Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Joint Committee on Health díospóireacht -
Thursday, 28 Sep 2023

Spinal Surgery Issues at Children's University Hospital Temple Street: Children's Health Ireland

The purpose of today's meeting is to consider the serious issues that have come to light in recent times with spinal surgeries carried out on patients at Temple Street children's hospital in Dublin. To enable the committee to consider this issue further, I am pleased to welcome from Children's Health Ireland, CHI, Ms Eilísh Hardiman, chief executive, Dr. Allan Goldman, chief medical officer, Ms Paula Kelly, clinical director and Dr. Ike Okafor, clinical director.

I must give a note on privilege. Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks and it is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I also remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where he or she is not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I will ask any member participating via MS Teams to confirm that he or she is on the grounds of the Leinster House campus prior to making a contribution.

To commence our consideration of spinal surgery in Temple Street, I invite Ms Hardiman to make her opening remarks on behalf of CHI. She is very welcome.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

Good afternoon. I thank the Chairperson and members for the opportunity to address them. I am joined by Dr. Allan Goldman, chief medical officer, Ms Paula Kelly, clinical director and paediatric orthopaedic consultant and Dr. Ike Okafor, clinical director and a consultant in paediatric emergency medicine.

We appear before the committee representing the 4,845 people in our services in Temple Street, Crumlin, Tallaght and at Connolly Hospital who work diligently at the front line of healthcare, delivering care through 39 clinical specialties, serving 25% of the population for their national paediatric specialty needs, as well as the secondary paediatric care needs of children and young people in the greater Dublin area. Our teams treat and care for more than 153,000 emergency department attendances, around 26,000 day cases, 23,000 inpatient admissions and carry out in excess of 15,500 theatre procedures per annum. The team at Children’s Health Ireland deliver excellent care to children and young people every day, despite in most cases dealing with outdated and inadequate infrastructure. I am proud of our staff, the work they do and the positive healthcare outcomes they deliver.

The focus over recent days has been on matters of serious concern in Children’s Health Ireland at Temple Street. The vast majority of our services in Temple Street and across CHI are not in any way implicated or subject to the reports that we are discussing today. CHI and specifically the team at Temple Street are proud of the history of care provision from that hospital, and rightly so.

I begin my remarks this morning by reiterating the apology CHI has previously made to the children, young people and families included in the internal and external reviews we published last week.

These reports show what we had feared when we commissioned this work. Children did not receive the level of care they were entitled to and deserved. For an organisation that exists with a singular focus, that being to deliver safe, quality care to those we serve, these findings are distressing. I know that, for the patients and families involved, it is even worse. We are deeply sorry the children, young people and families did not get the care they deserved and we apologise unreservedly for the harm they endured.

Tragically, one child included within the reviews has died. The child’s case is the subject of a coroner’s review and is also the subject of a serious incident investigation. These processes will determine the sequence of events that led to this tragic outcome, and we are committed to providing the child’s family with the incident review report as soon as it is completed. All of us at Children's Health Ireland, CHI, are distraught at this outcome. I offer my sympathies and profound apology to the family involved. I also want to apologise to my colleagues and the entire team in CHI for the negative focus these events have brought upon Temple Street and CHI as a whole and to thank them for their continued dedication and commitment to the children, young people and families for whom they care.

Things happened in CHI at Temple Street that should not have happened. Decisions were made, certain procedures were carried out, children were subjected to a higher than expected number of unplanned return trips to theatre and, alarmingly, unapproved, non-medical-grade devices were implanted in three children. This is a shocking litany of events. CHI decided to commission two reviews into complex spinal surgery for patients with spina bifida in Temple Street. These were completed in July 2023. They were triggered following the occurrence of two serious incidents and concerns raised by staff about the surgical outcomes for these patients. The reviews were undertaken by a leading international children’s hospital. These reports will feed into the independent review that is now under way under the governance of the HSE. We welcome this external review and will co-operate fully with it. It is essential that all aspects of these events be fully investigated, that any individual or individuals responsible be identified and, more importantly, that any institutional or systemic issues that contributed to enabling these events to happen be found and addressed immediately.

I assure the committee that actions have already been taken to prevent a recurrence of these events. As the reports identify, as soon as we became aware that the outcomes of these surgeries were not what they should have been, we acted. In response to members' questions, Dr. Allan Goldman, chief medical officer, can outline the steps we have taken. There is work ongoing with each of the patients included in the reviews to ensure continuity of care. Each child and family has received a copy of the reports and all, except for one due to personal reasons, have had a clinical review by another paediatric orthopaedic surgeon and a dedicated care pathway commenced. As members will also know, the clinician at the centre of the review is the subject of human resources and Irish Medical Council processes and we are precluded to some degree from commenting further, although we will endeavour to provide as much information to the committee this afternoon as we can while respecting due processes and natural justice.

In addition to the apology we have already issued, I apologise to the children, young people and families for poor communication on our part across the past week. While we spoke to and met all of the 19 families whose children were the subject of the reviews, I am aware more could have been done. I am aware, too, that there are families who, while their children were not the direct subject of the reviews, also feel hurt and upset. I know children with spina bifida, others on the spinal surgery waiting list and their families have been distressed by the findings of the reviews and I apologise to them that this has added further to their concerns and has caused upset.

For more than 150 years, excellent clinical care has been provided to children and young people in Temple Street by dedicated, passionate and talented people who get up and come in night and day to meet the needs of their patients despite inadequate infrastructure. I have heard the hurt and distress that the focus on CHI and Temple Street has caused to staff. I want to say to them and to all the children, young people and families that continue to come through our doors that best-in-class care and treatment are provided to those who need us every day and every night of the year. I reassure parents, guardians, children and young people that high-quality and safe care is being delivered by our team of excellent staff.

As to how it came about that issues relating to complex spinal surgeries came to our attention, I will start by saying that spina bifida services for children are delivered in Temple Street through a well-established and large multidisciplinary team charged with their care. Spinal surgery by an orthopaedic surgeon is one element of this specialist service. There have historically been long waiting times for access to spinal surgery for children in Ireland, including patients with spina bifida. This was exacerbated by the recent Covid-19 pandemic and by the cyberattack, of which members are aware. Supported by the increased HSE funding of €19 million to address these increased waiting times, a number of actions were taken. In April 2022, CHI at Temple Street increased the volume of complex spinal surgeries undertaken, including for patients with spina bifida, to improve access to services.

Following the resulting increase in complex surgery activity between April and August 2022, it became evident by September that patients having complex spinal surgery were having longer hospital stays. Concerns on surgical outcomes were raised by members of the multidisciplinary team looking after these patients. These concerns related to higher than expected complication rates seen in this cohort of patients, particularly a high rate of unplanned returns to theatre and post-operative infection rates in patients with spina bifida undergoing complex spinal surgery.

