CervicalCheck controversy

listermint

Amirani wrote: »

Your timeline on Vicky Phelan is incorrect. She was diagnosed with cancer in 2014 and started treatment immediately that year.

After she was diagnosed in 2014, an audit was undertaken into her previous smear tests to check for accuracy. It was in this audit that the false negative was identified. When it was identified, she'd already been receiving treatment for her cancer.

Vickie Phelan was not informed of her false negative when it was discovered and only found out about it last year. At this point she'd already been receiving treatment for 3 years.

Vickie Phelan had to go to court to find out about it, Lets not use terms like discovered. It was discovered several years ago. She had to go through the process of a court case to find out the real truth.

That is a core problem here.

kaymin

Amirani wrote: »

Mary Lou: "Women's lives were put in jeopardy by the Hse witholding information on false negative smears with the women."

That's disingenuous. Women's lives weren't put in jeopardy and women didn't die because of the HSE not sharing information. Her claim is false and misleading.

It is not misleading because if women (in general) knew the smear tests they had undergone were unreliable then they would most likely arrange to be re-tested - the fact that they won't have done that means cancers will develop in some unknowingly.

blanch152

Amirani wrote: »

Mary Lou: "Women's lives were put in jeopardy by the Hse witholding information on false negative smears with the women."

That's disingenuous. Women's lives weren't put in jeopardy and women didn't die because of the HSE not sharing information. Her claim is false and misleading.

It is typical of the hysterical reaction to these cases. We will never get to the truth if politicians start sounding like tabloids.

blanch152

kaymin wrote: »

It is not misleading because if women (in general) knew the smear tests they had undergone were unreliable then they would most likely arrange to be re-tested - the fact that they won't have done that means cancers will develop in some unknowingly.

Not true, everyone with a basic command of English knew that there was a certain level of unreliability to screening, that is why it is called screening rather than diagnosis.

Mr.H

Amirani wrote:

It is wrong. But, you can't just subjectively call something criminal when there are no laws against it. There's no laws in Ireland that mandate the open disclosure of all health information. Maybe we should have such a law, but until then it's objectively not criminal.

OK let's say I am your doctor. I test you for some sort of cancer. I then tell you after a long wait, that you are clear. You have nothing to worry about so go be with your family and enjoy life. Three years later you go for another check with a different doctor. You are told oh have very aggressive cancer and you've had it a while. In the mean time I realise I may have read our results wrong and I can't be sure that you were given the correct result three years ago. If I realised his three years ago you would have been retested. We may have found cancer and began treatment. Three years ago when it is not as aggressive and far along. In fact you may be clear of it by now. But because it doesn't change anything right now I choose to not tell you I made a mistake.

Are you telling me there is no malpractice, no conspiracy and no criminality in those actions?

Yes I would deserve jail time for that.

kaymin

blanch152 wrote: »

Despite some harrowing stories on the radio and television, it does not appear (or there is no evidence to date) that there was any negligence in the diagnosis other than the standard level of false negatives. That isn't any consolation at all for the people affected, but screening is not diagnosis. The wider Irish public do not seem to have grasped this, and are not helped by the media, particularly radio and online media in this regard.

At the time a decision was taken to outsource, the QA unit resigned on mass because the outsourced service yielded 1/3 less positives than non-outsourced testing yet their concerns were dismissed. This does not seem to be a normal level of false negatives.

boombang

kaymin wrote: »

It is not misleading because if women (in general) knew the smear tests they had undergone were unreliable then they would most likely arrange to be re-tested - the fact that they won't have done that means cancers will develop in some unknowingly.

Smears are inherently unreliable. If they went for a retest it would be with the same unreliable test. It was misleading for MLMcD to suggest that non disclosure damaged health.

Mr.H

blanch152 wrote:

As for conspiracy, you can't have a conspiracy without a crime, so what crime are you accusing these people of committing?

I don't claim to know the law inside out. I claim to find it hard to believe no law was broken.

Milkman..

blanch152 wrote: »

What law was broken? If, as you say, there was a crime, then a law must have been broken.

So far that we know, there were false negatives in cervical screening (which is completely normal), these false negatives were discovered when the women later developed cervical cancer (again, completely normal as it isn't a false negative until a positive occurs). From what we have read to date, none of that is an issue unless it can be demonstrated that the false negative levels were unusually high.

