016 the following petition was lodged by 
Pete Gregson with the Scottish Parliament: PE01605: Whistleblowing 
in the NHS - a safer way to report mismanagement and bullying.

On the 24th November 2016 the Public Petitions Committee considered 
all the submissions requested as part of evidence gathering. 
This included a letter from the Chief Executive Officer for 
NHS Forth Valley. This letter was commented on in particular 
by Angus MacDonald, MSP:

pe1605-nhs-scotland-whistlblowing-jane-grant-nhs-forth-valley

Freedom to speak up

Freedom05I am very grateful to the Scottish Government for replying to me on behalf of Jamie Hepburn, MSP, Minister for Sport, Health Improvement and Mental Health. Below you will find the Scottish Government reply and my response to it.

In NHS Scotland I have not found freedom to speak up.

David Berry, Scottish Government

Dear Peter
I refer to your email correspondence of 11 January to the Minister for Sport, Health Improvement and Mental Health. I have been asked to respond to you.

Your main concerns in your email are about the ethics and relative risks and benefits of cognitive screening for older people, including those with dementia. I know that this is an on-going concern and note that you have previously raised this issue with Healthcare Improvement Scotland.

The implication of your email appears to be that you are concerned that there may be what is effectively a national programme of screening for people with cognitive impairment (including dementia) in acute, and that older people do not have the benefit of information or the option to opt out of such screening. I hope I can reassure you that no national programme of that kind has been initiated. HIS have for some time had a focus on improving service response on delirium and I understand you have information on that from HIS.

As you may know, we have a three year strategy to improve dementia care in hospitals, including a 10 point action plan to drive up standards of care. Our approach includes development of clear standards, ensuring strong senior and clinical leadership, getting right staff in the right place and giving healthcare staff the support and training they need to provide safe, effective and person centred care to every patient, every time. Appropriate identification and assessment of dementia is a part of this overall approach. This work is supported by the networks of Dementia Nurse Consultants and Dementia Champions.

The Focus on Dementia in Acute improvement programme, launched in July 2014, has a specific focus on leadership, workforce development, working as equal partners with families and minimising and responding to stress and distress. The aim is to improve the experience, safety and coordination of people with dementia, their families/carers and staff.  Progress to date includes the identification of executive and operational leads within NHS Boards and Boards are currently reporting on progress to date on implementing the 10 Care Actions.

In addition, you know that Healthcare Improvement Scotland’s inspections of care for older people in acute hospitals include a specific focus on dementia and cognitive impairment – and this continues.  You can access their most recent overview report on the HIS website.

With regard to your point about raising concerns and the implication that you feel that recording your concerns has been discouraged at times, I would reiterate that we welcome open debate and discussions around these and other matters and we would welcome the opportunity to get the value of your perspective directly if you should choose at any time to take up our offer to get involved in the implementation of dementia policy.

We do recognise your passion, interest and expertise in these areas and hope you will reconsider the offer.

With best wishes

Scottish Government 
Directorate for Health and Social Care Integration
Mental Health and Protection of Rights Division

Reply to David Berry

Monday 1st April 2015

To the Scottish Government
Directorate for Health and Social Care Integration
Mental Health and Protection of Rights Division
St Andrew’s House, Edinburgh

Many thanks for replying on behalf of the Minister for Sport, Health Improvement and Mental Health after I had written following the debate on Mental Health that the Minister led in the Scottish Parliament on the 6th January 2015. I attended parliament that day to observe the debate. I am writing to acknowledge your reply which I received on the 30th March 2015.

You state that it appears to you that I am “concerned that there may be what is effectively a national programme of screening for people with cognitive impairment (including dementia) in acute care, and that older people do not have the benefit of information or the option to opt out of such screening.” I am writing to confirm this is indeed my concern as an NHS clinician in Scotland who has followed closely developments in this area. It is clear that the screening for cognitive impairment in NHS Scotland fulfils all the criteria of the World Health Organisation definition of screening.

You say “I hope I can reassure you that no national programme of that kind has been initiated.” I am afraid that I am not reassured. Following inspections Healthcare Improvement Scotland ask that all NHS Boards “cognitively screen” all patients 65 and over admitted to acute hospitals. It is also the case that Healthcare Improvement Scotland measure NHS Board “compliance” with “cognitive screening”. Given the dual role that Healthcare Improvement Scotland have (for scrutiny and improvement), it is my view that, not only do patients have no choice whether to be screened or not, but hospital managers and every employee in each NHS Board are disempowered to question such an approach.

