Ms Lucy Nugent:

I was not in this position in 2020, so I am unable to answer that question.

Regarding the introduction of new medical devices, and as I stated previously to Deputy Daly, there is a process now in place involving a clinical ethics committee as well as a medical device management committee, which I chair. I am more confident that only approved devices can come into CHI. That includes matters that were in the public domain, such as the use of gastrostomy buttons. They have been in use for 15 to 20 years and there is a lot of scientific research on them, but they had to be grandfather-claused through the medical device management committee, which has been done. I know from talking to a parent recently that that parent was very happy to have that device, but there needs to be a process. Innovation is important for medicine and healthcare but it has to be done in a way that protects the child, protects the individual with the good idea and protects the organisation.

Regarding culture, we know we have to do a huge amount of work on this. It is not right; it is broken. We are bringing three different cultures and merging them together, but the values are the same. They are very much focused on children and on delivery of the best care we can provide. There is a lot of work ongoing in that regard. A culture change programme has started. We have immersion projects with staff and staff rotating to work with one another so that the person someone works with today may not be the person he or she works with tomorrow. We need to make sure we are ready for the new building. It is a fantastic building but it is just a building. It will not deliver care; the people will. We understand that.

There is a meeting with the HSE on 3 July. I have met the national director of culture and we are happy to engage in a newly launched cultural programme. If we can get it right at CHI, we can get it right anywhere. That is really important. The most important question in all of this is whether the staff are willing to engage in this, and they are. The Irish Times letter that my almost 200 consultant colleagues wrote stated that, and we know we have to do better, because if the culture is right, then I think anything else is possible.

Regarding conflict, this report was originally commissioned because concerns were raised. An intervention happened with that team, so action was taken. There were 34 actions. There were monthly minuted meetings regarding that to track the change and action was happening.

I have taken legal advice on the publication of the report. The people who participated in that report trusted that it was a confidential process. I need to maintain that trust among my colleagues because we have a lot of work to do. They have not seen the report. It was not shared with them. Some of the statements in the report were not substantiated in the long run. That is the piece of information that is missing. From that point of view, fair procedures would have to be given to the individuals involved, etc. I understand from the feedback that somebody did not provide that assurance.