Then the trouble starts. A decision was made firstly not to tell patients, and then secondly after some time passed, that discretion should be given to doctors to tell patients. It should have been left to the doctors from the start, as they are the ones best placed to judge what a patient should or shouldn't hear.

Despite some harrowing stories on the radio and television, it does not appear (or there is no evidence to date) that there was any negligence in the diagnosis other than the standard level of false negatives. That isn't any consolation at all for the people affected, but screening is not diagnosis. The wider Irish public do not seem to have grasped this, and are not helped by the media, particularly radio and online media in this regard.

As for conspiracy, you can't have a conspiracy without a crime, so what crime are you accusing these people of committing?

Is it correct to say a false-negative only becomes a false-negative at a later stage and not at the time of reading the slide?

Not saying you're wrong

kaymin

blanch152 wrote: »

Not true, everyone with a basic command of English knew that there was a certain level of unreliability to screening, that is why it is called screening rather than diagnosis.

There's no denying its not 100% accurate, however, its the extent of the incorrect results that is of concern and in question. If they were in the normal range that would be expected then the testing clinic would not have a case to answer in the courts - yet they had to pay €2.5m to Vicky Phelan. Experts have said that a reasonably competent person would have detected the cancerous cells in her smear tests.

Amirani

kaymin wrote: »

At the time a decision was taken to outsource, the QA unit resigned on mass because the outsourced service yielded 1/3 less positives than non-outsourced testing yet their concerns were dismissed. This does not seem to be a normal level of false negatives.

This hasn't been completely clarified yet. We're awaiting the publication of results between the different labs to see if there's any discrepancy.

You're correct in that there were resignations around the decision to outsource over testing thresholds. Whether these actually manifested and what the reasoning is is not completely clear.

Just speculating, but it may have been felt that outsourcing to a slightly less reliable lab would be preferable to having a backlog on smear tests that would take over a year to get through for example. This needs to be made clear and should come out in the inquiry being undertaken.

Amirani

Milkman.. wrote: »

Is it correct to say a false-negative only becomes a false-negative at a later stage and not at the time of reading the slide?

Not saying you're wrong

Well it will always be a false negative. But until you receive follow up information, it's just a "negative". You can only classify it as false if it gets re-examined differently.

kaymin

boombang wrote: »

Smears are inherently unreliable. If they went for a retest it would be with the same unreliable test. It was misleading for MLMcD to suggest that non disclosure damaged health.

That's not correct. The outsourcing screening service gave 1/3 less positive results than the non-outsourced screening service. That's the whole point - the US lab spends 5 minutes analysing each sample because the test is done every year and therefore a missed diagnosis is not as drastic. The screening service in Ireland spends far longer because it is done only every 3 years.

James Brown

glenfieldman wrote: »

...
But this tragic case affects all women in the Republic and not one pop up protest has been organised

What time are you starting and where? If they protest they're criminals, if they don't they are only self interested or something? Who'd be an Irish citizen..read my signature.

boombang wrote: »

I wish people could show some class and not throw statements like this around. The matter is too grave. No virtual death sentence has been given to that poor lady: she's the mostly likely simply the very unfortunate victim of probability.

You seem reluctant to have this even seen as any kind of abnormal, unacceptable process. Trying to find out what happened and ensure it doesn't again is the upmost respect you can give. Throwing claim money is nice but not a solution.

You should contact the media and explain there's virtually nothing to see here, also contact Harris;

Mr Harris also said he wants to get to the bottom of who knew what, and when, and said he had ordered a trawl of documents in the Department of Health.
https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/0511/962713-cabinet-meeting-on-cervical-cancer-controversy/

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You've not shown how this is incorrect:

People died as a direct result of false readings. The company withheld false readings. We are investigating who knew what, when and why. We know Vicky Phelan only found out through her own due diligence.
If the errors were discovered sooner or when discovered patients were told immediately, could lives have been saved?

I'm not sure who you think you are protecting by downplaying this.
It's not merely fools baying for blood because the bias hyped media is pushing buttons. A litany of errors where made and a conscious cover up attempt. People died are dying. We want answers. Blithely suggesting errors happen and the rest is unfortunate, isn't good enough.

Milkman..

Amirani wrote: »

Well it will always be a false negative. But until you receive follow up information, it's just a "negative". You can only classify it as false if it gets re-examined differently.