Regarding my “implication” “that recording my concerns has been discouraged at times”, the truth is that after raising concerns I felt that I had no other option but to resign from my NHS post of 13 years. This followed a letter from the Executive Clinical Director of Healthcare Improvement Scotland to the Medical Director of the NHS Board I worked for. This letter went much further than “discouragement”. This letter made all sorts of defamatory statements about my professionalism and character, none of which I accept. This has been my experience of raising concerns about patient safety and wellbeing in NHS Scotland. I am glad then to appreciate that the Cabinet Minister for Health, Wellbeing and Sport has indicated that Scotland will be considering the “Freedom to Speak Up” review by Robert Francis. I am very grateful to hear that the Scottish Government “welcome open debate and discussions around these and other matters”. Unfortunately damage has been done to my career in NHS Scotland for raising such matters.

I am grateful that the Scottish Government “would welcome the opportunity to get the value of my perspective.” Currently I do not have time for such a commitment but as I confirmed recently to you I am happy to help, if I can, on specific matters.

In summary, in NHS Scotland we currently find:

  • Cognitive screening (as defined by the World Health Organisation)
  • that the potential harms of such an approach are not being discussed
  • that the individual’s right to consent has been marginalised

I realise and appreciate that the Scottish Government, along with many other organisations, may continue to disagree with me on the above. However I wanted to put my view on record. As this is a matter of public interest I will share your reply and my response on my website Hole Ousia.

I want to thank you again for your reply.

Kind wishes
Peter signature

Dr Peter J Gordon

Cc: Jamie Hepburn, Minister for Sport, Health Improvement and Mental Health
Cc: Shona Robison, Cabinet Minister for Health, Wellbeing and Sport
Cc: Geoff Huggins, Acting Director for Health and Social Care Integration
Cc: Penny Curtis, Acting Head of the Scottish Government’s Mental Health and Protection of Rights Division

Dr Neil Houston and Dr Brian Robson

Karen Goudie & Dr Wolff 4 Dec 2014

Do we care enough about consent?

This leaflet is widely available to patients in NHS Scotland including in the waiting room outside my consulting room: 039

Its first page defines consent as follows:038

This is the front page of the current BMJ:021

It is reporting on a legal ruling which has implications for consent as summarised by the editor:051052 053 054

Previously Sokol has said:013

I have had a longstanding interest in consent:015

Consideration of patient consent goes back to the earliest days of the NHS (and indeed before):032

I have previously highlighted how this difficult area becomes even more complex when we are considering cognitive screening:014

Scotland led the way with an incentivised target-based approach to the “early diagnosis” of dementia. The following is from one of the earliest expert meetings:First Dementia Strategy Meeting

A few years later the Scottish Government were sharing widely league tables:002

The Scottish Government commended its own approach to the Westminster Government:How to improvegeoff-huggins4 Geoff Huggins3

It was this robust approach that led me to consider whether the consent to assessment of the individual patient might be significantly affected by an external target. It was at this stage I contacted the National Clinical Leads for dementia, specifically highlighting my concerns about consent:Dementia Leads1

The Scottish Lead for Dementia replied:Dementia Leads2

I was delighted to attend this Conference in Glasgow which culminated in the signing of a rights-based approach to dementia:034044

At this Conference, the Chief Executive of the Mental Welfare Commission gave an address. Mr Colin McKay reminded us that for any individual deemed to lack capacity certain principles should apply. This includes having one’s own wishes listened to:
020

The previous Chief Executive of the Mental Welfare Commission offered his personal view on consent to examination. For many reasons I believe that cognitive screening is a very different activity to measuring blood pressure:056

I have also been in conversation with parliamentarians regarding consent to cognitive screening. In my letter to Dr Simpson, MSP, I highlighted the following points:

  • my concerns are specifically about obtaining consent to cognitive screening
  • Cognitive screening does not fulfill World Health Organisation criteria (Wilson & Jungner)
  • the UK National Screening Committee do not advise screening for cognitive impairment

