Debate contribution: Healthcare: Integrated 111 Service
Debate contribution by Mrs Diane Dodds on .
- MLA
- Mrs Diane Dodds
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 18 May 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Healthcare: Integrated 111 Service
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5548785
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you to the Opposition for the motion. It is always encouraging when parties in the House are willing to think about ways in which we can do things better. I welcome that, although there are issues that we would need to iron out before such a process or provision would be necessary. That is important. It is also important that we recognise that we have increasing problems in emergency care, be that in access to GPs or access to appropriate care in our emergency departments. There are far too many long waits. The Royal College of Emergency Medicine's report a few weeks ago painted a catastrophic picture for patients and the health service, stating that many of our patients wait for 12 hours, and more, for appropriate care in our EDs. We had a version of a 111 system during the pandemic, if I can raise that again: the Phone First service. That aimed to answer 95% of calls within the first minute. Therefore, if we are to introduce such a measure, it should build on some of our existing knowledge and expertise in the area. As others have suggested, the 111 approach is not without its problems. When looking at information ahead of the debate, I discovered that, last year, around 3·7 million calls to the NHS in England were dropped because it took too long to get through. Almost one in five callers — 18% — gave up before they got to speak to anyone. The average time it took to get through was around 25 minutes, according to information in December. There are also queries about the robustness of the data and how the service's effectiveness is measured. While it is important to try to think outside the box, and try to do things that are new and innovative and will help people reach appropriate care much quicker, it is also important to build on and develop best practice from those who are already there.
What is the Scottish experience of the 111 service? They say that, for the majority of respondents who ended their call to the National Health Service, it was again because of long waiting times. If we are to have a 111 service — there is a really good argument for it — it will have to be more efficient, properly staffed, properly resourced and able to meet the expectations of the people who need it. That is the key thing in delivering health services, because, too often, things are set up and people experience failure — failure to deliver appropriately is maybe a better way to say it. That is hugely important. We will also need much better communication across the systems. You gave the example of someone calling in and being able to identify free GP appointments that that person could be slotted into. That assumes that, in Northern Ireland, we have free GP appointments. One of the greatest complaints that I hear during my constituency work is that we need more appointments. The 8.30 am call to GPs is loathed across my constituency. That is also important. While we are doing that, we should not forget that there are issues that we really need to address in the here and now that will improve the experience for patients who are trying to access immediate support or advice. I refer to the Royal College of Emergency Medicine survey and those long waits in EDs. This morning, I also took the opportunity to talk to the Southern Trust —
— about the need for care packages. That must be addressed as well.
601 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | 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 | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:37 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.