It's only classified later as false negative

But it would be false -negative at the time of reading would it not

McMurphy

Amirani wrote: »

Mary Lou: "Women's lives were put in jeopardy by the Hse witholding information on false negative smears with the women."

That's disingenuous. Women's lives weren't put in jeopardy and women didn't die because of the HSE not sharing information. Her claim is false and misleading.

As I said, the interview is there if you want to listen back, she never said the HSE caused the deaths (that was your claim), she said that when someone gets a cancer diagnosis, the timing of when that diagnosis is disclosed is very important, she said a physician could lay out options for treatment upon a cancer diagnosis.

You complained about people being disingenuous, then went on to ascribe words to people that was never said.

kaymin

Amirani wrote: »

This hasn't been completely clarified yet. We're awaiting the publication of results between the different labs to see if there's any discrepancy.

You're correct in that there were resignations around the decision to outsource over testing thresholds. Whether these actually manifested and what the reasoning is is not completely clear.

Just speculating, but it may have been felt that outsourcing to a slightly less reliable lab would be preferable to having a backlog on smear tests that would take over a year to get through for example. This needs to be made clear and should come out in the inquiry being undertaken.

The reason for the resignations are clear - the persons involved have been extensively quoted as to their reasons in the press i.e. 1/3 less positive results were coming from the outsourced screening lab.

It comes down to money - the backlog would be cleared if they invested in the testing. Instead they went with the lowest bidder who provided a completely inadequate service given smear tests are conducted every 3 years in Ireland (as opposed to every year in the US).

Amirani

Mr.H wrote: »

OK let's say I am your doctor. I test you for some sort of cancer. I then tell you after a long wait, that you are clear. You have nothing to worry about so go be with your family and enjoy life. Three years later you go for another check with a different doctor. You are told oh have very aggressive cancer and you've had it a while. In the mean time I realise I may have read our results wrong and I can't be sure that you were given the correct result three years ago. If I realised his three years ago you would have been retested. We may have found cancer and began treatment. Three years ago when it is not as aggressive and far along. In fact you may be clear of it by now. But because it doesn't change anything right now I choose to not tell you I made a mistake.

Are you telling me there is no malpractice, no conspiracy and no criminality in those actions?

Yes I would deserve jail time for that.

I think your analogy is fair and is similar to this situation. Once your actions as a doctor were taken in good faith, it would not be malpractice and there would be no criminality as far as I'm aware.

As regards telling me of your error, this is what we should be legislating around. It probably should be mandatory to inform patients of these errors (though there are conflicting views).

It's an unfortunate fact that one of the top 5 causes of death in Irish hospitals is human medical error. Once the doctor was acting in good faith and within clinical parameters, then it's not criminal or malpractice. A family member of mine died due to a surgeon's error, but their error was in no way criminal.

Red_Wake

Mr.H wrote: »

Amirani wrote:

It is wrong. But, you can't just subjectively call something criminal when there are no laws against it. There's no laws in Ireland that mandate the open disclosure of all health information. Maybe we should have such a law, but until then it's objectively not criminal.

OK let's say I am your doctor. I test you for some sort of cancer. I then tell you after a long wait, that you are clear. You have nothing to worry about so go be with your family and enjoy life. Three years later you go for another check with a different doctor. You are told oh have very aggressive cancer and you've had it a while. In the mean time I realise I may have read our results wrong and I can't be sure that you were given the correct result three years ago. If I realised his three years ago you would have been retested. We may have found cancer and began treatment. Three years ago when it is not as aggressive and far along. In fact you may be clear of it by now. But because it doesn't change anything right now I choose to not tell you I made a mistake.

Are you telling me there is no malpractice, no conspiracy and no criminality in those actions?

Yes I would deserve jail time for that.

So you'd jail a doctor who acted in good faith? 

I assume in your above scenario, you'd be in the position of being incapable of alerting the patient to their health problems, due to not being aware of them yourself.

Amirani

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

As I said, the interview is there if you want to listen back, she never said the HSE caused the deaths (that was your claim), she said that when someone gets a cancer diagnosis, the timing of when that diagnosis is disclosed is very important, she said a physician could lay out options for treatment upon a cancer diagnosis.

You complained about people being disingenuous, then went on to ascribe words to people that was never said.

