Dr. Patrick Walker:

I have in my mind now the spread across as we were working on the letters. There were 1,038 women, but 1,659 slides. As we worked across the database, therefore, we had the CSPID to identify the case.

There is a slide number to identify the slide. There is the CervicalCheck result, classified as negative, low-grade or high-grade, and the P number, which is from one to nine. There are sometimes more than one P number. Then comes the review result, the review result P number, the final diagnosis from the cytology group, and the P number result - P 2 from the screener. Where the slide went to a first consultant, there is that consultant's opinion and a P number. Where there was a second consultant, there is another opinion and P number. Then there is consensus, if there was a consensus, and the subjective comments, if made. The date of attendance at colposcopy had to be tabulated against the date of diagnosis of cancer to identify the subgroup that needed to be seen. Then there is the comparison of the CervicalCheck result with the review result in terms whether it is concordant or discordant. Then there is the issue of whether a letter has been drawn up or not, or whether the letter has been completed or not, and other matters relating to stage. All these items did not come down in the dropped merged mail. They all had to be put up there and extracted. For each individual letter, there are approximately seven items to be drawn down, manually or otherwise. We sent the committee a copy of the draft letter. The point that was being made in the sentence was that this was a complex task.