Richard Simpson2

This is the view of the former Cabinet Minister for Health & Wellbeing:At liberty

I have also asked the UK’s leading Dementia charities about consent:042

I have recently written to Alzheimer Scotland about their current campaign: “Lets talk about dementia”. Disappointingly this appears to have back-tracked from the Glasgow Declaration and is advocating early rather than timely diagnosis. The “difficult conversation” as suggested by Alzheimer Scotland appears to me to trivialize consent:033

I have also had a number of “difficult conversations” when trying to raise issues of consent:Dr Brian Robson

One of the many reasons why this matters is that cognitive screening is not risk-free. 046047

Off-label anti-psychotic prescribing has increased year-on-year in the elderly across Scotland.

It is my view that those promoting improvement methodologies in NHS Scotland are currently not taking consent sufficiently seriously. It appears that I am not alone in having found these conversations “difficult”:061

The following post was about improvement work in the elderly on the Ayrshire Health blog. The full post and all responses to it can be read here:Flying without wings1

I submitted a reply which outlined my considerations about obtaining consent for cognitive screening. In response to my considerations, the Associate Nurse Director of Mental Health Services in NHS Ayrshire and Arran and Chair of the Mental Health Nursing Forum Scotland, appeared to remain unsure of the basis of my concerns:Flying without wings2

Professor June Andrews, Director of the Dementia Services Development Centre offered the following advice:June Andrews3

A service user shared my concerns about patient consent and raised the matter with the Ethics Committee of the Royal College of Psychiatrists:    John Sawkins

Over a decade ago, NHS Scotland published this Expert Group report:Adding life to years, 2002 aAdding life to years, 2002 cAgeism in NHS Scotlandc

This blog post asks if we care enough about consent? My view is that the principle of patient consent should be a fundamental right for all ages. It is the case that consent is a complex area but this is not a good enough reason for marginalising it. I would argue strongly that wider discussion particularly involving all of our elders is long overdue.

Care of Older People in Hospital Standards

The Chair of Healthcare Improvement Scotland, Dr Denise Coia, has confirmed that the Care of Older People in Hospital Standards are scheduled to be published at the end of March 2015.

I submitted my considerations on the Draft Standards last November and I wrote to Dr Coia to seek an update on further progress made. Dr Coia’s reply was very helpful and I wanted to acknowledge this:

Care-Standards1

My interest in the Care Standards goes back many years.

Although Healthcare Improvement Scotland have not always considered me to be an “interested clinician” I have in fact been an NHS Consultant in NHS Scotland for 14 years:

Care-Standards2

I remain hopeful that Healthcare Improvement Scotland might give some written response to my considerations and questions regarding Delirium screening in Scotland which I wrote almost a year ago. It would have been preferable to have had the thoughts of those involved with delirium improvement methodology ahead of the published Care Standards.


Speaking personally, I would be reassured to learn that the Scottish Parliament may continue to have some oversight of Healthcare Improvement Scotland:

Care Standards3

Not fitting the pattern

This is a post about the mental health debate held at the Scottish Parliament on Tuesday 6th January 2015. Alexander McCall Smith wrote to me recently recommending this book (appreciating that I had graduated in Landscape Architecture):051 My recent posts have, as a result, been based on patterns. 053This is the pattern of my Tuesday in Edinburgh. It is however not just a recent pattern but an old one too:Waverley-(6) Waverley: I arrived in the toon of my birth 200 years since Walter Scott wrote his novel.Waverley-(8) At the station, this was one of several Walter Scott quotes that I noticed: 058 But before the parliamentary debate, I had arranged to meet a dear friend: 049 My friend “dares to know” like no other I know. 048 We met for a bowl of soup at the storytelling centre on the Royal Mile. Here I was lucky to meet my friend’s son. Who I found to be a very fine young man. 044 The following quote was displayed at the storytelling centre: 045 The soup was good. The company and shared stories even better. 027 Our conversation over soup reminded me of Aesculapius. Edinburgh doctors, of enlightenment days, formed the “Aesculapian club”.