Following two significant incidents involving spinal surgery in CHI at Temple Street over the summer of 2022, a review of patient outcomes was commenced. The aim of this clinical review process was to assess if the clinical outcomes for these patients were in keeping with other similar centres around the world, to evaluate if there were specific safety concerns requiring a response by CHI, and to seek recommendations to improve continuously the treatment and management of this complex group of patients. These surgical procedures are extremely complex and involve the insertion of metal rods into the patient’s spine in an effort to correct its curvature. These are high-risk surgeries, with high post-operative complication rates. Concurrently with commissioning this review in November 2022, the clinician elected to pause the most complex spinal surgery, known as a kyphectomy procedure, for patients with spina bifida until the outcome of the external quality review was available. This decision was supported by CHI.

Members will of course be concerned about the unauthorised use in spinal surgeries of unapproved non-medical-grade devices or, in other words, springs. Quite frankly, this is an unprecedented occurrence and is truly shocking. The facts around this matter will be the subject of a serious incident investigation. The investigation will examine end-to-end processes within the hospital, including procurement and custody of these items. It will also look at who knew that non-medical-grade devices were being used, how they were procured and why at no stage did someone say "Stop". While innovative approaches to care might be considered on one-off compassionate grounds, it is unheard of for any clinician to determine to use a non-approved non-medical-grade device in a patient. It is simply not done. No approval was granted and none would be granted for a non-medical-grade device to be implanted.

Obviously, I am aware there is justifiable scrutiny, not just of the complex spinal surgeries of concern to the review process but of the wider spinal surgery and scoliosis programme in CHI. While the ongoing issues relating to access to surgery and unacceptably long waiting times are not the subject of the review, they are a subject of concern for us. We are keenly aware of the significant problems caused to children, young people and their families due to long waiting times and we are happy to discuss this issue with the committee as well. I wish to put on the record that, on foot of the increased funding I referred to, CHI and our colleague hospital, the National Orthopaedic Hospital Cappagh, had completed 509 spinal procedures by the end of 2022. This was a 47% increase in activity compared with 2021, equating to 162 more children who had their spinal surgery. Unfortunately, there has also been a 57% increase in children seeking spinal fusions added to our spinal surgery waiting list. We are doing all we can to reduce waiting times and will continue to do so. These surgeries are happening every week in our hospitals and are making a profoundly positive impact on the lives of the children who receive them. The 2023-24 scoliosis and spina bifida action plan is a two-year plan that builds on the work completed in 2022. The plan has been developed taking into account the learnings from 2022, particularly the impact of increased complexity of care on the acute hospital setting. The aim of the plan is to treat children and young people on the waiting list for complex spinal surgeries. The methods of enhancing the capacity to support these are listed in my submission, which I will take as read.

As has been stated in the reviews, CHI staff are committed and motivated to provide safe, effective, patient-centred and efficient care to patients with spina bifida to improve clinical outcomes. We care deeply about the quality of that care. We have already spoken to the families of those patients whose cases are the subject of this review and have shared the findings. I want to put on the record, too, that last week we also spoke to four advocacy groups and briefed them on the review’s findings, although I accept their unhappiness at that communication process.

Without in any way seeking to qualify the apologies that we have given, it should be said that complex spinal surgery in spina bifida children, unfortunately, has a high complication rate. However, in these cases the level of infection was above what would have been expected and is unacceptable. Children’s Health Ireland has already acted on the recommendations made in the two reviews published last week and are committed to fully co-operate in the external review that has been announced by the HSE. In particular, complex spinal surgery procedures for patients with spina bifida will now take place in CHI at Crumlin.

Open disclosures commenced in August for patients and families in these reviews. Serious incident investigations are well advanced for the two spinal surgery incidents, with open disclosure and sharing of investigation reports with families. The roll out of the CHI professionalism programme and the changes in quality and safety measurement and monitoring will be taken forward to address issues relating to culture and supporting our clinical teams to speak up about concerns. We value patient safety, and we want our team members to speak up when they want to or when they feel they need to. As I have said, the surgeon involved in these cases is no longer carrying out these surgeries and is in a human resources and Irish Medical Council process.

We are reviewing all aspects of our governance and risk and safety processes and procedures. As one CHI, and prior to our move to the new children’s hospital, massive change and integration is under way. Since April of this year, we are working as a cross-city site rather than as individual hospitals. This has resulted in more consistency and streamlining of processes, policies and procedures. Quality, risk and safety has been overseen and managed by a single framework rather than on a site-by-site basis. We will, in time, develop one single set of processes and guidelines across all our sites. While we cannot do this overnight, our priority is to ensure that any gaps identified in those processes are addressed as soon as possible. To be clear, we are implementing the review recommendations now; 20% are already completed with the remainder are all under way, scheduled to be completed by the end of this year.

To conclude, our job now, in implementing the recommendations of the reviews published last week and in working with the HSE on the wider review, is to ensure with certainty that the highest quality, safe care is provided to all children and young people at all times, as soon as is possible. We have listened to the issues raised by the advocacy groups and intend to improve our communications. While we have a road to travel, we will then focus on rebuilding trust and confidence among the children, young people and families who need services in CHI at Temple Street. We have listened and work with children, young people, families and their representative bodies, all of whom have suffered as a result of what happened. We will also provide whatever supports are necessary for patients, families and staff who have been hurt and upset by these revelations.

I thank the committee for giving me the time to address members and I look forward to hearing their thoughts and answering their questions.

I thank Ms Hardiman. I omitted to say that we are joined by some representatives of the children impacted by the issue today. They are very welcome. I remind members again not to go down the road of criticising or making charges against any person or entity in their contributions.

The meeting will have the usual set-up with members having ten minutes each. We will try to get non-members in today as well. Deputy McNamara is very welcome.

I welcome our witnesses and the supporters and families who have been affected. We have to extend our sincere sympathy to the patients who were affected and to the families who are bereaved. Far too often, we find ourselves at this juncture, which is particularly sad when the lives of children are affected. I do not wish to blame anyone. I want to be factual about this. It is nobody’s fault but if the system is wrong it needs to be rectified. As a procedure was followed that was not approved, which was not EU-approved or approved by anyone in the hospital, what happens in such a case? What do we do? We are a committee. Everyone has raised this same question repeatedly, month after month, week after week, but we got no information. There was no response from various people from the HSE, people involved with various procedures and people who claimed that whatever could be done was being done to overhaul the waiting lists. We have also had the problem of things that should not have happened in the adult area over the years. These have been numerous and I will not go into them; we all know what they were. Public confidence in the system has been shaken. Public confidence in this case has been particularly shaken by virtue of the veil of silence. We raised numerous questions in the Dáil and did so here to the relevant people who were before the committee and we got no answers.

