Debate contribution: Multidisciplinary Teams Funding: East Antrim
Debate contribution by Mr Mike Nesbitt on .
- MLA
- Mr Mike Nesbitt
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 27 January 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Multidisciplinary Teams Funding: East Antrim
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4759148
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member. I will take the second part of the question first. Yes. My view is that we must shift left into primary and community care. We must talk about prevention and early intervention rather than waiting for people to become acutely ill and end up in our major hospitals. Of all the reforms that have happened since Bengoa, multidisciplinary teams in primary care are probably the most successful example of transformation, and we have talked about elective overnight stay centres, day procedure centres, mega clinics, rapid diagnostic centres, which are all in secondary care. I will give the Member some statistics. Multidisciplinary teams have seen over 751,000 patients and offered physiotherapy, social work, mental healthcare and the rest, and that is across 116 GP surgeries. Some 171,000 people have accessed the full multidisciplinary team services, and 300,000 additional consultations have taken place because of multidisciplinary teams. My concern is that people in some areas have access to a full MDT team, but, in some areas, it is a partial one and, in some areas, none at all. That is an issue for the delivery of health equity, and it can be addressed only through additional funding, such as that coming from the transformation fund.
207 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.02 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.87 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.13 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:50 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.