§ Mr. Dobsonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether any health authority has indicated to him an intention to have cervical smears examined abroad in order to reduce backlogs in pathology laboratories.
§ Mr. HayhoeNo.
§ Mr. Dobsonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average time taken by a health authority to process a cervical smear through a pathology laboratory; and how this figure compares with previous years.
§ Mr. HayhoeI regret that the information on which to calculate such an average is not available centrally.
§ Mr. Dobsonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list all family practitioner committees which possess a computer capable of operating a cervical screening call and re-call scheme, distinguishing between those which will carry out all other computerised functions of a family practitioner committee and those which will not.
§ Mr. HayhoeThe 45 family practitioner committees listed have computers capable of operating a cervical screening call and recall scheme, of which 35 (above the line) are equipped with computers capable of other functions, primarily patient registration and certain finance tasks.
Family Practitioner Committee
- Barnsley
- Derbyshire
- Salford
- Avon
- Sefton
- Buckinghamshire
- Northampton
- Gloucestershire
- Dorset
- Calderdale
- Liverpool
- Devon
- Northumberland
681 - Croydon
- Sandwell
- Cleveland
- Enfield and Haringey
- Nottingham
- Warwickshire
- Hillingdon
- Coventry
- Hereford and Worcester
- Barnet
- Hampshire
- Brent and Harrow
- Wirral
- Barking, Havering and Brentwood
- Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow
- Rotherham
- St. Helens and Knowsley
- Manchester
- Birmingham
- Solihull
- Staffordshire
- Walsall
- Bedfordshire
- Rochdale
- Stockport
- Wigan
- Durham
- North Tyneside
- Kent
- Isle of Wight
- Wiltshire
- Kirklees
§ Mr. Dobsonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his Department's estimate of the total cost of running a fully computerised system of call and re-call for cervical cancer screening covering all women in the age groups at risk in every part of the United Kingdom.
§ Mr. HayhoeDistrict health authorities are responsible for cervical cancer screening. Many have arranged for a family practitioner committee to operate computerised call and recall systems on their behalf. The re-chargeable costs are a matter for local negotiation between the district health authority(s) and the family practitioner committee, and because this is the first year of separate funding for family practitioner committees no figures are held centrally on which to base an estimate of the total running costs.
§ Mr. Dobsonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list all health authorities, family practitioner committees and community health councils, respectively, which have expressed concern to his Department about delays in processing cervical smears in pathology laboratories.
§ Mr. HayhoeOrganisation of cervical cancer screening including provision of laboratory facilities is a health authority responsibility. I would not therefore expect health authorities to express concern to my Department on this subject and have not identified any such cases. Concerns from family practitioner committees or community health councils will have been referred to the responsible health authority. Such cases cannot readily be identified.
§ Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate when all health authorities will have a fully computerised system for identifying women in the high risk category for cervical cancer.
§ Mr. Hayhoe[pursuant to his reply, 6 December 1985, c. 401–2]All district health authorities have been asked682W to arrange with their corresponding family practitioner committees to implement computerised call and recall systems for cervical cancer screening and it is estimated that this objective should be fully achieved by March 1988.