One thing has to change first. I will not attribute blame to any one individual. I have always strongly supported children’s health in this committee and outside. I was a member of a health board previously. What I will say is what has been disclosed to us is not good enough. These kinds of things do not happen to that extent. In the best run businesses, things occasionally go wrong and cannot be averted. However, this continued for quite a long time and in one case cost the life of a child. I would ask everyone for a second to reflect on how the child depends entirely on those in their environment, those in their range of vision; their parents, siblings and all those who support them in their difficulty. They suffer from acute pain which they hope will be averted as soon as possible when they get this magic formula that parents are promising to them. And what do we get? More pain. We get indecision and the use of procedures that were not permitted in this country. Compare that with the situation in recent years where medicines were tested at EU level and approved. What do we do in this country? We have them tested again and delay the procedure by a long time. That is not relevant in this particular case but it is a fact. That should not happen. Patients are in the front row, and I know the practitioners are too, but it is the families and the child himself or herself, waiting for this magic formula to happen and then suddenly it does not happen. These cases were brought back again and again for corrective surgery. That should not happen either. If the procedures were approved, who approved them? Is the hospital telling us that, for example, somebody decided, without reference to anybody to proceed in a particular fashion? How could that happen? Why could it happen? Is it likely to happen again where someone decides to proceed in a fashion regardless and that they do not need EU approval at all and nor do they need national health service approval and that they will carry out experimental medicine? This is no place for that. This is too sensitive a subject for that. I strongly urge someone to tell us on what basis the procedure was allowed proceed and by whom.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I will start by saying that children safety and getting the children treated competently with quality care is central to what we do. There are two elements to what the Deputy raised. One is on the procedure, which I will take separately, and the other relates to the children who are involved in the external reviews. Dr. Goldman might come in on that.

The Deputy is absolutely right. The implantation of non-medical-grade devices should not happen. It cannot be approved by anyone in Children’s Health Ireland. It cannot be approved by the competent authority, the Health Products Regulatory Authority, HPRA, because one cannot and should not implant non-medical-grade devices into patients.

That matter is under investigation at the moment. It is a full, end-to-end investigation taking into account the custody of these springs right through the organisation. I do not want to assume the outcomes of that investigation, but we will fully support it to answer those questions. I can give assurance, though, that since then we have increased awareness around this to make sure that everybody is aware of it. We have looked at our controls and talked to our teams to ensure that it does not happen again.

As regards the employer, and as an employer, I am bound by the individual employee in that I cannot get into certain matters here because of due process and the HR processes in place. There are two elements of controls around this. There are the employer controls but also there is the professional accountability in respect of a surgeon. I think Ms Kelly might speak to that.

When it became obvious that something was wrong-----

Deputy Durkan, some of the guests are looking to come in to answer your question.

Ms Paula Kelly

The implantation of non-medical devices is not appropriate in any situation in the surgical world. We acknowledge that paediatric surgery, relative to adult surgery, can often bring complex challenges in a very complex group of patients, but there is a code of practice and a code of ethics to which all surgeons adhere. The Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, RCSI, guidelines of 2018 are really clear as to what can and cannot be implanted in patients. Section 2.2 states that the surgeon must "ensure that any new device complies with European standards and is certified by the competent body". This is therefore inherent in any surgical training, so we cannot stand over any surgeon who implants non-medical devices.

But is there some control whereby the procedures proposed are approved by somebody in authority, or could the patient be part of an experiment?

When this issue was first discovered, why was it not made known immediately to the Minister, the families and this committee, all of whom were asking questions? We know that the families were asking questions and were concerned. Why did that not happen and whose responsibility was it to make it happen?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

Deputy Durkan asked first about controls. Yes, there are well-established processes within hospitals to oversee what would be research or innovation. To be clear, however, none of those processes would have approved a non-medical-grade device. It would just never be approved for implantation. We have a research ethics committee if a research study has been done. We know that the particular treatment was first under a research study in the children's hospital in Utrecht, and that went through the full research ethics processes. The device that was used there was a medical-grade device and it went through all the proper processes as a proper piece of research. As regards those controls, I want to give assurance that for anybody doing research or innovation, we have processes for that. We also have processes around medical devices. The issue here, which will be part of this investigation, is why this happened despite those being in place. We are as anxious as everybody else to understand that and we will fully engage with the external team. I want to give assurance that the team has a competency around the full end-to-end element of these medical devices, so it is competent as regards spinal surgery. It is also competent in quality and safety issues in acute hospitals. There are competencies on the team as regards medical devices and authority to use medical devices, as well as in respect of decontamination. The HSE has nominated an external team to undertake this investigation, and we will co-operate fully with that.

Could it happen again?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I think we have done enough communication, engagement, involvement and awareness raising, pointing out what needs to be done and all the controls that need to be in place-----

So the inadequacies of the measures that should be in place to protect CHI's measures have been corrected.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

Yes. The measures are there. We have increased the awareness of them and have encouraged them to make sure everybody is aware of the processes that need to be put in place.

If I may respond to Deputy Durkan's questions as to when this happened and how fast we responded, we first became of aware of this in July and it was Deputy Paul Murphy's parliamentary questions that raised the matter for us. Once we became aware of it, we acted straight away in getting into the human resources process. I cannot go any further than that, but that is where we acted. In these processes, what happens is that when you discover an incident or something, you go through a preliminary investigation because it is part of the serious incident review process. We undertook that immediately. We brought it, by the first week of August, to our serious incident review group. We determined that, obviously, it was a serious incident and warranted investigation. Then you set up the terms of reference and the teams to undertake that in discussion with the HSE. All of that has happened in a very timely manner. We also communicated it directly to the HSE and up through the patient safety protocol process, which is the process required to make sure there is a communication. We communicate to the HSE through that patient safety protocol process, and all of that happened on 4 August. We also, of course, informed the regulator, the HPRA, as a regulator of devices. It was informed on that day also.

Deputy Cullinane is next.

My primary concern is for the families and the children involved in this scandal, as well as many more children and their families who are really concerned. I must put it to Ms Hardiman that this is a dark day for Children's Health Ireland and children's healthcare services. Children and families are going through a lot of hurt and trauma. I counted in Ms Hardiman's opening statement nine apologies and I acknowledge each of them, but I can guarantee there will be more apologies to come in the days, weeks and months ahead. I ask that the tenth apology come very quickly because we learned from the head of the HSE and the Minister for Health that Children's Health Ireland did not want to publish in full the two reports into Temple Street. What CHI published was a summary. Given the gravity of the issues, given that the head of the HSE had to go over Ms Hardiman's head, does she accept in the first instance that it was a total failure on her part as CEO not to publish those reports in full?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

Yes, I do. We are very sorry for everything that has happened. As to what Deputy Cullinane has raised, we had the two reviews and they were around the same patients. We were trying - be it that it might be what was accepted as a form of communication - instead of issuing two reports, to get all the information and all the same information into one report as a composite report. It was only meant to give a context and make it clear. There was an inference that we were trying to hide something, I think, which we were not. We-----

I will quote something the Minister said because I have heard what Ms Hardiman has said previously. He stated:

I never agreed to their not being published. I do not agree with the position taken by [Children's Health Ireland] ...

I do not agree with it; I doubt anybody in the room does. I have heard what Ms Hardiman has said. I need to move on to other questions but am simply saying to her that transparency is really important. Reports, all reports, need to be published in full.

I need to move on now to my next question. Did Ms Hardiman attend a meeting at some time in February 2020 that was attended by a number of consultants, one of whom is the subject of the Medical Council complaint at the moment, at which the issues of experimental techniques and the use of the metal rods referred to earlier and the spring-assisted techniques that have also been mentioned were discussed?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I am conscious that CHI is not in a position to name the individuals and we need to be very careful because I am in the HR processes on that.

