CervicalCheck controversy

knipex · 25-05-2018 4:35pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

And commented on it. I asked why there isn't access to the information and did the state have access prior to tender? Did they get updates?

Why would they ?? They were not part of the screening program, they had no reason, to have access to anything o do with the US lab. You appear to misunderstand what their role is in this matter.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Also your:

goes against:

How do you balance that?

Very simply. Either she is wrong or playing with words. The quote you quoted states Irish accredited labs. I said international accreditation.

I stand over my statement none of the Irish labs were not internationally accredited at the time of the tender in 2007 / 2008. The did become so after the tender closed.

but of course in your mind Dr Regan is a wholly independent infallible source and I am a right wing, profit hungry liar.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You know what, what if we go a little further than needed in figuring out what went on, how procedures are followed from the HSE to any contractor and back again?

You do knwo there in an investigation in place to do just that ??

As for the tender. have you ever tendered for a state project ?
At the end you can query the tender, you can request a meeting and if you feel you have grounds appeal the process.

Finally do you know who the Academy of Clinical Science and Laboratory Medicine are ? Would it surprise you to know that they are not a state run body Or a public sector organization ?

knipex · 25-05-2018 4:36pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

True dat but she wouldn't know either way, with no information.

Oh I give up.

James Brown · 25-05-2018 4:42pm

knipex wrote: »

Why would they ?? They were not part of the screening program, they had no reason, to have access to anything o do with the US lab. You appear to misunderstand what their role is in this matter.

Very simply. Either she is wrong or playing with words. The quote you quoted states Irish accredited labs. I said international accreditation.

I stand over my statement none of the Irish labs were not internationally accredited at the time of the tender in 2007 / 2008. The did become so after the tender closed.

but of course in your mind Dr Regan is a wholly independent infallible source and I am a right wing, profit hungry liar.

You do knwo there in an investigation in place to do just that ??

As for the tender. have you ever tendered for a state project ?
At the end you can query the tender, you can request a meeting and if you feel you have grounds appeal the process.

Finally do you know who the Academy of Clinical Science and Laboratory Medicine are ? Would it surprise you to know that they are not a state run body Or a public sector organization ?

Who's playing with words? However you hype or spin it, she put on record that the only reasons the Irish accredited labs were not chosen was to do with cost.
Look, like I said to the other person, if you have issue with the Academy of Clinical Science and Laboratory Medicine, that's your business. I'll take them over an anon internet chat room poster who for some reason wants to play down the whole affair when all I want is answers to questions and am commenting on things as they develop.

Feel free to follow up with were I claimed Dr. Regan said something she didn't, and me brazen enough to quote her in the same post :rolleyes:

christy c · 25-05-2018 7:33pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Another question is why no knowledge of the quality of the metrics or standards adhered to at these laboratories was okay, to allegedly save the tax payer money?

Who are you saying had no knowledge?

James Brown · 25-05-2018 8:12pm

christy c wrote: »

Who are you saying had no knowledge?

"One consequence of this decision to outsource is that the academy does not have access to information from these laboratories and is therefore not in a position to comment on the quality metrics or standards of individual laboratories at this time," she said.

I'm asking why they had no knowledge? Did the HSE have none to provide? If they did, did they get updates?
I'm asking a question based on a quote. There are no absolutes here.

There is also no nefarious clandestine plan against [insert whomever you hold dear within this scandal].

Uriel. · 25-05-2018 8:19pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'm asking why they had no knowledge? Did the HSE have none to provide? If they did, did they get updates?
I'm asking a question based on a quote. There are no absolutes here.

There is also no nefarious clandestine plan against [insert whomever you hold dear within this scandal].

What role does the academy have in relation to the governance of cervical check or the quality assurance of cervical testing.?

christy c · 25-05-2018 8:20pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'm asking why they had no knowledge? Did the HSE have none to provide? If they did, did they get updates?
I'm asking a question based on a quote. There are no absolutes here

My knowledge of this is limited, but I thought that the academy represent certain medics in Ireland? Would it be necessary for them to have knowledge? I would have thought not.

By the way I just left out your childish remark at the end, I don't hold anyone dear apart from in my personal life.

James Brown · 28-05-2018 2:05pm

christy c wrote: »

My knowledge of this is limited, but I thought that the academy represent certain medics in Ireland? Would it be necessary for them to have knowledge? I would have thought not.

By the way I just left out your childish remark at the end, I don't hold anyone dear apart from in my personal life.

