Repeatedly on Reporting Scotland today and on the BBC Scotland website, by Lisa Summers, this claim:
A senior doctor has said the number and type of infections at Glasgow’s child cancer wards were unlike anything he had seen before.
Dr Dermot Murphy told an inquiry he became convinced environmental factors were to blame.
NHS Greater Glasgow denies a link between the buildings and infections except in two distinct cases.
Dr Murphy told the Scottish Hospitals Inquiry this week he believed there was a link between the environment at the new children’s hospital and the infections which led to the closure of the wards in 2018.
The paediatric oncologist said he had never seen the “number and type of infections” in Glasgow’s child cancer wards in any other of the hospitals he had worked at.
He said: “I’d worked at the Royal London Hospital, at Great Ormond street, and the Royal Marsden Hospital, and had not seen in those hospitals the types and variety of environmental gram negative infections that we were seeing in the new children’s hospital in Glasgow.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65920846
No actual hard evidence for his claims is offered yet:
It is not possible to determine whether changes in episodes are confounded by changes in the patient population and their underlying medical conditions.
The spike/blip may be as much the result of more children coming in already infected as of more becoming infected after being admitted.
In the monthly analysis of environmental bacteria positive blood cultures, the numbers are small and should be treated with caution. (p21)
The increases are statistically insignificant and becoming in 2019 almost nil.
As early as 2019, Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board had commissioned an independent expert report and this had found that there was ‘no evidence of a single point of exposure [in the building] causing the blood stream infection‘, implying that the bacteria could have been brought into the wards by visitors, and that infection rates in QEUH’s child cancer wards were no different from those in NHS Grampian and Lothian equivalents (p54).
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/corporate-report/2021/03/queen-elizabeth-university-hospital-nhs-greater-glasgow-clyde-oversight-board-final-report/documents/queen-elizabeth-university-hospital-nhs-greater-glasgow-clyde-oversight-board-final-report/queen-elizabeth-university-hospital-nhs-greater-glasgow-clyde-oversight-board-final-report/govscot%3Adocument/queen-elizabeth-university-hospital-nhs-greater-glasgow-clyde-oversight-board-final-report.pdf
What evidence, evidence as opposed to anecdote, does the ‘senior’ doctor have to set against the above? Will anyone ask him?
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
https://archive.ph/T86Xq
LikeLike
Blimey, the URL worked…
I doubt anyone will be surprised at Pacific Quay grasping the opportunity to recycle their story and remind folks what Millie Main looked like, but one has to wonder how many days of evidence and reports were submitted to the official Inquiry but went ignored because they contained fact which didn’t fit the BBC’s preference for opinion and anecdote ?
The Doctor may be recounting his thinking accurately, but were his thoughts or those of Prof Gibson truly independent of external influence with a media campaign, most notably BBC Scotland, going full tilt ?
What has long bothered me is the question of drains and ‘contaminated water supply’, because of the former trapped construction and latter verified/tested quality.
Not once did we hear from any expert explaining how traps could fail in service after initial flush/sterilisation/commissioning, nor how flushing and sterilising the plumbing lines could fail, nor a Scottish Water scientists explaining how their chlorine dosed water supply could even become contaminated by anything in the lines, nor from the Contractor who was systematically testing everything.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Bob, you’ll find all of the current witness statements, and quite a few technical reports on the website. https://www.hospitalsinquiry.scot/inquiry-documents
LikeLiked by 1 person
Now could you work on getting that link that isn’t a link – the chrome extension one – to work? 😉
LikeLike
You’ve cherry picked and misinterpreted the findings of the Oversight Board, ignored the Case Note Review, dismissed not one, but three pediatric oncologists, one of whom is the National Clinical Director, failed to consider the HPS reports, and much more. I am all for “talking-up” Scotland, but patients died of environmental bugs, and there’s a public inquiry for a reason.
LikeLike
The London hospitals have a vast increase funding. Charitable Trusts of excellence. Not comparing like with like. No evidence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course, BBC Scotland’s reporting of evidence presented to the Scottish Hospitals Enquiry is partial – it has to be as there is a huge volume of evidence being gathered. But if necessarily partial, what is being selected for amplification and what is being omitted?
Here are a few things not being reported based on a very quick scan of just three recently published witness statements: https://www.hospitalsinquiry.scot/inquiry-documents
(1) Witness statement (dated 14 June, 2023) from someone who was the Senior Charge Nurse in Ward 2B/Schiehallion Unit, paediatric haematology/oncology day care unit in the Royal Hospital for Children (RHC):
Para 106: ‘I have been informed that witnesses at the previous evidential hearing have said: “Nurses asked patients and families to report issues to the media for fear of risking their jobs if they spoke out’; …
In response to this information the witness states: ‘In relation to the first part I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF THIS BEFORE. … Staff raised their concerns at meetings with management team …’ (my emphasis)
On communication updates and other forms of support offered to staff and to parents from hospital management, this witness notes:
Para 153: “.. this (support) was very helpful, particularly WHEN THERE WAS MEDIA REPORTING WHICH WAS NOT ALWAYS ACCURATE AND WHICH CONTRIBUTED TO A LOT OF THE STRESS AND UNCERTAINTY for staff, and parents.’
