Standing Committee on Pandemic Preparedness minutes: August 2023

Attendees and apologies

• Professor Andrew Morris
• Professor Dame Anna Dominiczak
• Professor Julie Fitzpatrick
• Professor Linda Bauld
• Professor Marion Bain
• Dr Audrey MacDougall
• Dr Jim McMenamin
• Christine McLaughlin
• Professor Massimo Palmarini 
• Professor Stephen Reicher
• Professor Sir Aziz Sheikh
• Professor Devi Sridhar

Observers

• Dr Graham Foster
• Professor Roger Halliday
• Redacted S.38 (1)(b)
• Daniel Kleinberg
• Redacted S.38 (1)(b)
• Redacted S.38 (1)(b)
• Dr Maria Rossi
• Gillian Payne
• Professor Josephine Pravinkumar

Secretariat

• Redacted S.38 (1)(b)
• Redacted S.38 (1)(b)
   

Items and actions

1.    Introduction 

The Chair welcomed Standing Committee on Pandemic Preparedness (SCoPP) members and observers to the meeting.

The papers and items on today’s agenda map onto the recommendations in the interim report. The Chair noted the importance of recommendations being bold and ambitious, with clarity around the goals to achieve and where responsibility for delivering these sits. 

The Chair noted the ongoing work of the UK and Scottish Inquiries. The work of the inquiries and the ScoPP will contribute to improving future pandemic preparedness in Scotland. 

2.     Proposals – Data for Pandemic Preparedness

Roger Halliday outlined the work done by Research Data Scotland (RDS) for the commission on data for pandemic preparedness. The approvals process is a significant focus of this, with a review into existing processes carried out over previous months. How to maintain public trust whilst removing friction from the existing process is key and the objective is to move to a principle of one project, one review, extending a risk-based decision making process. For the majority of projects the ambition is for decisions to be made in two weeks. The SCoPP heard that an international expert has been recruited by RDS to support the delivery of those changes. 

Committee members commented that an important consideration for data for future pandemics should be thinking about all the types of data needed to prepare for and respond to future pandemics, not just for health but across sectors, and linking this data. The discussion underlined the importance of involving the public in approval processes and undertaking public engagement on data approval processes, ensuring diverse voices are heard as part of this. More broadly diverse public engagement should form a key part of preparing for future pandemics. 

Committee members noted challenges around EAVE II data which is now on hold because of practicalities of receiving permissions for receipt of data. They noted the importance of articulating such cases to ensure those barriers are understood and addressed. Christine McLaughlin asked Public Health Scotland (PHS) to consider these issues and work with Scottish Government to clarify the locus of responsibility for these decisions and develop solutions to address blockages. 

The Chair summarised the discussion:

• the aim is to make the exceptional routine by embedding best practice
• the publics must be part of trustworthy decision making processes that are sustainable. Bringing diversity of publics into this
• barriers are multiple and include leadership, political support, ability to demonstrate trustworthiness, prioritisation, vested interest, and confusion over legal basis, and support from professionals and professional associations
• the benefits of the use of data for surveillance, health service evaluation and research must be articulated. These have clear potential to improve people’s lives
• for future pandemics, a data strategy should set out the key datasets for future pandemic and infectious disease outbreak preparedness and response
• there is an immediacy to these issues. Goals should be clearly articulated with a clear locus of responsibility for these and timeline for their delivery
• the data subgroup and RDS should leverage the connection to Ian Diamond for this work

ACTION : Roger Halliday to follow-up with Jim McMenamin and Aziz Sheikh on the EAVE II situation.  
 

3.     Proposals – Centre of Pandemic Preparedness

Jim McMenamin introduced the CPP discussion and the discussions which fed into the proposals. The aim of these was to set out the purpose and vision for a Centre. 

There were a wide range of models that were considered during these discussions and the paper circulated sets out several options. The discussion noted that the key part of the Centre should be its role as a network. Key considerations include how diffuse this Centre should be, the expertise required to address different types of questions, how to maintain engagement with the network, how priorities are set, and leadership and governance. The Centre will need to be structured, with clear governance, and with core staff to support day-to-day functions of the network. The Centre should be part of or connected to PHS. Committee members commented that whilst the entity is being referred to as a Centre for now, this should change and a partnership or collaboration is a better descriptor.

Committee members noted the role of research as a central part of the Centre purpose. This was not currently sufficiently reflected in early proposals. The connection should be made to structures in government, such as the Scottish Government’s ScotSCIENCE network, which brings together scientists from all of government. 

Chair’s summary:

• emphasis on partnership and collaboration within the network
• the proximity and networks that formed between policymakers, NHS leadership, academia, the industrial science base during the COVID-19 pandemic is what the Centre should look to maintain
• the purpose and function of a Centre should be set-out upfront, with consideration then given to governance
• research should be a key element of a partnership, and will then drive further partnership working. Partnership with the Chief Scientist’s Office should be considered
• must think about how to keep capabilities ‘warm’ in the inter-pandemic period#

 

4.    Proposals – Advice for Pandemic Preparedness

The Committee heard that a number of workshops were held for this work strand. Firstly, the ScotSCIENCE network consulted and looked internationally at what countries are doing on scientific advice. South East Asia and Australia were cited as good examples of countries to draw learnings from. From these initial meetings, the role of horizon scanning stood out as a first priority.  

Secondly, the value of maintaining an academy or network of advisors, including broader than just scientific experts stood out. Thirdly, the importance of regular engagement and developing a programme of engagement and events for this. 

Feedback from these meetings included:

• the need for a core office function to support this activity
• the importance of leveraging existing networks and publications, and avoiding duplicating work where this is already being done
• the value of learning from models that work elsewhere. The UK Human Animal Infectious and Risk Surveillance group (HAIRS) was cited as a good example
• the value of regular meetings to maintain engagement (e.g. bi-annual)
• the importance of engaging with a broad set of stakeholders for activities such as table-top exercises
• the need for a two-way flow of information with government, and a structured way of bringing government scientists into discussions, along with external experts.
• that advice should not be limited to pandemics but include infectious disease outbreaks. 
• that a key role for an academy or network could be addressing challenges such as responding to misinformation about scientific advice

Participants were asked whether it is necessary to have mechanisms for advice in inter-pandemic periods and agreed unanimously that this must continue to be in place in the inter-pandemic period. The ScotSCIENCE network expressed its desire to continue to provide support to this programme of work. 

The Committee commented that there are parallels with this work and the work on the CPP. The two strands will connect to form part of the overall SCoPP recommendations. 

 

5.    Proposals – Innovation for Pandemic Preparedness

The Committee heard about the Accelerated National Innovation Adoption (ANIA) pathway which is governed by the Innovation Design Authority (IDA). These two bodies have been in place for a year. They are intended to accelerate the use of innovation in the NHS but could be adapted to support innovation in the case of outbreaks or pandemics. Similarities were drawn with research trials during the pandemic that pivoted to focus on COVID-19. 

Committee members noted that today’s innovations are tomorrow’s solutions. ANIA and IDA mechanisms to support this.  

ACTION: Secretariat to circulate materials relating to ANIA for information. 

The Chair thanked participants and leads for presenting at today’s meetings. Important to be clear about the goal for each recommendation, how we get there – who to do what by when. 

ACTION: Secretariat to opportunities for peer review and input from the International Reference Group into the final report. 

 

6.    Any other business

The next meeting is scheduled for 3 October 2023.