The one patient who changed my life in today’s @IrishTimes@tanyasweeney features @DrABurke: ‘I was pregnant..and she told me, ‘The one thing I wish for you is a short labour. I’ll be upstairs by then, so I’ll have a direct word with the man himself.’
https://t.co/2KoTqpPDBq
@CiaranORiain Just two points 1.RCOG didn’t have access to large proportion of 221 results. 2. Case law upheld by Supreme Ct based on PENNEY & ORS V EAST KENT HEALTH AUTHORITY [1999]. They conducted full inquiry and applied learning https://t.co/BCcdTndPdd
@russellnoirin Article says: ��This doesn’t negate the need to tackle a case of negligence or other malpractice if and when it occurs.” That’s what’s happening with 221, not regular false negative issues. I suggest that’s the confusion that needs clearing up.
@FergalBowers Would be good to have a proper investigation. Eg has cervical cancer rate fallen since programme introduced? Is it acceptable or a discrepancy for 3,4or5 smears in a row for same person to be missed? Did Scally actually see 221 reports? There are a lot of questions
@Toibin1 This shows how nasty their approach is that @hallisseypat is coming to believe 221 was normal error situation. It wasn’t and thanks @Tobin1 for speaking the truth. At this stage a formal state investigation is needed into whole thing. @221plus
The 221+ patient support group is deeply concerned by comments attributed to @russellnoirin at Oireachtas Health Committee this afternoon in respect of the future of the #CervicalCheck programme. 1/2
@PhelanVicky@GabrielScally 2/ A screening programme with an error rate and quality control issues that programme won’t acknowledge and so therefore is not fixing is a very dangerous animal. Really surprised that @DonnellyStephen not getting to grips with this. Thought he’d be good with data & be honest.
@PhelanVicky@GabrielScally What planet are CervicalCheck on? Picked substandard service to begin with, still haven’t quality checked a sample from past 10 years so God knows how many errors still out there. Doomed to fail & that was without Scally seeing 221 detail so even he doesn’t know depth of error./1
@LorcallWalsh@221plus Agree @LorcallWalsh. But there is strong disquiet about how much this govt is trying to shirk responsibility. They think by paying lip service & hiding behind (bad) advice they will shut it down. But if they, partic FF, are so determined to lose seats let them at it.
"If the tribunal had been established when it was supposed to be established, we wouldn't be having these issues" - Campaigner @PhelanVicky says 221+ saw 'no point' in continuing talks over the CervicalCheck Tribunal. @GavReilly#OnTheRecord https://t.co/osxNhtkhwI
@lorr_reilly@MichealMartinTD @DonnellyStephen @PhelanVicky Outsourcing wasn’t really the problem. Choosing service option regarded as unacceptable in US & cervical check running it unmonitored, unsupervised, no in-house cytopathologist, no quality checking was the real problem.
@221plus @DonnellyStephen @roinnslainte Never fully understood where tribunal idea came from. Just another whitewash offered to sound good but could never have offered anything different to high court. Better to use time to lobby for mediation, and stress reduction by use of plaintiff psych & occ reports by both sides
In many ways, the best thing you can do for your brain is to spend time with healthy people. As we will see, they are contagious. I often say the fastest way to get healthy is to find the healthiest person you can stand and then spend as much time around him or her as possible.
This ⬇️ is why the bargain basement version of cervical screening was never acceptable. Also issue of misleading/false advertising? Was never clearly stated that the lowest level of programme option chosen @CMHaughey@LorcallWalsh#cervicalcheck
@walls2@PhelanVicky@illonaduffy @merrionstreet That’s just a misleading article @walls2. Media monitoring is normal. It’s how any company or org keeps track of issues and it’s why advocacy and campaigning works. So getting on the radar is a good thing. It shows you’re being heard.
@businessposthq@russellnoirin@DanielTMurray@obraonain Not really true. The labs have to pay the state and the state has the choice not to use teams of barristers to run up bills and fight every case to steps of high court before settling. They could mediate, use clients reports and create a fair, smooth less costly process.
@radicailin God almighty considering screening errors led to many of #cervicalcheck women to be left without a cervix but still requiring follow up exams & smears I cannot believe that they actually used words people with a cervix & “forgot” all about us again. @PhelanVicky@LorcallWalsh