Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)

Nine patients in the north east had a misdiagnosis of lung cancer, thus losing valuable time for their essential medical treatment. At least one of these patients would have had a major chance of their cancer being cured. Others had their lives shortened by a valuable period of months. Eight of these patients have now, sadly, died. There is, therefore, a need for an independent inquiry into why a clear warning, given seven years ago by a consultant radiologist in Navan, that the radiologists in the hospitals concerned were under intolerable stress, that a dangerous situation existed for patients and staff and that mistakes would be made, was ignored by the HSE.

The inquiry began in 2007. I have a letter dated 9 October, correspondence from Dr. John Kiely, regarding two missed diagnoses of serious lung pathology on radiographs. The core issue is confirmation in this letter that there were significant abnormalities on two patients' radiographs that were reported as normal. That appalling error had fatal consequences for eight of the nine people concerned.

How clear was the warning in 2001 and is there any way the HSE could say it was not adequate? The letter stated that staffing in the Louth-Meath group was inadequate and, in Mr. Towers's considered opinion, a dangerous situation had arisen for staff and patients. He warned that mistakes would be made by the situation created by the inability or reluctance of the HSE to appoint sufficient full-time permanent radiologists in Drogheda. He wrote that the radiologists were under intolerable stress and the radiology service in Drogheda was deficient for proper patient care. The unwillingness to fund proper staffing for radiology was at the core of the problem, according to Mr. Towers. The intolerable workload meant that teaching, administration and other activities have had to be discontinued. That description of the conditions obtaining in Our Lady of Lourdes and Navan hospitals was written seven years ago this month.

In 2006, when Judge Maureen Harding Clark investigated the Neary affair, the same issues arose. Her report clearly states:

The work of all doctors including highly regarded consultants has to be reviewed in an effective and dispassionate manner. Failure to engage in effective peer review and independent audit will ensure that history will repeat itself.

History has repeated itself in the Dr. Neary affair and again in the report published this week. It is a shame and a disgrace.

I would like the Minister for Health and Children to answer six questions. Can she confirm that the radiology department in the Louth-Meath group is now resourced with sufficient consultant radiologists and that the misdiagnosis of X-rays is no longer significant? Can she confirm that no concern regarding the number of radiologists employed in the group has been brought to the attention of the HSE in the recent past? Can she confirm that no concern regarding significant misdiagnosis of X-rays in the Louth-Meath hospital group has been expressed to the HSE since the locum consultant involved in the recent review left the region? Does the radiology department continue to depend on locums, including external radiologists employed by the HSE to report on X-rays, due to the department's workload? Has she been informed by the consultant radiologists that they are experiencing great difficulties in coping with the current workload of the three hospitals in the group? Is she or the HSE taking action on the repeated representations made by consultants regarding the inability of Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital to cope safely with the number of patients on trolleys? On Monday, 3 November, for example, 34 patients were on trolleys in the hospital.

We need a root and branch reform of administrative structures in the north east. This review is a whitewash in terms of how and why these events took place. It sets out the medical outcome for the eight people who died but it does not address the core issue of why the warnings given seven years ago this month were ignored.

See this speech in context