I don't know either but they were asked and that's their response. They said the information wasn't available. I asked why not, who had it, did anyone have it? Did the HSE, did they get updates? And here we are many posts later.

Not childish. I'm not getting what problem people have with the inquiry. I don't know who or what they wish to protect, if anything. I'm not interested in getting at any particular person, but interested in the developments and seeing what's what. I don't see the need to tackle every comment based on reported events relating to this scandal like it's part of some conspiracy against what I don't know.
The only real damage to anything I can see is a black eye for any talk of privatising anything health related and of course the HSE, but nobody would be shocked at that.

If people aren't happy with the reporting, fair enough, but again, aren't we all on the same side here?

Uriel. · 28-05-2018 2:20pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I don't know either but they were asked and that's their response. They said the information wasn't available. I asked why not, who had it, did anyone have it? Did the HSE, did they get updates? And here we are many posts later.

Not childish. I'm not getting what problem people have with the inquiry. I don't know who or what they wish to protect, if anything. I'm not interested in getting at any particular person, but interested in the developments and seeing what's what. I don't see the need to tackle every comment based on reported events relating to this scandal like it's part of some conspiracy against what I don't know.
The only real damage to anything I can see is a black eye for any talk of privatising anything health related and of course the HSE, but nobody would be shocked at that.

If people aren't happy with the reporting, fair enough, but again, aren't we all on the same side here?

Well the initial basis of your question was wrong.
You asked why information wasn't available on the basis that the representative group didn't have it. You were then in turn asked why would they have it. You've failed to acknowledge that the academy claiming not to have information is not the same as there being no info. The academy has no reason to have the information. Your posts are suggesting that because the academy told the committee they don't have the information then that information is not available or being covered up.

Zero evidence.

And this thing isn't about sides. Yet you try to make it so. You ask questions like "was it worth it" in the context of outsourcing. You clearly have a side and your side would appear to me to be private sector health service is bad.

The only thing related to CervicalCheck that has the potential to suffer in this debacle is the rate of uptake which above all else would be an absolute tragedy for Irish women and the Irish healthcare system.

James Brown · 28-05-2018 2:55pm

Uriel. wrote: »

Well the initial basis of your question was wrong.
You asked why information wasn't available on the basis that the representative group didn't have it. You were then in turn asked why would they have it. You've failed to acknowledge that the academy claiming not to have information is not the same as there being no info. The academy has no reason to have the information. Your posts are suggesting that because the academy told the committee they don't have the information then that information is not available or being covered up.

Zero evidence.

And this thing isn't about sides. Yet you try to make it so. You ask questions like "was it worth it" in the context of outsourcing. You clearly have a side and your side would appear to me to be private sector health service is bad.

The only thing related to CervicalCheck that has the potential to suffer in this debacle is the rate of uptake which above all else would be an absolute tragedy for Irish women and the Irish healthcare system.

No, I asked why wasn't that information available and did the HSE have it. You or others can have issue with Dr Irene Regan or the Academy of Clinical Science and Laboratory Medicine and that's your business but they were the ones the article related to, they were important enough to be requested speak to the Oireachtas Health Committee regarding the matter. They didn't have access to the information, I simply asked why not, who did? I don't see your problem. I never suggested this related to a cover up, (are you confusing the company attempting a press black out re: Vicky Phelan?). If anything I was inferring, if nobody, or the HSE had access to such information, why or how did we the state come to chose them and after the fact did we, the state, not keep tabs?
As regards 'zero evidence', yeah, that's pretty much the point.
As regards sides, the tax payer and the health of the public, what other side is there unless you're a personally vested interest? And yes, I would like to know was it worth what ever savings? What is your problem with that?

What is your concern here regarding the inquiry, too much press, not enough from the company's/shareholders point of view? It makes privatisation of the health service look bad?

Uriel. · 28-05-2018 4:39pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No, I asked why wasn't that information available and did the HSE have it. You or others can have issue with Dr Irene Regan or the Academy of Clinical Science and Laboratory Medicine and that's your business but they were the ones the article related to, they were important enough to be requested speak to the Oireachtas Health Committee regarding the matter. They didn't have access to the information, I simply asked why not, who did? I don't see your problem. I never suggested this related to a cover up, (are you confusing the company attempting a press black out re: Vicky Phelan?).

You quoted the Academy's statement that it didn't/doesn't have access to information and you immediately jumped to:

"Is there any conflict of interest here?
The suspicious thing about saving money for the tax payer is, as a state, it's not the usual modus operandi."