I did not name the individuals. I have asked if Ms Hardiman attended the meeting.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

Yes, I did attend a meeting. I know the committee has shared with me the emails about that. It related to a different system. I am prepared to talk about this because it is not related to the investigation under way and I cannot and do not want to preclude any outcome of any investigation.

Everybody is entitled to fair process here.

We had a field notice at the time about MAGEC rods. They are a separate growing system. The field notice came to the orthopaedic consultants first and then to the hospitals. I had a discussion about MAGEC rods, which are separate instruments. People will see with the further communication that I am talking about MAGEC rods. They are a separate system.

I see that. I asked my question so that we have absolute clarity, because there is a lot of information now coming into the public domain, from the CHI's perspective. Obviously there will be an external review. I am simply asking Ms Hardiman, regarding the issues she discussed, including the high-risk techniques and use of the metal rods, to confirm she was not involved at any point in any discussion, at formal meetings, of those issues in terms of their use.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I can say that I have meetings all the time with clinicians and we talk about innovation. That is normal. We are very supportive in Children's Health Ireland.

These are high risk, as Ms Hardiman pointed out. On the issue of high risk and metal rods, was Ms Hardiman involved in any discussions relating to that issue?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I am prepared to say that I was involved in discussions about MAGEC rods because I was very clearly aware of the field notice around MAGEC rods at the time.

In her opening statement, Ms Hardiman mentioned "metal rods" and "high risk". I am asking her about that issue. Was she involved in any discussions with clinicians and others at any point on that issue? That is the terminology she used.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

That is subject to an investigation with which we will fully co-operate and-----

Ms Hardiman has not answered my question on whether she was involved in any meeting on those issues, which for me is fundamentally important.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I am being clear, if I may, that I was involved in a meeting around MAGEC rods, which are separate, because of a result of a field notice.

Ms Hardiman cannot say "No" to me. I have asked her a question on the issues that she raised about the use of metal rods and the high risk nature of them and whether that was also something that she discussed or was part of discussing in formal meetings. Ms Hardiman cannot tell me "No". I have asked her four times and she still has not said, "No, categorically I was not."

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

That is because if it is in relation to the devices, which are non-medical grade devices, that is part of an investigation. I am absolutely willing to partake in that investigation and I will answer all the questions through that process.

I am not satisfied with those responses at all.

I have another email that came from the clinical director of Temple Street Children's Hospital to the consultant who is subject to the Medical Council's complaint. One of the issues that arose very early on was an attempt to paint this whole scandal as being about one consultant or individual. The email sent on 5 August 2022 states:

Spines on Mondays. Appreciate you have circa. 37 children left acknowledging that each one of your complex cases really equates to two to three operations. I would still really appreciate you working with us to continue to do three to four a month rather than your proposed 1 a month.

There are questions being asked. Was pressure exerted on consultants to do more procedures than it was safe to do?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

Patient safety is at the centre of everything that we do. We definitely committed, in 2022, to increase the activity and, in particular, to look at the longest waiters and take them off our list. The Deputy will see the numbers and how much we achieved in that regard, with a 47% increase in spinal surgery. It became clear in August of that year - I have only seen the email now - that the patients were having longer waiting times. By the end of August, even though we were planning to try to support the clinicians to do as many of them, and that is about prioritising-----

With respect, Ms Hardiman, we are very short on time. I appreciate her response but my question is more direct. I am asking it from her perspective, and I know there will be an external review. Is it possible that huge pressure was exerted on consultants working in these hospitals to do more procedures than it was potentially safe to do? Given the level of complications that arise, the level of aftercare and ICU capacity, is that a possibility?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

We do not pressurise our clinicians to enter spaces where they cannot feel comfortable about what they are doing.

Is Ms Hardiman saying that is not a possibility? She is completely ruling that out as a possibility.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

We work very closely. The clinical directors, two of whom are here with me, work very closely with the teams on what they need to make things happen. As the Deputy can see in that email, they are trying to facilitate these surgeries as much as possible. I have to add, however, that shortly after that, we realised that there was an issue. As early as September, we paused complex spinal surgery because the patients were not-----

I put it to Ms Hardiman that it was in July that CHI first became aware of a serious incident and then the second one in September.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

Correct.

The Department was not notified until November, and that includes the Minister for Health. That is four months, which is completely unacceptable. In my view, there have been lots of failures.

I have a final question as I am almost out of time. There will be lots of issues for the review to deal with. I do not believe there should be any reporting back to CHI. My next questions are on the procurement of the non-medical grade springs. My understanding is that a review of this issue has been commissioned by CHI and will report back to CHI. The Minister informed us of this in the Dáil last week. There should be no reporting back to Children's Health Ireland in relation to any review. Were the springs procured through CHI? If so, were they procured directly by a consultant or somebody else?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I am really trying to be helpful but that is going to be part of the investigation and I cannot disclose that.

With respect, Ms Hardiman can disclose it. I am asking about issues that are matters of fact. The springs were either procured formally through CHI or not. That does prejudice anything; it is a matter of fact.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

What I can say is that we have evidence of it being invoiced but that does not mean it has been procured. There are different processes.

In that case, CHI cannot find a paper trail.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

That is all going to be part of the review. If I may, it is really important that I correct the record regarding the incidents. When we have high-risk surgery we have incidents. They occur and we investigate them. If every surgeon who had an incident from a high-risk surgery was to be investigated and a note sent to the Minister, we would be doing that on a regular basis. This is our world. It is really important to understand that these instances are a normal amount of our practice. We have these serious instances and complications and we investigate them. There was a cumulative effect here that resulted in us actually communicating about our concerns. The Deputy is absolutely right. The second incident had occurred and concerns were raised by the staff. It was then that we said we wanted to escalate this as a patient safety issue.

I want to make a final point.

Yes, but allow Ms Hardiman to finish.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I would like it to be known that we responded and acted as soon as we were aware that there were concerns and issues. We have always placed patient safety at the centre of what we do.

That would be a matter of judgment and people can form their own conclusions. Ms Hardiman has given her view and I have given mine.

On procurement, Ms Hardiman said there was an invoice. She stated strongly, and rightly so, that the springs should never has been used. I find it extraordinary that, even today, she cannot tell us whether they were sourced and procured by a consultant directly or by others, and whether they were formally procured through Children's Health Ireland. That makes no sense to anybody in this room.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I appreciate that the Deputy did not name the consultant but he is talking about an employee who is engaged in an HR process. There is due process.

It is in his interest as well that my question is answered.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I appreciate that and everybody is entitled to due process. The end-to-end investigation of that process and the custody of those springs are what that external investigation is planning to do. We need to trust the process and await the outcome, and not pre-judge this or answer part of the questions. There are a lot of questions that need to be asked about this and we will fully co-operate. We want to find the answers as much as anybody else.

I thank the Ms Hardiman. I have given leeway to try to get a back-and-forth discussion among the witnesses. I have not given anyone additional time but trying to run this meeting as best as possible. Deputy Lahart is next.

I thank the witnesses for making themselves available. I became aware when witnesses from RTÉ were before a committee that members of the public sometimes think politicians are interrupting witnesses.

I wish to make them aware, if they are not already aware, that members have very limited time slots. We have ten minutes each and that is why we like to try to keep things moving.

