Context
The authors of the 2016 RCPCH Invited Service Review gave evidence at the Thirlwall Inquiry about the terms of reference for that review and how those terms were agreed with Trust executives.
Key passages
A limited role. Under questioning from Mr Carr, Dr David Shortland, clinical adviser to the RCPCH Invited Review programme, agreed he had no involvement in devising the Terms of Reference for the Countess of Chester review, even though guidance said this was his responsibility. Put to him that the Terms of Reference “were discussed and agreed on behalf of the RCPCH solely by Sue Eardley”, he answered “Yes, that’s correct, yes”, and agreed that under the guidance “that shouldn’t have occurred” and that, until a lead reviewer was appointed, “it should have been you” — to which he replied “Yes, yes. Yes”.
Advice not sought. Shortland was not consulted when members of the Review Team discussed whether the visit should be aborted after the doctors’ suspicions emerged. Counsel read from paragraph 61 of his statement the advice he said he would have given: “My response would be to have explained that the allegations were so concerning that the police should be involved given that this had been the request of the paediatric team. In my professional experience it would have been very unusual for any paediatric team to make such a suggestion and so I would have taken it seriously.”
The Grantham comparison. Reading Shortland’s note on the chronology after he reviewed the final report, counsel put to him his comment that the case “Almost felt a bit like the Grantham situation 30 years ago and my only question is why they didn’t involve the police if they had those suspicions, otherwise looks like a good report with very clear recommendations”. Asked whether that question had ever been answered, he said “No, as far as I know, no”. Counsel observed “The question went unanswered”, and Shortland agreed: “Exactly, yes”.
The limits of a service review. Cross-examined by Mr Sharghy, Shortland said that once a group of consultants had considered that a colleague was harming babies, “it’s almost difficult in my opinion to know how you can approach that other than with a forensic inquiry”. Asked by Lady Justice Thirlwall whether the review “didn’t produce any answers to the questions raised by the doctors”, he replied “Yes. I think that’s a fair — you know, I agree”.
What to read alongside this
See the RCPCH review profile and Ian Harvey’s evidence on the commissioning of the review.