7 June 2022: Rawlins - F
The Robert Francis report has been published, only 80 days late. So much for getting that early night. However, the cowardly Cabinet Office have eventually realised the vulnerability of allowing Sir Robert to give evidence not only on the content of his report, but he would also be asked to comment on the Government response. After all their protestations of wanting to publish a response at the same time as the report, it simply highlights the dishonesty and disingenuous thinking that goes on in Whitehall. In effect, they left it to almost the last minute to publish the Francis report, which impacts on core participants and their ability to give it full attention so as to pose meaningful questions through their recognised legal representatives. Shame on them.
Questions from core participants:
On adverse reactions issues for Scotland which had no regional centre; he said it would go straight to the central processing part of the system.
On the link between the CSM and the Scottish Office: he said there was none and that is still the case today.
On the link between the CSM and the UKHCDO; he said there was no link, the Haemophilia Centres should have simply used the yellow card system like everyone else.
On the yellow card system being still in operation; he said it is still in place (when he left it was getting about 30,000 reports per year) and it still basically operates the same way, but with the addition that patients themselves can make yellow card reports.
The Chair asked about Lord David Owen’s desire for self-sufficiency, and the witness explained how he was fascinated by the precocious foresight of seeking to no longer require importing blood. It turns out the witness was a founding member of the SDP along with David Owen, but somehow this was never brought up.
The Chair returned to the poor reporting rates of adverse reactions, and in particular a list in the witness’ statement of the reasons for that poor rate. It led to a discussion about the difficulties of being clear or certain about what had caused the adverse reaction when a person is receiving a number of medications. It seemed to rely on the first doctor who had noted the problem getting it right, despite all the variables.
The Chair sought confirmation of an apparent difference between the sometimes seemingly uncaring NICE rejections of a medication (with the witness having been the Chair of NICE), given that in his statement he supported the position in the Newcastle area of allowing for more expensive blood concentrates with little regard for the costs. He stuck by his view that if it meant avoiding giving a patient a drug that would harm them, he supported giving a more expensive alternative that didn’t.
Sir Michael thanked the Inquiry for their support, including in doing the remote setup because of his “gammy leg”. He also acknowledged the plight of people caught up in the infected blood issue.
Comments
Post a Comment