Hansard

I agree with nearly everything that has been said in this worthwhile debate. The unanimity of the message will be encouraging to patients and health professionals.

Nicola Sturgeon pointed out that Scotland is a world leader in tackling health care associated infection. However, she also said that the infection rate in acute hospitals is 9.5 per cent and HAI costs us £200 million per annum. She was right to say that staff must have ownership of, and take pride in, hospitals. She made two important points. First, she said that eradicating infection is simply not possible—anyone who knows anything about science will realise that—but control of infection is possible and must be achieved. She mentioned funding of £54 million over the next three years. Members questioned whether that is enough money, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Secondly, she talked about targeting health boards.

MRSA, which I think stands for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus—the cabinet secretary is nodding—is upon us. Indeed, a member of my family has suffered from MRSA. Luckily they made a complete recovery.

Margaret Curran welcomed the acceptance of the amendment and told us a harrowing tale, as did James Kelly, who referred to a recent obituary. Margaret Curran also made a good point about older people in care homes.

Mary Scanlon welcomed the quarterly audits and got into interesting territory about death certificates when she quoted from the response to a written question. That relates to Michael Matheson's point about whether the perceived rise in deaths from MRSA is related to recording methods. We are interested to know whether that is the case.

My colleague Ross Finnie emphasised that there is no disagreement in Parliament and made two important points. First, he said that resources must be targeted at the infections that we are trying to tackle. If we do not point the weapon at the right target we will be failing. He made play of the interesting and groundbreaking targeting work that the Dutch are doing, in particular in testing all patients in high-risk groups, so that audit can be as accurate as possible. Secondly, he was probably the first member to highlight the importance of the public. Many members subsequently made that point.

Reference was made to the pressure on clinical staff to have 100 per cent occupancy and to treat more and more patients—I think that the expression is "hot-bedding".

Helen Eadie and other members, including Rhoda Grant, Nanette Milne and Sandra White, talked about antibiotics, which is a big issue. I stand to be corrected on this by Dr Simpson or Dr McKee after the debate, but in my experience GPs and health professionals are now much less inclined to prescribe antibiotics and the regime is much stricter, which is a welcome step in the right direction. My mother, who is known to Mary Scanlon, Rob Gibson and other members, has a wee medicine cupboard, which is full of half-used antibiotic prescriptions, which seems to her to make eminent sense. How dangerous is that? I assure members that whenever I get the opportunity the antibiotics go straight into the bin.

Michael Matheson made an interesting reference to different approaches in hospitals and to hospital design. If I may turn, with the Deputy Presiding Officer's indulgence, to my constituency, the point has been made that big hospitals differ from little hospitals. That is not always accurate, but it is a general trend. Two small hospitals in my constituency are the Caithness general hospital and the Lawson Memorial hospital. Everything that the cabinet secretary and others have said is borne out by their experience: it is about environmental cleanliness and a hand-cleaning regime. The Lawson Memorial hospital asks visitors to maintain a hand-cleaning regime. As other members have said, there is no uniform approach—it varies from hospital to hospital. The regime that I have outlined is one of the factors that makes at least two hospitals in my constituency relatively successful.

I return to the points that were made by Ross Finnie. We must target resources. The minister and all members know—if we are honest about it—that resources are limited; we cannot throw endless money at the problem, so targeting is crucial. I flag up the Dutch example as one form of very good practice.

I conclude on the most positive aspect of the debate. As Ross Finnie and others said, the unanimity of contributions to the debate must surely give great encouragement to people who are potentially at risk of acquiring such infection, and to health professionals. It is an example of Parliament's being able to speak with one voice in a constructive way.