(2) Witness statement (dated 14 June 2023) from a Senior Charge Nurse, also known as Designated Senior Nurse of Ward 2A/Shiehallion Ward at the Royal Hospital for Children.
Para 243: ‘THE MEDIA PRINTED STORIES ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS WHICH WERE NOT ALWAYS HELPFUL AS THEY WERE NOT ACCURATE. This led families to think that we were hiding things. Being on the front line, WE WERE ON THE RECEIVING END OF A LOT OF NEGATIVE AND OFTEN INACCURATE PUBLICITY.’
(3) Witness statement (dated 15 June) from Dr Dermot Murphy, Consultant Paediatric Oncologist at the Royal Hospital for Children (RHC), the consultant quoted in The BBC News website article today.
On the Public Enquiry into the hospital:
Para 358: ‘The decision to allow patients and families to have their say without any immediate right of reply from those on the nursing and clinical side in order to provide balance was short sighted and extremely damaging for the staff involved. I appreciate that families have their perspectives but SOME OF THE ALLEGATIONS THAT I UNDERSTAND WERE MADE WERE INACCURATE, UNFAIR and have had significant impact on the hospital staff who worked hard to help patients’.
As a result of innovations introduced at the hospital in recent years – Para 356: ‘We now have line infection rates even lower than the rates at a Cincinnati hospital that is seen as the gold standard in this field.’
Para 359: ‘… as a place to treat patients, I don’t think there’s anywhere safer in the UK than the newly refurbished wards 2A and 2B. …. I have absolutely no concerns about the water or ventilation or overall safety in the refurbished wards.’
Para 360: “I would describe the the infection rates at the new Schiehallion as world class ..’.
Now I’m not a biological scientist or medic but something about consultant’s evidence and its reporting seems a little bit odd. The BBC News website article states: ‘The paediatric oncologist said he had never seen the “number and type of infections” in Glasgow’s child cancer wards in any other of the hospitals he had worked at.’ I’d like to pick up the reference to ‘type’.
In his written statement, the consultant refers to the species Elizabethkingia and states that it is something previously unknown to him and his UK network of clinical colleagues, thus implying something exceptional occurring at the RHC. Whilst this may be true, it may also just be anecdotal. From the briefest of literature searches, I humbly suggest he may be less than fully informed of what was a known and emerging concern for infection control professionals in hospitals worldwide.
Dziuban et al (2018) Elizabethkingia in Children: A Comprehensive Review of Symptomatic Cases Reported From 1944 to 2017. Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 67, Issue 1, Pages 144–149.
And:
Jiun-Nong Lin et al (2019) Elizabethkingia Infections in Humans: From Genomics to Clinics. Microorganisma 7(9).
From the latter paper: ‘The genus Elizabethkingia has RECENTLY EMERGED AS A CAUSE OF LIFE-THREATENING INFECTIONS IN HUMANS, particularly in immunocompromised patients. Several new species in the genus Elizabethkingia have been proposed in the last decade. Numerous studies have indicated that Elizabethkingia anophelis, rather than Elizabethkingia meningoseptica, is the most prevalent pathogen in this genus.
‘These bacteria are ubiquitously distributed in natural environments such as water, soils, fish, frogs, and insects , as well as in the tap water of hospitals. Since its first identification in 1959, Elizabethkingia has been occasionally reported to cause human infections. RECENTLY, THESE BACTERIA HAVE EMERGED AS A MAJOR CAUSE OF LIFE-THREATENING INFECTIONS in numerous countries.’
LikeLiked by 4 people
Thanks for that enlightening information Stewart. As usual BBC found a way of reporting the witness’s evidence to support their biased slant against the hospital and of course their target, SNP Government
LikeLike
Interesting that Elizabethkingia is found in water, soils, fish, frogs, and insects , as well as in the tap water of . This is the point that the microbiologists and oncologists are making. The increase in type of infection and their environmental nature. The media didn’t also mention that some kids had 4 different infections, that the board replaced the chair of the IMTs, or that some other doctor called it the world’s first pseudo outbreak, which is frankly ludicrous. So much this week hasn’t been reported but having watched EVERY interview and read every statement so far, all of it supports the claims that wards 22, 2b and 5 experienced increased numbers of environmental bugs, that sludge was coming out of drains, that mould was growing behind showers, that water was leaking, that fungal counts were high, that taps were full of bugs. This is all mentioned this week.
LikeLike
Excellent work, well done.
LikeLike