I'm not discussing her radio interview, I'm discussing her tweets. She may well have changed her tune in the past few days, but her initial tweets were disingenous.

Mary Lou: "Women's lives were put in jeopardy by the Hse witholding information on false negative smears with the women."

Disingenuous.

Mary Lou:Precisely. You assert that witholding that information had no material affect on women's treatment.Vicky Phelan expresses a different view.

Also disingenuous.

kaymin

Amirani wrote: »

I'm not discussing her radio interview, I'm discussing her tweets. She may well have changed her tune in the past few days, but her initial tweets were disingenous.

Mary Lou: "Women's lives were put in jeopardy by the Hse witholding information on false negative smears with the women."

Disingenuous.

Mary Lou:Precisely. You assert that witholding that information had no material affect on women's treatment.Vicky Phelan expresses a different view.

Also disingenuous.

I don't see how it is disingenuous. If it is widely known that smear tests conducted by the US lab are not very accurate then women will get the test done by an Irish lab instead who detect 1/3 more positives. The withholding of the fact that testing conducted by the US lab is inaccurate has, most likely, cost lives.

Mr.H

Red_Wake wrote:

I assume in your above scenario, you'd be in the position of being incapable of alerting the patient to their health problems, due to not being aware of them yourself.

But being aware of my error later is not acting in good faith

James Brown

kaymin wrote: »

The reason for the resignations are clear - the persons involved have been extensively quoted as to their reasons in the press i.e. 1/3 less positive results were coming from the outsourced screening lab.

It comes down to money - the backlog would be cleared if they invested in the testing. Instead they went with the lowest bidder who provided a completely inadequate service given smear tests are conducted every 3 years in Ireland (as opposed to every year in the US).

I'd be interested in the details of the bidding process too. It's not beyond the realms of imagination that there may be a conflict of interest there.

Amirani

kaymin wrote: »

The reason for the resignations are clear - the persons involved have been extensively quoted as to their reasons in the press i.e. 1/3 less positive results were coming from the outsourced screening lab.

It comes down to money - the backlog would be cleared if they invested in the testing. Instead they went with the lowest bidder who provided a completely inadequate service given smear tests are conducted every 3 years in Ireland (as opposed to every year in the US).

Yep, there's a very good chance that money is involved. Countless decisions within our health service come down to money; should HPV vaccine be rolled out to girls and boys, should drug X be provided at a cost of €y per year, should we outsource or hire more medical professionals.

People will always lose out in these sorts of decisions, and it's tragic, but it's the nature of not having an unlimited health budget.

The question really is how adequate was the outsourced service and whether it was a reasonable alternative to investing here. These are exactly the sorts of questions that need to be asked.

HeidiHeidi

kaymin wrote: »

I don't see how it is disingenuous. If it is widely known that smear tests conducted by the US lab are not very accurate then women will get the test done by an Irish lab instead who detect 1/3 more positives. The withholding of the fact that testing conducted by the US lab is inaccurate has, most likely, cost lives.

Is it an option though for women to choose who tests their smear samples?

Genuine question, as I was never given that choice, nor was aware of who was doing the testing.

boombang

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Is it an option though for women to choose who tests their smear samples?

Genuine question, as I was never given that choice, nor was aware of who was doing the testing.

It's divided up on a regional basis. If you live in Dublin and get yours done at the Well Woman centres theirs go to the Coombe.

James Brown

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Is it an option though for women to choose who tests their smear samples?

Genuine question, as I was never given that choice, nor was aware of who was doing the testing.

It's trust in the state healthcare provider. You don't expect the tests to be sent to a barn in Chechnya either.
Initially the HSE wasn't able to say which lab themselves.

The HSE has been unable to clarify which of the laboratories it contracts to process cervical smears produced inaccurate test results in relation to 206 women.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/hse-cant-say-which-lab-linked-to-errors-470023.html

boombang

kaymin wrote: »

I don't see how it is disingenuous. If it is widely known that smear tests conducted by the US lab are not very accurate then women will get the test done by an Irish lab instead who detect 1/3 more positives. The withholding of the fact that testing conducted by the US lab is inaccurate has, most likely, cost lives.

