HC Deb 15 January 2002 vol 378 cc272-3W
Mr. Lidington

To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the report of the National Patient Access Team into waiting list management at Stoke Mandeville hospital; [25503]

(2) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the district audit analysis of alleged waiting list irregularities at Stoke Mandeville hospital; [25501]

(3) if he will place in the Library a copy of the district audit report into the management of waiting lists at Stoke Mandeville hospital. [25497]

Ms Blears

[holding answer 9 January 2002]: District audit carried out a thorough investigation, over several weeks, and interviewed 54 witnesses. The investigation was carried out by independent staff, with experience of the relevant issues. The Department considers the report adequate for the issues it was intended to address. A copy has been placed in the Library.

No formal report was produced following the one day National Patient Access Team review so no report is available to be placed in the Library. The review team identified a number of weaknesses in waiting list management. As a result of this review, the district audit investigation referred to was carried out.

Mr. Lidington

To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state, in respect of the patients at Stoke Mandeville hospital who were found in the district audit investigation to have been suspended irregularly from waiting lists, how many were patients(a) waiting for the second stage of a bilateral procedure, (b) who self-deferred having declined a reasonable treatment plan and (c) who were suspended without reason. [25498]

Ms Blears

[holding answer 9 January 2002]: The categorisation of suspensions by district audit did not include a specific number of patients waiting for a second stage of a bilateral procedure. These were included in the overall total of 35 patients who had inappropriately waited more than 18 months for treatment and who were categorised as system errors. No further analysis of these patients' cases was carried out, and such analysis would not be feasible without significant additional resources being diverted to the task.

The categorisation of patients by district audit did not include a specific number of patients who self-deferred having declined a reasonable treatment plan. These were included in the overall total of 35 patients who had inappropriately waited more than 18 months for treatment and who were categorised as system errors.

43 patients were found by district audit to have been suspended from waiting list inclusion without reason.