Why are you putting so much weight on the statement by the Academy and immediately raising questions of "suspicion"? As has been said to you afterwards, the fact that the Academy doesn't have such information, means nothing - again, why would they? They have no role. Yet you are using their statement to spin a narrative towards cover up, suspicion etc.

The HSE told the Joint Committee that it had quality assurance processes in place and would provide that Committee with all of the information it could in relation to this:

Damien McCallion - In terms of quality assurance - and the Deputy will appreciate that I have only looked at this in the last number of days - there is a quality assurance process around the laboratories which covers a range of areas, including the facilities, the staff qualifications, the specimens regime and data entry, among other things. I will not list everything out, but we can supply that information to the committee. It involves regular meetings with the laboratories. There is also a quality assurance group within the programme that looks at that area, including international expertise to support it from outside the Republic of Ireland. That is a brief summary of the process that is in place around the laboratories.

Clearly there is quality processes in place. We'll have to await the outcome of the Scally report to hear more about the robustness of those.

Also, while the public service hasn't the best track record in ensuring value for money at the larger scale, the State, everyday of the week strives to get the best deal it can via the procurement of services and goods.

And yes, I would like to know was it worth what ever savings? What is your problem with that?

This I don't understand. Was what worth the savings? Are you saying the State shouldn't try to obtain value for money?

You see, what you are actually doing, and you talk about not having an agenda, is to spin a narrative, subtly or otherwise that private sector involvement in service delivery is wrong. This permeates all of your contributions.

What is your concern here regarding the inquiry, too much press, not enough from the company's/shareholders point of view? It makes privatisation of the health service look bad?

I have no concern with the Inquiry. Quite the opposite. There's no better way to get to the facts of this issue than to have an outsider come in a look at all the issues.

I do have a concern however with the attempts to political point score from the usual suspects, the quite shockingly poor media "analysis" and ultimately to the the impact on what is an otherwise well run and hugely beneficial health Programme.

I also have huge concern with the precedent setting that might happen and the impact that that will have on the health sector and the health services.

James Brown · 28-05-2018 5:36pm

Uriel. wrote: »

You quoted the Academy's statement that it didn't/doesn't have access to information and you immediately jumped to:

No I didn't. You obviously did.
I asked why not, who did and if not why they won the tender? Questions.

Uriel. wrote: »

Why are you putting so much weight on the statement by the Academy and immediately raising questions of "suspicion"? As has been said to you afterwards, the fact that the Academy doesn't have such information, means nothing - again, why would they? They have no role. Yet you are using their statement to spin a narrative towards cover up, suspicion etc.

No. I asked why not, who did, did the HSE get updates? The no information relates to the queries regarding why this particular vendor. The attempt to silence Vicky Phelan relates to their attempt to cover it up.

Uriel. wrote: »

The HSE told the Joint Committee that it had quality assurance processes in place and would provide that Committee with all of the information it could in relation to this:

Clearly there is quality processes in place. We'll have to await the outcome of the Scally report to hear more about the robustness of those.

Then clearly we shall see. I'm commenting as it goes.

Uriel. wrote: »

Also, while the public service hasn't the best track record in ensuring value for money at the larger scale, the State, everyday of the week strives to get the best deal it can via the procurement of services and goods.

I'm sure most do.

Uriel. wrote: »

This I don't understand. Was what worth the savings? Are you saying the State shouldn't try to obtain value for money?

Not at the cost of quality. The question is did we save money, was it worth the result, how much will the state be paying in compensation/redress? Fair logical questions

Uriel. wrote: »

You see, what you are actually doing, and you talk about not having an agenda, is to spin a narrative, subtly or otherwise that private sector involvement in service delivery is wrong. This permeates all of your contributions.

I'm suspicious of this particular tender, was it wrong in this case and was there any conflict of interest? That's my queries. Is that okay for me to ponder?

Uriel. wrote: »

I have no concern with the Inquiry. Quite the opposite. There's no better way to get to the facts of this issue than to have an outsider come in a look at all the issues.

I do have a concern however with the attempts to political point score from the usual suspects, the quite shockingly poor media "analysis" and ultimately to the the impact on what is an otherwise well run and hugely beneficial health Programme.

I also have huge concern with the precedent setting that might happen and the impact that that will have on the health sector and the health services.

