Debate contribution: Thrombectomy Service
Debate contribution by Mr Philip McGuigan on .
- MLA
- Mr Philip McGuigan
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 10 February 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Thrombectomy Service
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5435782
Read the official Assembly record
Text
We all know the FAST campaign — face, arms, speech, time — and we all understand how vital it is to recognise the signs of a stroke quickly. However, FAST is only the beginning, because, once a stroke is suspected, every minute matters. We know that 1·9 million brain cells are lost every minute that a stroke goes untreated, which means delays that are devastating for patients and their families. Rapid access to specialist care dramatically increases the chances of survival, recovery and long-term independence. Modern AI tools help clinicians interpret scans faster, but technology alone is not enough. For those decisions to save lives and prevent disability, they must be followed immediately by the right intervention, and that is why services in the North require improvement. Despite a commitment in the 2022 stroke action plan to deliver a 24/7 thrombectomy service by the end of 2024, we are in 2026 with a service that is still available only between 8.00 am and 5.00 pm. That means that around 100 patients in the North miss out on thrombectomy every year simply because their stroke occurs outside the available hours. That is despite thrombectomy being described repeatedly by stroke experts as a game-changing treatment that saves lives, preserves brain function and significantly reduces disability.
In the North, according to 2024-25 figures, we deliver thrombectomy to just 5·2% of stroke patients even though the evidence shows that at least 10% could be eligible. Every one of those missed opportunities matters: they certainly matter to patients. Around a quarter of patients who receive thrombectomy experience reduced long-term disability, and a fifth regain functional independence. The financial argument is equally compelling: each patient who receives thrombectomy saves the health service an estimated £47,000 over five years due to reduced demand for rehabilitation, long-term care and social support. That is why stroke charities and clinicians consistently describe thrombectomy as a clear case of investing to save. The wider context in the North makes it even more urgent. According to the Public Health Agency (PHA), there are approximately 39,000 stroke survivors living in the North, with around 2,800 new stroke patients each year and up to 1,000 people losing their lives as a result of stroke. We know that timely thrombectomy can prevent many long-term disabilities. We also know that our stroke services are too thinly spread to meet best practice standards without reform and that consolidating them into hyper-acute centres is widely recognised as being essential to expanding thrombectomy to a 24/7 service. Despite those structural pressures, the success of the North's health service teams within current limitations should give us confidence. Analysis shows that 45% to 55% of patients treated with thrombectomy regain functional independence whether they arrived directly or were transferred from another hospital. Imagine the outcomes that we could achieve with full 24/7 availability, equitable access and reduced transfer delays. I commend the dedication of our stroke clinicians, neuro-radiologists, rehabilitation teams and community support organisations, including the Stroke Association and NI Chest, Heart and Stroke, which continue to innovate and advocate for stroke survivors across the North. I, too, welcome the stroke survivors and campaigners to the Chamber to listen to the debate. I acknowledge their efforts to achieve progress on the issue. I also acknowledge initiatives like the PITSTOP pilot at Altnagelvin Area Hospital, which is designed to minimise transfer delays by keeping the ambulance on site until thrombectomy eligibility is confirmed. That kind of innovation shows what is possible when we design services around patients' needs.
Yes.
Absolutely. I thank the Member for the intervention. At the Health Committee, we often talk about the success of pilots, but, in many cases, they stop at being pilots and do not become actual services. I absolutely commend the PITSTOP service and want to see it initiated further and integrated fully into our health service. The Department of Health has already costed the move to 24/7 thrombectomy at just over £5 million a year, which would not only enable additional procedures to be carried out but allow equitable access, as I said. That investment is modest when set against the human impact, the financial savings and the urgent need identified by clinicians, stroke charities and stroke survivors themselves. We hope to hear good news from the Minister when he makes his contribution.
719 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 (0.98).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.98 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.74 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.26 |
| 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 14:52 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.