Scally questions HSE criteria in CervicalCheck controversy

Total number of women affected will rise further, says Dr Gabriel Scally

Dr Gabriel Scally said in his report  that the decision to view 18 months as the cut-off for clinical impact was ‘undoubtedly flawed, and it is hard to see the logic for this’. Photograph: Dara Mac Dónaill / The Irish Times

Dr Gabriel Scally said in his report that the decision to view 18 months as the cut-off for clinical impact was ‘undoubtedly flawed, and it is hard to see the logic for this’. Photograph: Dara Mac Dónaill / The Irish Times

 

The news that the number of women affected by the CervicalCheck controversy may be higher than the 221 people currently identified is likely to cause considerable alarm.

Once again, it seems, the numbers are shifting, in a further underscoring of the absence of reliable data that has been a feature of this controversy since April.

At the height of the controversy in the spring, the HSE was at first unable to say just how many cases existed where the audit of the CervicalCheck programme showed the woman’s test could have provided a different result.

Eventually, it settled on a number of affected women – 209 – but this number crept up so that by July it stood at 221. Now, it seems almost certain the total will rise further, according to Dr Gabriel Scally, the Northern Irish public health specialist who led the scoping inquiry into the controversy.

Why is this happening? The background is that, as Dr Scally noted in his report published last month, “a complete presentation of audit outcomes has been impossible to locate”. Estimates are being drawn on the basis of incomplete information, it seems.

More specifically, an issue has arisen as to the criteria used by the HSE to determine whether women should be included in the “group of 221” patients (as it currently stands) whose outcome may have been affected by a false negative smear test.

When CervicalCheck carried out a review in 2015, screening tests that were carried out more than 18 months before the date of a woman’s cancer diagnosis were held to have potentially influenced the management of her treatment. So if the test produced a false negative, the outcome for the woman could have been different.

‘Flawed’ decision

Dr Scally said in his report last month that the decision to view 18 months as the cut-off for clinical impact was “undoubtedly flawed, and it is hard to see the logic for this”.

“Considerable tumour progression can occur over this timescale with potential impact on the stage [of cancer] and mortality,” he wrote.

He repeated the point at the Oireachtas health committee on Wednesday and revealed that he still doesn’t know whether the HSE used this criterion, or some other one, in determining whether women would be included in the “group of 221”.

Contacts are continuing with the HSE to ascertain the methodology actually used, but in any case the review currently being undertaken by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of about 3,000 smear test slides is almost certain to throw up new cases. This is because it is examining a greater number of tests than were ever looked at by the HSE.

It is important to make the point that we are not looking at any new cases of women receiving a cancer diagnosis, but in some instances a test could have provided a different result.

Almost six months on since this scandal broke, many questions have been answered in Dr Scally’s report but troubling issues remain to be resolved. Auditing of tests within the programme has been put on hold, a backlog of smear tests is building, the future of the screening programme is threatened by mounting litigation and the HSE has yet to reach agreement on a new contract with the main laboratories that carry out the test.

Thankfully, given the crucial role the screening programme plays in identifying cancer cases early, take-up has not been affected by the controversy. It seems inevitable, however, that more women will continue to be affected.

The Irish Times Logo
Commenting on The Irish Times has changed. To comment you must now be an Irish Times subscriber.
SUBSCRIBE
GO BACK
Error Image
The account details entered are not currently associated with an Irish Times subscription. Please subscribe to sign in to comment.
Comment Sign In

Forgot password?
The Irish Times Logo
Thank you
You should receive instructions for resetting your password. When you have reset your password, you can Sign In.
The Irish Times Logo
Please choose a screen name. This name will appear beside any comments you post. Your screen name should follow the standards set out in our community standards.
Screen Name Selection

Hello

Please choose a screen name. This name will appear beside any comments you post. Your screen name should follow the standards set out in our community standards.

The Irish Times Logo
Commenting on The Irish Times has changed. To comment you must now be an Irish Times subscriber.
SUBSCRIBE
Forgot Password
Please enter your email address so we can send you a link to reset your password.

Sign In

Your Comments
We reserve the right to remove any content at any time from this Community, including without limitation if it violates the Community Standards. We ask that you report content that you in good faith believe violates the above rules by clicking the Flag link next to the offending comment or by filling out this form. New comments are only accepted for 3 days from the date of publication.