Odd, I would have thought any issues found were systemic and not the blame of any one political party, unless we find conflict of interest along the way.
I have concern about value for the tax payer and the hope that any issues found are resolved, which can only happen if we ask questions. These things have a habit of being shut down and dismissed in the hopes they are forgotten.

Amirani · 01-06-2018 10:13am

Good article today from John Fitzgerald on how counter-productive a "Heads Must Roll" culture is in improving performance in healthcare and elsewhere: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-s-heads-should-roll-approach-to-accountability-is-dangerous-1.3515479

Improvement doesn't happen if there's such a culture. There's no self review, no incentive to audit or critique internally. We need to have a culture whereby errors (for the right reasons) are recognised, analysed and prevented from happening again. A culture whereby errors are automatically punished by a scapegoat losing there job actively prevents this process improvement from happening.

knipex · 01-06-2018 10:48am

Not normally a fan of Ciara Kelly but on this she is 100% correct

https://twitter.com/ciarakellydoc/status/997374977832779776

Public outcry is understandable but the media are supposed to educate and politicians are supposed to have cooler heads with long term view.

The lack of understanding, the outcry at any attempt to explain and the rush by politicians and the media to be seen to be more outraged than the rest could and will end up with reversing over a decade of improvement in women's heath-care.

Emotion does out outweigh facts..

James Brown · 01-06-2018 2:44pm

knipex wrote: »

Not normally a fan of Ciara Kelly but on this she is 100% correct

https://twitter.com/ciarakellydoc/status/997374977832779776

Public outcry is understandable but the media are supposed to educate and politicians are supposed to have cooler heads with long term view.

The lack of understanding, the outcry at any attempt to explain and the rush by politicians and the media to be seen to be more outraged than the rest could and will end up with reversing over a decade of improvement in women's heath-care.

Emotion does out outweigh facts..

As long as we keep asking questions. For all their flaws, we need the media and politicians to look into these things.

blanch152 · 01-06-2018 2:53pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You are questioning the standing of the body in the article I quoted. That's a different issue you have. I quoted it and was asked where I got it and I quoted it again. You seem to have issue with the people being quoted rather than any 'facts' as you say. We can only read what's published and come to our opinions based on that. I've no interest in getting into a debate about which medical body is worthy to comment.

You are changing the line of discussion to revert back to 'no test is 100% accurate', something that nobody is arguing against. You can bang on about media hype all you like. I quoted an article, quoting Dr Irene Regan from the Academy of Clinical Science and Laboratory Medicine speaking to the Oireachtas Health Committee. You can infer whatever you like.

You are putting an awful lot of credibility on what the Academy of Clinical Science and Laboratory Medicine is saying. I googled it and this is what I found:

https://www.acslm.ie/about-us/staff

"The Academy of Clinical Science and Laboratory Medicine (Academy) is the professional body, and competent authority, representing medical scientists in Ireland."

Despite the fancy name, it is essentially the trade union, or more accurately, the old-fashioned guild, representing medical scientists working in Ireland. Therefore, it has skin in the game. Given its skin in the game, it has as much credibility on the issue as the laboratories in the US. If you are prepared to accept at face value what the Academy is saying, you should be prepared to accept at face value what the laboratories are saying.

James Brown · 01-06-2018 2:59pm

blanch152 wrote: »

You are putting an awful lot of credibility on what the Academy of Clinical Science and Laboratory Medicine is saying. I googled it and this is what I found:

https://www.acslm.ie/about-us/staff

"The Academy of Clinical Science and Laboratory Medicine (Academy) is the professional body, and competent authority, representing medical scientists in Ireland."

Despite the fancy name, it is essentially the trade union, or more accurately, the old-fashioned guild, representing medical scientists working in Ireland. Therefore, it has skin in the game. Given its skin in the game, it has as much credibility on the issue as the laboratories in the US. If you are prepared to accept at face value what the Academy is saying, you should be prepared to accept at face value what the laboratories are saying.

You're coming into this late. It's been covered ad nauseam. Suffice to say. They were the ones deemed important enough to ask by the Oireachtas committee and they were the ones featured in the article I was quoting and commenting on. If you have an article pertaining to this issue with a medical body more to your liking, have at it.

knipex · 01-06-2018 6:02pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You're coming into this late. It's been covered ad nauseam. Suffice to say. They were the ones deemed important enough to ask by the Oireachtas committee and they were the ones featured in the article I was quoting and commenting on. If you have an article pertaining to this issue with a medical body more to your liking, have at it.

The fact that they presented to an oireachtas committee isn't the validation you appear to think it is.