Take care not to conflate the issue of which labs to contract with non disclosure. We're taking issue with MLMCD's claims re non disclosure.

boombang

kaymin wrote: »

That's not correct. The outsourcing screening service gave 1/3 less positive results than the non-outsourced screening service. That's the whole point - the US lab spends 5 minutes analysing each sample because the test is done every year and therefore a missed diagnosis is not as drastic. The screening service in Ireland spends far longer because it is done only every 3 years.

TOB has stated that the required Quest to reconfigure their processes for Irish requirements and that the evidence put forward by Dr Gibbons doesn't relate to Quest's performance with CervicalCheck since 2008. Of course, that's not evidence that Quest has worked as well as the others. That evidence still needs to be seen.

McMurphy

Amirani wrote: »

I'm not discussing her radio interview, I'm discussing her tweets. She may well have changed her tune in the past few days, but her initial tweets were disingenous.

Mary Lou: "Women's lives were put in jeopardy by the Hse witholding information on false negative smears with the women."

Disingenuous.

Mary Lou:Precisely. You assert that witholding that information had no material affect on women's treatment.Vicky Phelan expresses a different view.

Also disingenuous.

Her tweets don't state that the hse caused anyone's deaths, that was your claim, and it was in itself disingenuous.

You don't seem to be able to distinguish the difference in putting a life in jeopardy, and causing the loss of a life.


We'll leave it there.

Red_Wake

Mr.H wrote: »

Red_Wake wrote:

I assume in your above scenario, you'd be in the position of being incapable of alerting the patient to their health problems, due to not being aware of them yourself.

But being aware of my error later is not acting in good faith

But by the time you were aware of the error, the patient would be diagnosed with cancer, and receiving treatment. That is how you would have been made aware of your initial error.

In your view, how would notifying the patient of the inevitable statistical error improve their outcome?

kaymin

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Is it an option though for women to choose who tests their smear samples?

Genuine question, as I was never given that choice, nor was aware of who was doing the testing.

I doubt it especially if going through the public health system - knowing what I know now though and if I was a woman, I'd pay privately if necessary to have it done by an Irish lab.

boombang

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Her tweets don't state that the hse caused anyone's deaths, that was your claim, and it was in itself disingenuous.

You don't seem to be able to distinguish the difference in putting a life in jeopardy, and causing the loss of a life.


We'll leave it there.

I noted she used very careful language when speaking on this in the Dáil. She didn't say it outright, but the implication was clear. I'm pretty sure she knew what she was doing. She's no fool.

kaymin

boombang wrote: »

TOB has stated that the required Quest to reconfigure their processes for Irish requirements and that the evidence put forward by Dr Gibbons doesn't relate to Quest's performance with CervicalCheck since 2008. Of course, that's not evidence that Quest has worked as well as the others. That evidence still needs to be seen.

Yes, but I wouldn't believe a word that comes from Tony O'Brien. The reasons given for the resignations by the persons who resigned was quite clear. TOB claims the issues were dealt with but just not in the way that others might like - I somehow doubt this.

givyjoe

Red_Wake wrote: »

But by the time you were aware of the error, the patient would be diagnosed with cancer, and receiving treatment. That is how you would have been made aware of your initial error.

In your view, how would notifying the patient of the inevitable statistical error improve their outcome?

I thought the point/problem with these errors and not disclosing the errors... was that if the patients had of been notified, then they would not now be left with terminal cancer, i.e. if the mistake had of been notified when it was discovered.

boombang

kaymin wrote: »

Yes, but I wouldn't believe a word that comes from Tony O'Brien. The reasons given for the resignations by the persons who resigned was quite clear. TOB claims the issues were dealt with but just not in the way that others might like - I somehow doubt this.

I understand your suspicion. I'm going to wait to see what the review says.

Interestingly, I think it's less about how the screen performance panned out and more about what could reasonably be claimed at the time regarding getting the system up to scratch.

Although, ongoing monitoring for poor performance is also an important part of the process for sure.

boombang

givyjoe wrote: »

I thought the point/problem with these errors and not disclosing the errors... was that if the patients had of been notified, then they would not now be left with terminal cancer, i.e. if the mistake had of been notified when it was discovered.

Others in this thread have also been under that impression. Read back over some of the previous posts in reply to Matt and Mr H.

McMurphy

boombang wrote: »

I noted she used very careful language when speaking on this in the D. She didn't say it outright, but the implication was clear. I'm pretty sure she knew what she was doing. She's no fool.

