Dr. Stephanie O'Keeffe:

The briefing was stimulated by the fact that a batch had accumulated. There was a process CervicalCheck had started to instigate. A laboratory suggesting CervicalCheck should not be sending letters to treating clinicians threatened the process. In that context, I received a presentation the day before the first meeting, which for the record was in February. I received a presentation from Professor Flannelly on the audit. Although there are many other meetings I do not particularly remember, I remember a lot about the particular meeting because it was new information. I remember initially feeling a sense of concern about the audit as to whether it was throwing up any factor or issue with the integrity of the screening programme. I satisfied myself that it was not and was happy with that. We addressed the issue with the laboratory and it was going to continue to engage, although that became a little more problematic in March, as can be seen from the briefings.

I also genuinely remember Professor Flannelly talking about the case from the perspective of what we should do as part of it. CervicalCheck was certainly conscious to alert me to the fact that it was engaging in this and that it intended for patients to receive their information I actually remember Professor Flannelly telling me that CervicalCheck would be providing the lady with all of the information on advice received from its solicitor. I remember saying at the time that there was no need to wait for the solicitor and that the person could be given the information. However, CervicalCheck was very conscious that, because it was engaging in the process with the intent that women would receive the information and knew that it clearly would result in cases, it wanted to ensure it could protect the totality of the programme. It knew that cases would come up in carrying out the audit.

From my perspective as a national director, it was very important to ensure there was nothing else within the findings of the audit that was troubling or concerning and that we had a safe programme. We do have a very safe programme. What is being found through the audit is within all of the normal parameters. While I absolutely accept the criticism that the briefings are very process oriented and not personal, the conversations are personal. There was a personal conversation about the difficulties in having that conversation. However, as can be seen in the February briefing, there was a statement to the effect that this is what CervicalCheck did and that Professor Flannelly would meet patients, which she went on to do. That is what happened at the first briefing.