Any body can request to appear before an oireachtas committee. If you look at the minuted or recordings of some meeting it will surprise you some of the crackpots that have presented..

James Brown · 01-06-2018 6:26pm

knipex wrote: »

The fact that they presented to an oireachtas committee isn't the validation you appear to think it is.

Any body can request to appear before an oireachtas committee. If you look at the minuted or recordings of some meeting it will surprise you some of the crackpots that have presented..

Noted. Again, I raised questions based on the responses from the medical professionals before the committee. We've Senators concerned about seagulls losing the run of themselves and TD's calling peaceful protesters ISIS, but we work with what we have, regardless of any bias any observers may put on it or attempts to skew the narrative away from the scandal.

James Brown · 13-06-2018 2:45pm

Great to see Harris picking up on this. I think Leo stuck his oar in too.

Earlier, Social Democrats co-leader Róisín Shortall said the women at the centre of the CervicalCheck controversy need to know about the accuracy rates of the laboratories involved.

Speaking on RTÉ's Morning Ireland, Ms Shortall also called for information regarding the tendering process and the terms of contracts of these labs to be made known.

She said getting these facts out into the public arena at an early stage would clarify things for the women concerned as time is of the essence because many women are very sick.

Six recommendations

Among six recommendations were that the CervicalCheck consent form should guarantee that women will have full and open access to their cervical screening record on request; and that the information for women accompanying the consent form should guarantee that should there be a problem, or error of any significance with the screening or reporting process, open disclosure of all the details would take place in a timely, considerate and accurate manner.

Ms Shortall said that women are wondering whether they should go ahead and take a legal action or not, "they don't know whether there's negligence involved in their case or not and that information should be provided at an early stage to them so they can take advice from their legal advisers and decide how they're going to proceed".

She also said the HSE needs to be told to sort out and deal with providing documentation in a usable and manageable format to the Scally Inquiry quickly.

She said there is no reason why documents already in electronic form are not being passed on to Dr Gabriel Scally in that format.

She said he is getting photocopies and mountains of paper and that is holding the whole thing up.

Ms Shortall said: "It seems that Dr Scally has been thwarted in his main task which is to establish what exactly happened in relation to this".

She described it as "nonsense" and she said she did not know if it was deliberate attempt to slow things down or not and is disappointed that the publication of the full report will be delayed until the end of the summer....

Fianna Fáil TD Seán Fleming said he was not a bit surprised that it was going to take so long as the issues that have arisen were all foreseeable in advance.

Speaking on the same programme, he said: "My own personal view is the HSE haven't been fully forthcoming with the information available in their own system, in the Oireachtas Committees and to Dr Scally, and I think there has been a lack of candour and openness in dealing with this and that was foreseeable as well, because that's what happens in big organisations that try and cover their tracks."

https://www.rte.ie/news/health/2018/0613/970184-cervical-check-inquiry/

All fair requests I don't think are in any way unreasonable.

It begs the question are the HSE simply very poor at administration or delaying and fudging on purpose? As pointed out delays such as these were foreseeable, such are the standards we've come to expect, in this case with Scally waiting 4 to 5 weeks for printed copies of documents readily available in electronic format.

gaius c · 12-09-2018 9:03pm

Report is online
https://health.gov.ie/blog/publications/dr-gabriel-scally-scoping-inquiry-into-cervicalcheck/

28-10-2022 2:54pm

Lynsey Bennett died today, some reason,her death stopped me in my tracks and shocked me a bit when I read it earlier

RIP

Mam1996 · 28-10-2022 2:59pm

Beautiful young lady, such a shame. Hopefully her kids will surrounded by love and care ❤️

Cluedo Monopoly · 28-10-2022 3:00pm

Heartbreaking. May she rest in peace. Very tough on the family. Very sad that these women have to waste so much precious time in the courts.

Glaceon · 28-10-2022 3:18pm

My wife knew her through a friend. I didn't know her myself but it's hitting me hard. Such a terrible loss.

Faugheen · 28-10-2022 5:10pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119804751#Comment_119804751

I’m the same. Really hit me like a tonne of bricks for some reason.

Absolutely horrific. On the anniversary of Savita as well just to really remind you how awful the State treated women.

28-10-2022 5:28pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119805217#Comment_119805217

It hit me alot more than others,I loosely known 2 other cervical check women through social circles,who were caught up in this,and died already....

and didn't hit me as much as this

CervicalCheck controversy

Comments