I need no “club”: I need only soup and good company.017 On the way to the parliament we passed by the Poetry library.016 This statue of Robert Fergusson lies opposite to the poetry vennel. 014 This was Fergusson’s 18th century view of medical language,’authority’ and learning. 052 Just before entering Scotland’s parliament one is met by the poetry wall. 038 The Scottish parliament is a most wonderful building. Rich in pattern and in materials.

It has no simple pattern.It is too much drinkThe Presiding Officer started proceedings [given her confusion, thank goodness there was no “routine” cognitive screening as mandated by Healthcare Improvement Scotland!] Jamie-Hepburn The Minister for Sport, Health Improvement and Mental Health, Jamie Hepburn, MSP, led off the debate on mental health: we can kick offThe debate began. 18 MSPs in a mostly empty parliamentary chamber.020 My mind turned to a visit to the parliament five years before with my daughter’s primary school class. That was a day of lots of lively minds.006Jamie Hepburn’s address was followed by much parliamentary comment about stigma. 011 Stigma is a subject that I have written about and made films. My understanding is that stigma is experienced by the person. It is not a simply entity. 061 I read all the time. 021 My reading reminds me of how little I know. 059 I share C. P. Snow’s concern. As a graduate in both Arts and Sciences I have experienced very different cultures. I am not sure how healthy such separation is.023As a critical mind I sometimes feel alone. However I do feel reassured that I seem to be on the same page as Kenneth Calman and Sir Harry Burns. 010 I agree with Kenneth Calman. Though I would insist that experience also matters. 025 We are perhaps taught from an early age to appreciate arts and sciences as entirely separate. 022 History is also taught in separation. 039The “pattern” that I am attempting to present has strayed from the parliamentary debate. 041 Dr Richard Simpson, in his reply to the Cabinet Minister, outlined his concern about the “divide” between body and mind. 062The above was written by John Logie Baird in his diary at the time that he demonstrated television. CropperCapture[1] I welcomed Dr Simpson’s speech:004 Dr Simpson is aware of my view that I feel that informed consent to cognitive assessment is important [the above written by an elderly patient recently] . Dr Simpson said to parliament:CropperCapture[2] My concern here is that our elders will find that they have no choice in such assessments.  I am interested in ethics. For me this means listening to experience. CropperCapture[4] The above was part of the contribution by John Mason, MSP, to the mental health debate. A contribution that I welcomed.034 Whilst I do worry about “target” dominated healthcare, the following findings did concern me: CropperCapture[5]Over regulation is a worry for me.  We may find a day when professionalism is out-weighted by regulation.031   Below is an imbalance that I find concerning. Is this the real basis of loss of parity?039My closing thought on the mental health debate: I am of the view that Scotland, in its approach to mental wellbeing, needs to embrace a more pluralistic outlook: an outlook that includes those with lived experience, critical minds and the medical humanities.035END [with a young doctor] and “patients who don’t quite fit the patterns”

NHS Borders – Register of Interests

Although undated, this was the reply from NHS Borders, received on 17 June 2013

Freedom of Information request 167-13

Response
The Board Secretary maintains a Register of Interests for the NHS Borders Board members. The Register is audited on an annual basis by the Board’s External Auditors. (2012/13 Scott Moncrieff). These declarations are published on the NHS Borders website at http://www.nhsborders.org.uk/nhs-borders-board-members/register-of-interests

Formal meetings held within the organisation minute ‘Declarations of Interest’ from meeting attendees as a standing meeting agenda item. The minutes will be held by the individual meeting secretary.

NHS Borders Code of Corporate Governance, Section C – Standards of business conduct for NHS staff, sets out employees responsibilities and includes instructions on reporting gifts, hospitality and any other interests to their line manager for inclusion on the Corporate Register of Interests. It states:

Staff should not:
Accept any gifts, inducements or inappropriate hospitality which will place them in a position of conflict between their private interest and that required of their NHS
duties; and

5. Gifts
Gifts, which could place an individual in a position of conflict, between their private
interests and that required in their NHS duties should be declined. MEL (1994) 48
provides that staff may accept gifts of low intrinsic value or small tokens of gratitude
(such as diaries or calendars). NHS Borders has set an acceptable level of £20. If in
doubt, staff must contact their line manager before acceptance.

All gifts accepted within the limit by staff must be declared to their line manager.
Managers should on a regular basis provide this information to the Board Secretary for recording in the Register of Gifts and Hospitality.

