Results 801-820 of 3,336 for speaker:Kate O'Connell
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
Kate O'Connell: Sorry. If Mr. McCallion would not mind.
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
Kate O'Connell: I cannot appreciate it because it seems the most basic thing to have in this set-up would be the total number of smears, or slides, that went to labs A, B and C for every year and the percentage. It seems like the most basic thing the service would have.
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
Kate O'Connell: It is just not acceptable.
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
Kate O'Connell: Let us say, for example, that in one of the particular years that are missing there was a dodgy machine and lots of things were missed. The screening service would not know because if one does not have it, one will never know. It is only when people started to drop dead that the service would cop on.
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
Kate O'Connell: I am getting to that. I think Mr. McCallion is moving away from my point, namely what would happen if there was a huge outlier. I use the machine, I totally get QA and I am a QP myself. So, I get it.
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
Kate O'Connell: If there was an outlier, the screening service would never know because it did not have the data. It could be for whatever reasons; perhaps someone looking at slides lost the sight in one eye, the machine broke or a window was left open. The service would never know because, if it does not have it, how would it?
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
Kate O'Connell: It is there in a secret place.
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
Kate O'Connell: I know what this is. I am not talking about the temperature of the room, the competency of the operator or the competency of the machine. I am talking about the number of slides in, false negatives, negatives and borderlines. It is the table we got but which I do not have a copy of with me.
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
Kate O'Connell: I do not buy that the screening service does not have that table for every year and that it does not have it handy. I cannot understand how we got three years on 9 May whereas there is some historical barrier regarding the rest of it.
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
Kate O'Connell: Mr. McCallion also said there was agreement with the laboratories to release the document. Mr. Gleeson then said the contracts were due to expire in November this year. How often were the contracts reviewed? Was it every two years or is this the first time? How often are the contracts for the laboratories reviewed and reassessed?
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
Kate O'Connell: Yes. It is a rolling contract. If a laboratory got a contract in 2009, when was it re-evaluated? Was it every year or every two years?
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
Kate O'Connell: CervicalCheck is spending taxpayers' money to pay a laboratory and it does not matter if it is in Tullamore or San Francisco. How often are the contracts reviewed or did someone sign a contract for ten years and say "We will suck it up for ten years and then have a look at it"? Is it being looked at every 18 months?
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
Kate O'Connell: I know this. How often are they reviewed?
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
Kate O'Connell: I am asking Mr. Gleeson to verbalise it.
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
Kate O'Connell: So, every two years.
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
Kate O'Connell: I find it interesting that every two years when the contract was looked at, nothing seemed to stand out. Maybe there was nothing to see, but it seems a bit odd. I turn to the QA matter. This is back to the regulation and we are dealing with Brexit. Every country or area has its QA people who come in to ensure the machine is working properly, that the guy checking is qualified and that the...
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
Kate O'Connell: Yes.
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
Kate O'Connell: Is that why the service was going over for visits?
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
Kate O'Connell: For a particular laboratory, there is the QA of the particular country, be it America or Ireland, to ensure it is working within the right parameters from a lab point of view. We then have people going over periodically on site visits. Somebody committed to providing us with the detail of those visits and what happened. Did Mr. Gleeson say an oncologist went on the site visits?
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
Kate O'Connell: Sorry. I did not hear that right. In any event, it was a medical person who went over. He or she hardly went over to check the temperature of the room. It is more than likely that as a pathologist went over, it was to look at slides or the level of accuracy of readings. That would have been the focus of a pathologist.