Ms Hardiman's statement refers to alarmingly unapproved non-medical grade devices. Did orthopaedic consultants or consultants ever seek advice from Ms Hardiman or senior staff within CHI on the use of alternative devices, technology or techniques?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

We have discussions with clinicians all the time in relation to this. It is not unusual to talk about research, about doing something differently and what research has been done. That is the world that we live in.

I get that, but I am talking about the use of specific techniques or pieces of equipment.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

We tend to approach that at a broader level, certainly, where I would be involved. We discuss the plans for the services with the clinical directors.

In response to Deputy Cullinane, Ms Hardiman mentioned discussions specifically about the MAGEC rods. She has, therefore, been approached about specific devices.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

A field notice on the MAGEC rods was issued by the company, so we were responding to that and making sure that everything was in place.

Was Ms Hardiman ever asked for her advice, as CEO, by consultants, orthopaedic surgeons or surgeons in relation to the approval of off-label or experimental techniques?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I am prepared to say that I have never approved off-label-----

My question was whether Ms Hardiman was ever approached for advice about those from professional orthopaedic surgeons or consultants.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I have no recollection of being asked about non-medical grade, unapproved, unauthorised devices.

Does she have any recollection of being informed of the potential use of these devices in operations on children?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I have a recollection of being in discussions around MAGEC rods. I am quite familiar with them because we have been using them for years in Crumlin. They are the ones that I am used to.

Have any other techniques or pieces-----

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

No, those are the only ones that I am aware of. I would not get into that level of detail, to be quite honest. I would expect that they are discussed, which they can be, within the team and the multidisciplinary team and then within the processes that we have either for innovation or medical devices.

Ms Hardiman is not in a position to approve experimental techniques. Was she ever asked to approve or made aware of experimental techniques using devices that were not devised for the purpose for which they were subsequently used?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

Absolutely not. That is not the role of the chief executive. I do not have the remit or authority to do that.

Was Ms Hardiman ever informed of the use of those techniques, alternative techniques or off-label advices by consultants or orthopaedic surgeons?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

No. What I am aware of, in relation to growing devices, is the use of MAGEC rods.

I have a piece of correspondence here. I do not mean to grandstand without naming the individual, but as Ms Hardiman has said everybody is entitled to privacy. It does seem that outside the use of the MAGEC rod, which is mentioned, other techniques were mentioned. It is specifically addressed to Ms Hardiman. The final line of the correspondence reads that, as CEO, "we needed to make you aware of this for any guidance we may need."

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

That is the communication that I first became aware of on 21 August 2023.

Ms Hardiman first became aware of what?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

Of the communication that states that.

It is dated 21 February 2020 and is addressed to Ms Hardiman.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

Correct. I have never received it and was not aware of that communication.

Okay. The copy I have is dated 21 February 2020 and is addressed to Ms Hardiman. Is she saying she did not see it until August of this year?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I was informed of it in August 2023.

There is no record of Ms Hardiman having received it-----

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

That is absolutely correct.

-----in Temple Street.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

No, in CHI my email address is well known. People usually email me and clinicians email me. I have no record of receiving this letter. I think that is the matter that needs to go into the investigation. To give everybody due process in relation to this, it needs to be part of the investigation process.

I have a few other specific questions. I am told that in August 2019 a multidisciplinary team of doctors, not just one surgeon, discussed implanting this spring implant with Ms Hardiman, as CEO. In the correspondence dated 21 February 2020, it is suggested that in the clinical director's office, two surgeons from the same multidisciplinary team told Ms Hardiman about the spring implant device.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I have heard that too. No.

Ms Hardiman is saying that did not happen.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I meet with clinicians all the time and I am happy to show my notes from that meeting to the investigation team. I am very clear about what we were talking about at the time. I remember the day quite well, as it happens, for other reasons. It was a normal meeting and it was a very positive meeting because we were moving on with lots of things with our colleagues in Cappagh. I am happy to disclose all of that as part of the investigation process.

I am not pointing the finger. The most the important point Ms Hardiman made in her opening statement was on the complexity of this space and the operations that are necessary, the high-risk nature of them and the space in which surgeons are operating. I do not mean the space in which they are physically operating but the environment in which they are operating. Certainly, some of the correspondence I have seen seems to suggest that experimental techniques or thinking outside the box a little is very much a part of this. The correspondence Ms Hardiman says she did not get suggests adopting an approach with a piece of equipment for which that equipment was not designed, but for which it seems it could be used. Ms Hardiman is saying that she is not aware of that. The reason I raise this is that if that were the case, would it not reduce what Ms Hardiman has described as alarmingly unapproved devices? It seems to suggest that there would have been a record of discussion about alternatives to approved devices, and that seems to be a theme. I suppose that is what I am trying to drive at.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

Dr. Goldman might want to speak to the complex world of innovation and how we do innovation. We have processes under which these decisions are made. While there can be muiltidisciplinary discussions and teams talking about it, there is actually a process which has to control-----

I will ask one or two more questions first. Again, I am left with the impression that occasionally surgeons approached Ms Hardiman in her role as CEO for advice and guidance because they were not sure how to proceed.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I am back to saying that these are well established practices. Research is endemic across our organisation. We do lots of research and innovation. We work with the Health Products Regulatory Authority, HPRA, if necessary, when we want to use devices on a compassionate basis, so we do know about this. We-----

I do not mean to interrupt but it strikes me that there must be an urgency about this sometimes that does not allow for-----

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I do not think that is the case. Perhaps Dr. Goldman can explain it.

Before he comes in, I will ask a final few questions. Does CHI Temple Street have a register to monitor implant performance in children in case of problems? Apparently, there is an electronic register for hip and knee replacements. I wonder if there is a register other than putting a sticker in a chart for implants.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I am afraid we are still putting stickers into the charts.

How can records of problems with implants be found?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

Unfortunately, that involves going back and doing a review and going through either the charts or the X-rays. X-rays have reported implants in them. That is electronic.

Dr. Allan Goldman

I might go back to the question about the innovation.

In children's health, in complex diseases and in a children's hospital such as CHI, we want to encourage innovation. It is part of the fabric of the organisation. We encourage multidisciplinary teams to get together and they do so naturally when there is a problem with a child. If that transpires and someone wants to learn more or innovate, it ends up going down a research line. There are two components: going through the research ethics process; and, if a new drug or device is being used, following the process to make sure it is approved. It would usually be a CE-marked device.

Dr. Allan Goldman

If no CE-marked device is available, the HPRA process allows for people to approach it about innovation. It would work with the person and a company to try to develop a new product. It assesses the product, including whether it is medical grade, and goes through all those processes. If it is a new device there are parallel processes: one is research ethics, the other is about getting the device approved. One cannot just take a non-CE marked, non-medical grade device and suddenly decide it will be part of the process.

I have to move on. I apologise for cutting Dr. Goldman off midstream.

The witnesses are all very welcome. I thank them for their presentation.

