Thank you.
The CAMRT survey was very useful because it did answer some of the questions. If you look at some of the degrees to which they are concerned, most of them, about two-thirds of the centres that responded, are having to add shifts and work.
As we look across the country, there are big regional variations. British Columbia and Alberta are coping very well indeed. Parts of Ontario are coping well. Parts of Ontario are not coping well at all.
My sense is that some of that reflects the smaller centres that are getting single generator supply. If you have a small amount of a small generator, you're going to be struggling more than if it's a small amount of a very large generator.
One of the struggles I've had in this role is to understand those centres that are really struggling. In Quebec, it's the same. Some centres are doing just fine. Some centres, again, particularly the smaller ones, are having some difficulty coping.
As we go forward, I look at three or four important issues. The first is the assumption that both Petten and NRU will be fine next year, in which case the community can continue pretty much as it has been doing, without the stresses, but it doesn't abrogate us from the requirement to plan the next generation of nuclear medicine, departments, and tests. If we have issues with either NRU or Petten next year, then we really do have to look at alternatives.
One of the important things that I hope will come out of the CIHR will be the development of mechanisms for evidence for introducing, for example, a new test in cardiac imaging or a new test in kidney imaging. It is important that we really do build the evidence very quickly so it can be introduced into clinical practice as quickly as possible.
We need to look very carefully at the results of the NRCan expert panel. All of us are aware of one or two, probably different ones or twos, of the proposals that have gone in. We're a small community, and many of us are either directly or peripherally involved in some of the submissions. Some of them are very innovative. Some of them are very expensive. We need to understand how quickly they can be brought into routine production of technetium for our patients.
Importantly, we need to look at transitioning too. Are we going to be using technetium for the next 200 years, or do we have to look at developing the next generation of tests? That is very important. As we move to the concept of personalized medicine, it becomes very important that we plan proactively how nuclear medicine fits into that.
I have said in meetings that in some ways this crisis is an opportunity for the community because it is creating the wherewithal and the terms for us to look at how we help the next generation of patients with our technologies.