That clears that one up so.

Was there a suggestion about people being disingenuous here?

Red_Wake

givyjoe wrote: »

Red_Wake wrote: »

But by the time you were aware of the error, the patient would be diagnosed with cancer, and receiving treatment. That is how you would have been made aware of your initial error.

In your view, how would notifying the patient of the inevitable statistical error improve their outcome?

I thought the point/problem with these errors and not disclosing the errors... was that if the patients had of been notified, then they would not now be left with terminal cancer, i.e. if the mistake had of been notified when it was discovered.

No this is utterly false. The errors were only discovered when the initial smears were retested following the women in question receiving a diagnosis of cancer. By the time they were aware of the errors in the smear[the false negatives], they were already receiving treatment for cancer.

This is explained several times a page in this topic.

kaymin

boombang wrote: »

Take care not to conflate the issue of which labs to contract with non disclosure. We're taking issue with MLMCD's claims re non disclosure.

Regardless of the lab, non-disclosure of the fact testing gave inaccurate results meant women inappropriately relied on those results to their detriment and possibly their lives. You claim inaccurate results are within normal ranges - all the indications says otherwise - the fact they are settling multi-million lawsuits and what the QA team that resigned have to say about the matter.

boombang

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

That clears that one up so.

Was there a suggestion about people being disingenuous here?

Jaysus Johnny, just because she implied it rather than spelt it out doesn't mean she wasn't being disingenuous. She knows what she was saying, I know what she was saying. In my eyes she was plainly being disingenuous with an important public health story. To do so for a political motivation is reprehensible in my view.

It's fine if you don't find her comments disingenuous.

givyjoe

Red_Wake wrote: »

No this is utterly false. The errors were only discovered when the initial smears were retested following the women in question receiving a diagnosis of cancer. By the time they were aware of the errors in the smear[the false negatives], they were already receiving treatment for cancer.

This is explained several times a page in this topic.

What's utterly false? Did you read my post? I asked a question, I didn't make a statement. . I don't have a crystal ball to magically know where the exact posts that explain this are on a thread I've just seen for the first time, nor do i have the time to read 239 + posts to find in case my question is already answered. But by all means get completely arsey about it. The first mention of this explanation (that I found, while working backwards) is 4 pages back. My incorrect views were based on how this has been presented in the media and by politicians.

If it was covered multiple times, then fair to assume to multiple people were under the same impression.

boombang

kaymin wrote: »

Regardless of the lab, non-disclosure of the fact testing gave inaccurate results meant women inappropriately relied on those results to their detriment and possibly their lives. You claim inaccurate results are within normal ranges - all the indications says otherwise - the fact they are settling multi-million lawsuits and what the QA team that resigned have to say about the matter.

Dr Gibbons didn't resign on the basis of the current operation of CervicalCheck.

I'm not claiming they operated within the normal ranges; TOB claimed this. For the meantime I'll believe him. If the evidence shows otherwise, I will change my mind.

The leaflet given to women inviting them to a smear tells them the test isn't perfect.

kaymin

boombang wrote: »

Dr Gibbons didn't resign on the basis of the current operation of CervicalCheck.

I'm not claiming they operated within the normal ranges; TOB claimed this. For the meantime I'll believe him. If the evidence shows otherwise, I will change my mind.

The leaflet given to women inviting them to a smear tells them the test isn't perfect.

You might claim the current operation of CervicalCheck addressed Dr Gibbons issues - if that was the case why would Dr Gibbons and a host of others resign? Why is the US lab settling cases? Why are Dr Gibbon's predictions from 2008 seemingly coming to pass? Suggest reading this article:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/doctor-predicted-cervical-smear-test-issues-10-years-ago-36858027.html

No-one is claiming the smear test is perfect so lets put that one to bed.

HeidiHeidi

Govt press conference on this being broadcast on RTE News Now at 3.30pm

knipex

kaymin wrote: »

That's not correct. The outsourcing screening service gave 1/3 less positive results than the non-outsourced screening service. That's the whole point - the US lab spends 5 minutes analysing each sample because the test is done every year and therefore a missed diagnosis is not as drastic. The screening service in Ireland spends far longer because it is done only every 3 years.

I have tried hard but only ever seen a single source for this with no data or references behind it.