I will follow up on a few matters on which I will not go into detail. It surprised and shocked many people to hear from the external review that there were basic shortcomings in the operation and management of Temple Street hospital. Things people expected to happen as a matter of course did not. Ms Hardiman said in her presentation that 20% of the review's recommendations have been implemented and the rest will be implemented by the end of the year. Will she send the committee a note on which ones have been implemented and where we are on all 50 of them?

The other matter relates to the review on Magec rods in Crumlin hospital, as we saw last night. The Magec rods and their use require an entire session on their own. I hope we have time to deal with the issue later but, if not, we will need to come back to it. The third point I will raise at the outset is that there have been a number of references to international norms - by the Minister in the Dáil in recent days and by others - with the suggestion that the outcomes in Temple Street hospital are out of line with international norms. I have not seen any of the international norms for that cohort of patients. Will the witnesses tell me where they come from and quote from them? Is it an equivalent cohort of patients?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I will ask the chief medical officer who understands this to respond to Deputy Shortall.

Dr. Allan Goldman

That is a good question for this group of patients. I worked with one of the spinal surgeons to try to answer that question. The surgeon did a literature review to try to gather as many papers as possible on children with spina bifida who had spinal surgery, especially kyphectomy operations. It is an appendix at the back of our combined report. The surgeon found 14 papers spanning more than 20 years between 2000 and 2022 in nine countries of which-----

I do not mean to be rude. Time is tight. Will Dr. Goldman provide a note for the committee on that and how the results in Temple Street hospital compared with the international norms being referenced?

Dr. Allan Goldman

Yes. Does the Deputy mind if I make one important point?

Without the background, if Dr. Goldman does not mind. Will he focus on the difference?

Dr. Allan Goldman

There were 257 patients in that total period spanning more than 20 years. We compared the results in our combined report for exactly that reason, to try to answer that question. Approximately 45% of patients returned to theatre for unplanned operations with a similar number of infections and there was approximately a 25% metalwork failure. The reason I want to put that forward is to say how complex-----

Does that data show the number of times people went back to theatre?

Dr. Allan Goldman

Yes.

I would appreciate if Dr. Goldman would send the committee a separate note on that.

Dr. Allan Goldman

Yes. I am sorry to harp on this, but because it involves such small numbers in such a long time, it is difficult to be sure exactly the same things are being compared. I just wanted to make that point.

I understand that, which is why I am surprised there are so many references to international norms. That is why I want to see the figures.

I will move on to the allegation that a meeting took place in February 2020 and to the letter that has been circulating for the past week or so, which we are told is a record of that meeting with Ms Hardiman. Ms Hardiman has said in two different statements that she did not give approval. No one said she did. The allegation is that Ms Hardiman was made aware of the proposal to use these springs. The letter from two consultants refers to that meeting. It says they met Ms Hardiman to talk about Magec rods but the other purpose of the meeting was to inform her that the two consultants did not favour the use of the Magec rods - I understand they have not been used in Temple Street hospital - and were proposing a different solution, which was a spring-assisted distraction device. They said they believed that was the right solution for this small cohort of children with complex needs but that the techniques were not commercially available. They claim they told the families that these were off-label devices and that as CEO they needed to make Ms Hardiman aware of this and requested any guidance they may need. That is what is in the letter from two consultants who say it is a record of their meeting with Ms Hardiman. Ms Hardiman confirmed today - I understand for the first time - that the meeting took place.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

No, I had a meeting.

Is Ms Hardiman confirming the meeting took place?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

No, I had a meeting and in my records of the meeting-----

No, is Ms Hardiman confirming the meeting took place in February 2020?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

That is correct.

With the two consultants concerned.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

No. It was a meeting about paediatrics in the National Orthopaedic Hospital Cappagh. I confirm that I have seen the letter. I never received that letter. I did not receive it at the time. I only became aware of it on 21 August this year. It is subject to investigation and to give everyone due process, I urge everyone to put it in that process.

Okay. My difficulty is that we always see the same response. A process is set up, a review is carried out, we wait months, if not years, and we rarely get to the bottom of things. The purpose of today's meeting is to try to establish the course of events that led to this situation in Temple Street hospital.

Is Ms Hardiman saying that she did not discuss the use of these springs at any stage?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

The only recollection I have is of discussing Magec rods as the notification came out at that time. I am prepared to say that I did not receive that letter and there is no response from me with guidance or advice in relation to that. I cannot and would not approve a non-medical device-----

Okay. Ms Hardiman has been aware of the letter for the past month. As she is aware, this is a serious issue. What attempts did she make to trace whether the letter came into her office?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I was away when it came in. Some work was done to see whether we had received the letter. It has been confirmed that we did not. As it is a letter-----

Who confirmed that?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

My office. I am being very careful. I stepped back from all involvement in the commissioning and from all involvement in the investigations relating to this once I became aware that there was a letter to me implying I was involved. For good governance, I wanted to ensure the separation and that there would not be any conflict of interest.

Ms Hardiman has not stepped back.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I have. I am not involved in the setting up of the investigations.

Press statements were issued on Ms Hardiman's behalf denying this course of events.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I want to be clear. I am talking about what happened once I became aware of the investigation. To be honest, I was just being open. I have not received this letter and I have no evidence of receiving this letter. I have absolutely not approved non-medical devices-----

I did not ask if Ms Hardiman approved it. I did not ask that. I asked if Ms Hardiman had a conversation with any consultants about the use of experimental techniques in relation to this very small group of principally spinal muscular atrophy, SMA1, patients.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I have gone back and looked at it. I have no recollection of that. In my notes, it was about Magec rods. That is what I discussed.

Is Ms Hardiman saying that at no point was she told by any consultant about a proposal to use these springs?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I have absolutely no recollection of that. I would like to co-operate fully with investigation and ensure that the facts-----

No. I did not ask about that. Is Ms Hardiman saying she had no information about a proposal to use these springs?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

This letter is claiming that-----

Sorry, I am just asking if this is what Ms Hardiman is saying. Is she saying that she was given no information about the use of these springs prior to their implementation?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I have no recollection of a discussion about that prior to it actually being implemented.

Sorry, Ms Hardiman had no information.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I have no information. This letter, which I did not receive-----

I am just asking again for the third time. Is Ms Hardiman saying that she had no discussion with any consultant about a proposal to use these springs?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I am clear that I have no recollection of any discussion in relation to this. The only evidence is what is in this letter-----

The witness has no recollection-----

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I have a recollection-----

Will Ms Hardiman stick with the question I am asking. Is she saying that she had no discussion with any surgeon about the use of these springs?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I am saying that I have notes on everything of a meeting that was held.

Ms Hardiman has notes of a meeting.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

It will be part of the investigation.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

Please, Deputy. What I have in there is around the field notice, which is what I understood-----

I am sorry but that is not what I am talking about now. I asked Ms Hardiman a question. I will ask her for the fifth time. Is Ms Hardiman saying today that she had no discussion with any consultant about the possible use of these springs?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I cannot remember any discussion. I definitely have a recall of a discussion on the medical-----

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

That is it. I never received this letter.

Ms Hardiman has said she has no recollection of that. I have heard now what she has said.

Can we finish up now Deputy Shortall?

Okay. I will come back later for a second round.