6. Hospitality
Staff may accept modest hospitality, provided that it is normal and reasonable in the
circumstances, e.g. lunches in the course of working visits, may be acceptable,
though it should be similar to the scale of hospitality which the NHS as an employer
would be likely to offer. NHS Borders has set an acceptable limit of £25 per employee
per lunch. Staff should decline all other offers of hospitality. If in doubt, staff should
seek advice from their line manager.

All hospitality accepted within the limit by staff must be declared to their line manager.
Managers should on a regular basis provide this information to the Board Secretary for recording in the Register of Gifts and Hospitality.

To date there have been no submissions from staff to the register.

In specific instances where employees have secured sponsorship funding from external organisations, including pharmaceutical companies, an acceptance disclaimer has been completed and signed by both parties ensuring the external organisation understands NHS Borders will treat any monies received as a gift and will have no obligation to that organisation.

If you are not satisfied with the way your request has been handled or the decision given, you may ask NHS Borders to review its actions and the decision. If you would like to request a review please apply in writing to, Freedom of Information Review, Communications, Performance & Planning, NHS Borders, Newstead, Melrose, TD6 9DA or foi.enquiries@borders.scot.nhs.uk.

Full correspondence with NHS Borders can be found here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/register_of_payments_from_pharma_154#outgoing-280402

This is what Alex Neil, Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing says on this matter:

Alex-Neil-on-Reg-of-Interes

NHS Grampian – Register of Interests

25 July 2013

Dear Mr Gordon
Request for Review of Decision under the Freedom of information (Scotland) Act 2002

  1. I refer to your email dated 17 June 2013 addressed to FOI NHSG, advising that a response to your earlier modified request dated 8 May 2013 was still awaited.
  2. By email dated 17 June 2013, Mr Chris Monica, information Governance Manager, responded to you advising that the email of 17 June 2013 had been taken as a request for a review ofthe non-response to your original request.
  3. Your original email request dated 8 May 2013 contained a modified letter requesting a copy of a register of payments from pharmaceutical companies (and other reIevant companies) to staff, in case of conflict of interest. I apologise for the time taken to respond to you both in regard to your initial query and to your request for a review. This has been partly due to the absence of Key staff on annual leave.
  4. I have checked with a number of senior clinical and other staff as to whether such a register of payments from pharmaceutical companies is maintained by NHS Grampian. The response I have received is that no such register is maintained and therefore a copy is unable to be provided to you.
  5. I have looked at any alternatives to such a Register that might be relevant to your query. There is a corporate hospitality register which is completed by senior staff but this generally relates to invitations to seminars, dinners, other events by private companies etc. I have reviewed that register and can find no entries relating to payments made by pharmaceutical companies to staff. There is also a Register of Board Members’ Interests but again that would not appear to fall within the area of your request.
  6. I have also checked out with relevant officers the position regarding clinical trials with pharmaceutical companies. These entailed various pharmaceutical sponsors providing grants for studies to be carried out. In these “Iive” studies there are frequently confidentiality agreements between the companies involved and the Health Board. I have also been advised that any funding provided by the pharmaceutical companies does not go directly to clinicians involved but to relevant departments, endowments, or NHS Grampian generally. Again, these would therefore not appear to be what you were enquiring about.
  7. In all of the circumstances therefore, NHS Grampian is unable to provide a register to meet your requirements. lf you feel however, that your enquiry relates to any of the points above, please let me know and these will be pursued further for you.
  8. I would advise that I have copied this reply to Mr Morrice for his information.
  9. Please accept my apologies once again for the severe delays your have encountered. Ways of reducing these delays are being introduced.
  10. Should you remain dissatisfied with this notice provided under Section 21 (5) of the Freedom of information (Scotland) Act 2002, please note that you may apply to the Scottish information Commissioner within six months of receiving this letter for a decision as to whether your request for information has been dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Part 1 of the Act.

Yours sincerely
Andrew Jackson

Legal Department
Summerfield House
2 Eday Road
Aberdeen
AB15 6RE
NHS Grampian

For the full communication with NHS Grampian: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/register_of_payments_from_pharma_156#outgoing-289103

Our Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing on this matter:

Alex-Neil-on-Reg-of-Interes