Ms Lorraine Walsh:

On top of that, we wrote to it after that and it wrote back. I have brought a copy of that letter which I will pass on to the committee. It basically gives the same answer that there was a verification process in the HSE. If we take the RCOG report, RCOG had its own verification process in putting the letters together. This was a three-step process that involved checking three databases. If RCOG was checking three databases, how did I get an inaccurate report? In addition, if I did not have as much information as I had, I would not have known to question it and go back. How many women are sitting at home who do not know to question the result or go back to get the right answer?

On the colposcopy management, I understand that the case files of 106 women were reviewed. This was to do with the length of time between their colposcopy and their diagnoses. RCOG, on page 43 of its report states: "We found evidence that CervicalCheck clinical practice guidelines have not always been adhered to...". However, it then states: "This is far from concluding that colposcopic practice in the CervicalCheck programme is substandard...". Correct me if I am wrong, but this means that out of the 3,000 women who were diagnosed with cervical cancer, only 1,038 were part of the RCOG review, and only 106 of those files were actually reviewed in relation to colposcopy management. I am not sure how RCOG can say that despite finding 57 cases of colposcopy management issues, this is "far from concluding that colposcopic practice in the CervicalCheck programme is substandard". I would love to have clarification on that.

Rightly so.