Before I move to my own questions, I will just pick up on something there. Ms Hardiman spoke about stepping back from being involved in setting up the investigation. Is she talking about the HSE investigation?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

No. To be clear, when we became aware of this it was in July. In early August we set up the investigation as an incident investigation.

Yes, on 1 August.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

On 4 August. We let the HSE and HPRA know-----

Earlier Ms Hardiman said it was 1 August, and then CHI informed the HSE on 4 August.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

Apologies. That is correct. It all happened on 4 August.

Okay, it all happened on 4 August.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I was not aware of this letter. That happened later on in August.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

On 21 August I became aware of this.

Of the letter, okay.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

Since then I have stepped back, which means that as CEO I am not involved in the terms of reference, the setting up or the elements involved in it.

Is Ms Hardiman referring to the HSE investigation?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

No, I am referring to the serious incident investigation that has been commissioned by CHI, with a fully external team that has come from the HSE.

I presume that Ms Hardiman was going to act in that as a liaison for the terms of reference. Originally, before she stepped back, what was her role in that regard?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

Yes I would because I actually escalated this. That would be my job and my role.

Who has now taken on that role?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

The deputy CEO in CHI.

To go back, CHI informed the HSE and the HPRA on 4 August.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

Yes.

I must also say, if people are putting in their notes for later work, that the HPRA has made itself incredibly peripheral to the discussion and I do not accept that it is peripheral actually. The HPRA is the regulator here. We have more work to do with the HPRA.

With regard to the families who were directly affected by the process, on what date were they informed?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I will just outline the open disclosure process because it was part of that-----

All of us in this room are aware of how the open disclosure process works and that it was coming into place at the time. On what date were those parents informed?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

We included it in the open disclosure process because we were aware of the 17 patients that were included.

That is 17 families.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

And two more. One of the cases was already in the 17, and there were two more. We included those in the open disclosure process.

On what date were they informed there was an issue?

Dr. Ike Okafor

We informed them as part of the open disclosure process. We made first contact and we did not want to do it over the phone so we had to arrange a time that was convenient for them to come in.

What was that time?

Dr. Ike Okafor

The entire open disclosure was over three weeks. I have to look back on my files to see when-----

Was that three weeks in August or is that three weeks in-----

Dr. Ike Okafor

It was three weeks in August. It started towards the end of August-----

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

On 29 August.

Dr. Ike Okafor

I am sorry, that was from the end of August to the middle of September.

That was to the middle of September with those 19 families.

Dr. Ike Okafor

Yes, the 19 families.

For those families indirectly affected, who are in that scheme or sector, but are not particularly affected or directly affected, when was that outreach undertaken?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

Does the Deputy mean those 17 directly affected and the two?

No. There are families who are not directly affected or were not within that cohort of 19 families, but who are significantly concerned by this because they might have children with scoliosis or spina bifida. When was that outreach done?

Dr. Ike Okafor

We have not done any outreach with them. With the children who were waiting for spinal surgery we have been calling them from last week and we finished those calls on Wednesday, which was yesterday. The calls started last week and we finished them yesterday.

I am sorry but how long has this issue been in the public domain? Is it more than ten days?

Dr. Ike Okafor

It has been ten days, yes. The first thing we had to do was the follow-up clinic for the 16 families who could make it to the follow-up clinic. We did that clinic on 23 September. We had to get two orthopaedic surgeons, one plastic surgeon, one neurodisability consultant and four nurses to be in the one space. Those were the children who were part of the review and one of the children who was part of the of the non-CE implant. We finished that clinic on 23 September. We had already started to contact the families that were on the waiting list before the clinic and we completed that yesterday.

Yesterday. I hate to say this in the context of the families, but I probably had more information than the families who have small children affected by this.

Dr. Ike Okafor

To call the families we had to ensure that we had a continuity-of-care plan. We had to ensure there was somebody that could see them or that we had a plan for their ongoing care. We had to do all that work first. Then we started to do the phone calls.

I feel really sorry for those families. That is really awful. I have a child who has special needs and I really feel bad for those families. I am very sorry to hear that. The State has let them down.

In 2022 there were 509 surgeries. Is that correct? Yes. What is the forecast then for 2023?

Dr. Ike Okafor

In 2023 we will do some 450 surgeries.

Is this based on the current disruption?

Dr. Ike Okafor

It is based on a combination of factors. We have looked at 2022 and rather than doing a one-year plan we are looking at a two-year plan. A lot of the infrastructure we were hoping to become operational-----

I do not mean to talk across the witness but was it not already a two-year plan, which is the scoliosis and spina bifida plan of 2023-2024, building on 2022? Was that already a two-year plan?

Dr. Ike Okafor

Yes. Rather than going for a one-year plan like we did in 2022, we are going for a two-year plan in 2023-24.

Okay, so we are talking about the same thing. It is not a new change.

Dr. Ike Okafor

We are.

That plan was in place before any of this came out.

Dr. Ike Okafor

That plan was in place before any of this came out so-----

Are we not revising that plan?

Dr. Ike Okafor

We revised it in July and we actually had to lower the projections for 2023. Over the time we are hoping to get some of our-----

My time is ticking down. I am sorry. I hate to do this to Dr. Okafor, but what was the projection for 2023, before this came out? It was not 509. What was it?

Dr. Ike Okafor

It was not 509. I would have to get the exact figures for the Deputy.

Yes, perhaps Dr. Okafor could get the exact figures. I presume the plan was building on 2022 so it was above 509.

Dr. Ike Okafor

Yes.

And now we are down to 450.

Dr. Ike Okafor

We had to readjust our figures but we are looking at a two-year plan rather than a one-year plan. What we are looking at is patient safety, and we are trying to see how to deliver this care in a safe manner. We have things that are coming on board. We had our new spinal surgeon start and we have expanded our outreach into the private sector, which is working very well.

I am sorry to cut across Dr. Okafor-----

Dr. Ike Okafor

We have additional theatre infrastructure and we are going to get additional beds.

I have read the plan and I am aware of that. I am sorry to cut across-----

Dr. Ike Okafor

We think we will exceed those projections that we have made for 2023. It looks like it is picking up pace.

Where are we with the four-month wait time goal?

Dr. Ike Okafor

We currently have about 90 children. I would have to get the exact figure.

That is 90 children who are waiting more than four months.

Dr. Ike Okafor

Yes, waiting more than four months.

What is the average wait now?

Dr. Ike Okafor

I will have to get that for the Deputy because it changes.

When Dr. Okafor gets that, could he get the shortest wait, the average wait and the longest wait? That would be very helpful.

Dr. Ike Okafor

I will get that.

I want to finish up on a question to Ms Hardiman. I note the reports are from the medical establishment and I am not from the medical establishment. They are very data-driven and focused on outcomes in terms of infection rates and so on. I do not know medicine but I know procurement very well, and there is very little about procurement. We have talked a little today about public trust and about the difficulty for the families in getting information. It is incredibly opaque to me how somebody walked into a theatre with a non-medical device. I am not asking about the specific person. I am trying to understand who in CHI is in charge of procurement - not the individual person, but what is the title. How does it happen? I imagine that in a controlled situation where there is a controlled device that has a reference code, that is delivered through a controlled piece of procurement to the hospital, it is then stored within a controlled environment, as a medicine would be, it is packaged in a sterile package and it is delivered to the theatre in controlled circumstances. What has been described in the press this week is somebody putting a spring in their pocket and walking into a theatre. I do not understand how that level of opaqueness is allowed in this process. I do not understand how that device was walked into a theatre, in theory. Can the witnesses advise me how a device is walked into a theatre that is not packaged or CE-marked? I am sorry to sound completely naïve. I just do not understand. In theory, how would it happen?

