‘There is not a sound evidential basis on which to make a link between their infection, subsequent deaths, and the presence or proximity of pigeons or their excrement.’

Douglas Ross has called for action over the scandal-hit Queen Elizabeth University Hospital (QEUH) in Glasgow.

What is the basis for a scandal?

Two deaths have been linked to the the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital. I’m guessing that makes four parents, two at least groomed by Scottish Labour to believe there had been neglect.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-58618317

The deaths were in 2017, 4 years ago. The QEUH opened in 2015, 6 years ago.

How many children have been treated since then? The QEUH has 244 paediatric beds and could thus have treated more than 1 500 children in that period with around 3 000 parents there to either have or to lose faith in the hospital.

So the scandal is based on the beliefs of 4 people? That’s single figures in crude terms and roughly 0.1%.

How the first inquiry was maligned in media coverage, by stewartb:

The Unreported? – more from the review of the new Southern General Hospital (aka the South Glasgow Hospital)

Media coverage and politics

The report of this independent review makes telling, if ‘diplomatically put’, comments about the public discourse around claims of what had happened in terms of infections and deaths in Glasgow’s major new hospital. It’s worthwhile amplifying these comments through the channel provided by the Tusker.

Source: https://qeuhprodwebsite.blob.core.windows.net/media/yutnag4j/final-report-published-version-458529_sct0220167968-002_queen-elizabeth-university-hospital-independent-review_p3.pdf

In various places in the report the authors provide this crucial context which, even as an ‘alert’ consumer of the news media in Scotland, I warrant many would have been – may still – be unaware:

Para 8.29.5. “The link between the patient who died and who was associated with Mucor infection has been explicitly discountedThe link between two patients with Cryptococcus infection and bird-borne carriage of the organism does not have a sound evidential basis. Other potential explanations and matters remain under review by an expert group commissioned by NHS GG&C.”

Here the report make some ‘interesting’ comments – and it’s probably not unreasonable to the read between lines:

Para 9.12.18: “Theories, hypotheses and possibilities have been transmitted and discussed in the media and Scottish Parliament in a way that has given them an undeserved provenance. In the case of the reported death of a patient from the fungal infection Mucor, subsequent analysis disproved the link between the event, the pathogen and the patient outcome but there has been little success in retracting or replacing the original and disproven narrative.”

And to drive the point home:

Para 9.12.19: “Communications through Government and Parliament – we recognise the need for accurate and sensitive reporting of clinical events as part of the democratic process. All who contribute to the chain of communication need to understand the need to signal information that is firm and factual, as distinct from information that is tentative and belongs to a hypothesis and is subject to confirmation.

The report has a tendency to repeat itself – presumably for emphasis (and perhaps in an attempt again to counter a prevailing media narrative?) – notably on these crucial issues:

Para 8.32.2: “We have taken a view on the three cases of infection that gave rise to the establishment of the Review. We note that, in the case of isolation of Mucor in a patient and their subsequent death, further case investigation has ruled out a firm link with the two events. In the case of the two people with Cryptococcus infection, there is not a sound evidential basis on which to make a link between their infection, subsequent deaths, and the presence or proximity of pigeons or their excrement.

There are other ‘unreported’ aspects of this report which hopefully will also receive proper amplification in time.

9 thoughts on “‘There is not a sound evidential basis on which to make a link between their infection, subsequent deaths, and the presence or proximity of pigeons or their excrement.’

  1. Scandal-mongering and hearse chasing by DRossie and Starwars.
    Indecent and contemptible.

    However, our real dismay should be levelled at the media in Scotland that enables and amplifies this disgusting conduct.

    We must anticipate the latest poll will only drive these creeps to even more despicable acts of desperation.
    How low can they go? Right to the bottom of the gutter!

    Liked by 8 people

  2. Barbados; you can lead the way.
    Once enslaved, free men today.
    Charlie came to gawk, and pray
    that you return to Monarchy.
    But, freedom has you in its sway
    once gained, you never can betray.
    We Scots will join you, come the day!

    Liked by 2 people

  3. “That’s single figures in crude terms and roughly 0.1%.”

    Possibly?

    This is an interesting article, published in the Nursing Times on the 23rd July 2021. It is about the incidence and impact of Hospital Acquired Infections. The study was commissioned by the Scottish government and conducted by Glasgow Caledonian University.

    http://www.nursingtimes.net/news/research-and-innovation/first-of-its-kind-study-shows-hospital-infections-costing-scottish-nhs-46m-a-year-23-07-2021/

    “It found that 7,500 hospital patients, or one in every 100, develop HAIs each year – costing NHS Scotland £46.4m annually.

    This equates to 1.1% of patients in Scotland acquiring HAIs, which compared favourably with previous estimates in the UK (7.8%) and recent studies in wider Europe (3%), said the researchers.”

    It also says

    ” The study also found that urinary tract infection was the most commonly occurring HAI, followed by blood stream infection, lower respiratory tract infection, gastrointestinal infection, surgical site infection, and pneumonia.”

    Liked by 2 people

  4. In a piece on BBC Scotland, their Health Correspondent writes

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-59493349

    “No one is denying problems at Scotland’s super hospital – that’s why the government has set up a public inquiry and already patients and families have been giving evidence. But it’s likely to take years to make recommendations and that’s why the Labour leader wants to keep the story in the public eye.”

    There is also this to consider

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-58689623

    ” Milly Main: Criminal investigation over hospital deaths”

    There is a public inquiry, a police investigation and the BBC & Scottish Labour’s determination to keep the story in the public eye..

    But, I wonder what would be BBC Scotland and Scottish Labour’s approach to keeping this story in the public eye?

    It’s a BBC article from 22nd November 2021. It was buried (no pun intended) under BBC England: Local News: Regions: Hampshire and Isle of Wight

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-59376846

    “Families of four people who died at the same hospital have questioned why a coroner has delayed their inquests until a police probe has concluded.”

    The police are investigating the deaths of hundreds patients in Gosport War Memorial Hospital.

    I cannot imagine, had this happened in Scotland, the story receiving the same coverage it has had thus far in England.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. DRoss’s justification of “systemic failures” at QEUH defies all logic – Systemic failures are obvious, you do need a probe to identify them, only the cause.
    What DRoss is attempting to do here is keep the QEUH myth alive despite 6 years of criticism by the Scottish media and Opposition.

    The orchestrators are clearly obsessed with tarnishing the reputation of QEUH as a top class medical facility, it would be baffling were it not for it’s opening in April 2015 preceding the May General Election which saw Labour comprehensively rejected by the electorate, whereupon the criticisms began to ramp up.

    The greater scandal of QEUH is that it has been serially abused by a petulant Labour Party infuriated by their rejection by the Scottish electorate.

    If there is to be a further Inquiry over this QEUH “scandal”, let it be into examining how a defenestrated Labour Party could still wield such enormous influence over the media that it conducts a propaganda campaign on it’s behalf.

    Liked by 3 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.