I have seen no comparison of false positives (which are also a side effect of any screening process).

All screening processes are only reliable to a point. They are not a precision diagnostic tool and like any screening process they are designed to catch the vast vast majority of cases but not all.

James Brown

boombang wrote: »

Others in this thread have also been under that impression. Read back over some of the previous posts in reply to Matt and Mr H.

The impression I'm under is we don't know for sure when the errors for each patient were discovered. You take the company line as fact. I do not, not until we have a completed investigation.
Women have died as a result of these errors.
Then we have the reluctance to make the error findings available to either the patients or the public. We have a court case where they attempted to keep it quiet. We've correspondence sent to the HSE/health department, we're not sure who got it/who didn't/who may or may not have acted on it.

We know there were errors. We know we outsourced to the US. We know there was a conscious effort to keep the errors quiet.

boombang wrote: »

Jaysus Johnny, just because she implied it rather than spelt it out doesn't mean she wasn't being disingenuous. She knows what she was saying, I know what she was saying. In my eyes she was plainly being disingenuous with an important public health story. To do so for a political motivation is reprehensible in my view.

It's fine if you don't find her comments disingenuous.

You seem more concerned about what you think a politician was thinking when she said something else, over the non-scandal.

knipex

Edward M wrote: »

OK, I get the point, these women had their cancer diagnosed later than should have been because of the bad tests, but it was too late anyway for them anyway when the audit found the mistakes.
My bad, I was inferring that they could have been saved if the audit results had been made public earlier and I accept that is not the case.
The audit results and their cover up till now wouldn't have helped these women anyway.
This still leaves a sour taste in my mouth though, its still a cover up of incompetence and a selfish face saving exercise and its of little comfort to anybody that protection of the system above the patients involved.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/it-hurts-husband-of-cancer-victim-shocked-at-2016-memos-1.3491656?mode=amp

Fair play.

I don't know if there was incompetence. I actually don't think there was.

I'm not sure what happened in the lab and I have not seen any reliable source point to a systemic problem with the way the samples were tested.

However I think that the decision not to inform patients that there tests had been given the all clear incorrectly was made with the best of intentions. I dont personally think that it was the correct decision but I can understand that though process.

1. Sharing the info would have had no impact on the patients treatment or outcome.
   
2. It would have had a detrimental impact on the public opinion of the smear test program and probably reduced take up of the program thereby costing lives.
   
3. it would have been another opportunity for certain individuals in media and political circles to make a lot of noise, call for a lot of heads and confuse the situation to a degree that mad 2 (above) orders of magnitude worse.

As I said I don't agree with the decision process but I can understand how it was made.

On the lab issue and the standard of testing I will wait until after the investigation and its findings are published.

And the big outcry over outsourcing of the tests, its a huge red herring. At the time the program was launched there was no capacity in Ireland to perform the quantity of tests that were required. The scheme was piloted in the Midwest and Irish labs couldn't handle the number of samples from that. There was also no lab in Ireland certified to the recognised international standard.

To build the necessary infrastructure woudl have taken years and costs a fortune and then the issue of staffing it. The decision was made to tender the testing to certified laboratories and to just start the program.

knipex

Mr.H wrote: »

Really? Because I can tell you that yes people are dead because of this. Not just dying. Dead.

When you are diagnosed with cancer it is vital you start treatment as soon as possible. Not three or four years later.

People were misdiagnosed. The people uncharged knew about this and chose to say nothing. Instead they protected the contract they had. Because of this women who had cancer thought they where healthy until their next smear test three years later. If they were receiving treatment during those three years they would have had a better chance at beating it and surviving.

Instead people died.

Again.. You are wrong.

There is no misdiagnosis.

There was a false positive from a screening program that was only discovered following an audit that took place after the cancer diagnosis.

So go before you spread any more misinformation or throw any more insults please go back and actually check the facts.

James Brown

knipex wrote: »

Again.. You are wrong.

There is no misdiagnosis.

There was a false positive from a screening program that was only discovered following an audit that took place after the cancer diagnosis.

So go before you spread any more misinformation or throw any more insults please go back and actually check the facts.

Based on poor testing, people with cancer were told they didn't have cancer. Some died as a result. Some didn't. Some are in the process of dying.
The company tried to keep the errors quiet.
The HSE/Dept. Of Health/Harris aren't sure who knew what when.