Dr. Allan Goldman

Whatever has happened with that is completely unacceptable. The questions the Deputy is asking are exactly the questions that we are asking ourselves. I know it sounds like we are deflecting but the only way we are going to get to the bottom of this is by a very good, rigorous, independent investigation to look at everything from point A to point B. Once we know that, that is when we can explain what happened and how to fix it. We are as perplexed as the Deputy as to how that happened.

You are in charge of all of this.

Dr. Allan Goldman

We need to understand. It is such an unusual thing to happen that we really need to understand. The only way to understand the gravity of such a situation is to do a proper independent investigation and then, once we have that information, we would be very happy to share that and to fix whatever has gone wrong with that.

I worked on building sites where you could not put a not-up-to-grade window into a building because somebody would stop you. I do not know how we got here.

I will take Deputy Paul Murphy next and we might then take a break.

I might ask to speak first as I have to leave shortly.

I thank the Chair for facilitating me. I thank the witnesses for coming in. How many consultants are there in the hospitals in Dublin under Children's Health Ireland?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

There are about 350. I will have to get the latest figure.

In any case, it is over 300.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

Yes.

What process is available with regard to the accountability and supervision of that number? What checks and balances are there? This is one of the things that seems to have occurred here. We are also talking about quite a number of senior registrars as well. What checks and balances are there in each individual hospital?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

From a reporting and accountability perspective, we have three clinical directorates that have 12 to 14 specialties within that, and orthopaedics is one specialty within that. Under the consultants contract, they report to the CEO but through the line manager, which is the clinical director. When we see clinicians going to their clinical director, it is as their line manager to discuss, maybe, service plans or-----

What checks and balances do the clinical directors have in place?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

The checks and balances are the other processes and systems that are in the organisation, for example, with research.

I am aware of that. For argument’s sake, let us say there is a consultant who does not turn up to clinics but leaves a senior registrar to deal with that. What checks and balances are there for that?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

That would be managed at operational levels. If there were any concerns or issues, that would go to the clinical director.

For a review of surgery, and this is quite complex surgery, is there any referring back to make sure? For instance, we identified quite a number of operations with a high incidence of infection. At what stage does CHI start investigating why that is arising?

Dr. Allan Goldman

Once you know there is a problem with that, then you need to start investigating it. In regard to these children with spina bifida, where we saw an increase in these complications, as I said earlier, when we started to increase our activity and we had discussions with the surgeons, they certainly made it very clear that, based on their past experience, as we increased our activity, particularly with complex patients, we would see an increase in infection rates and an increase in returns to theatre.

When Dr. Goldman talks about surgery for complex cases, how long do operations last? What is the time period? Obviously, the longer an operation goes on, the higher the risk. What kind of average time period are we talking about for this type of operation?

Dr. Allan Goldman

Several hours.

Ms Paula Kelly

For complex surgery, between the different specialties, there could be surgeries that go on for seven to 12 hours.

Therefore, the more complex it is, the higher the risk to the patient and the higher the risk of errors arising, I presume.

Ms Paula Kelly

It is not necessarily the length of time. If there is a very complex patient, for example, a very small baby, there might be multiple surgical teams involved, where there is a first team and then a second team. There is a huge variety of complexity unlike, say, an adult hospital, where the procedures would be more standardised, if you like, whereas in paediatrics there tends to be high complexity.

At what stage do the reviews take place? For example, when we identified there was quite a high level of infection rates, surely the team would review it. Is it once a week or once a month?

Ms Paula Kelly

Within each surgical group, if a clinical incident arose in theatre or in the perioperative period, there is a process through the quality patient safety risk management team where that would be raised. The clinical incident would be raised if the team felt it was outside the normal practice.

We have identified quite a number of cases. In one case, for instance, a child had to go back into theatre on 33 separate occasions. Surely the checks and balances are about reviewing and making sure errors did not arise. Surely the reason that infections were rising was identified.

Ms Paula Kelly

There are two parts to that. Within each surgical specialty, there would be what is called the M&M conference, that is, a morbidity and mortality conference. Each surgical group is responsible for having an M&M conference, which would generally happen once a month or every six weeks depending on the activity.

When quite a large number of patients are having infections, is it adequate to have a review once a month?

Should it not take place far more frequently?

Ms Paula Kelly

If there were increasing concerns it could be increased, and that would be through the morbidity and mortality conference, but if there are also concerns which were raised in this case by other clinical teams, then that is very often brought to the clinical director.

In doing that review, would there be consultations with teams from outside the jurisdiction as regards what the hospital may be getting wrong and what they are doing in a different jurisdiction?

Ms Paula Kelly

Is that within the hospital or outside it?

I am talking about outside of the hospital, for instance, where Ms Kelly had identified that there had been quite a number of difficulties in cases which were being reviewed. Was there consultation at a very early stage with outside people who were independent of the hospital involved?

Ms Paula Kelly

If the concerns are raised, it is dealt with through the clinical director structure and then through the quality system regulation, QSR, team. It would only then be through escalation to the chief medical officer and the CEO as to the making of a decision whether to go external to the hospital or not.

Was it then identified with regard to a change of process to ensure that the infection rate could be reduced?

Ms Paula Kelly

One of the key performance indexes one would measure in theatre in the post-operative period is surgical site infection. We have stood up a process which will increase how we will measure our surgical site infection rate and that needs to be done. There are no doubts but that improvements can be made and that needs to be implemented and improved.

From figures given to us today, there are around 15,500 theatre procedures. What percentage of those are major operations and what percentage would be day care or minor operations?

Ms Paula Kelly

I could not put an exact number on that but I could get back to the Deputy with that figure on the issue of complexity because complexity varies within the speciality. Cardiac surgery tends to be highly complex. Day care surgery tends to be less complex obviously but inpatient surgery would be much more complex. Complex is highly defined and it is not clear what it is. A patient who requires the intensive care unit, ICU, post operatively; that would be complex.

Returning to what occurred here, where there was something used which was not authorised, how does the hospital administration know that there is not somebody else doing something similar within any one of the hospitals at the present time?

Ms Paula Kelly

I might pass that question to Dr. Goldman, please, as to what we have implemented to ensure that surgery-----

Dr. Allan Goldman

We have sent out very strong messaging to all of our clinicians, to our theatres and we have done a great deal in that regard. From what people have seen, they are very surprised and we do not believe that this would happen again.

But Dr. Goldman believes that there should be a better structure of review in respect of individual consultants. One is talking here about over 150 consultants. That is a large number. Does Dr. Goldman believe that he should have a more robust review process in place?

Dr. Allan Goldman

The Deputy is absolutely right and it also comes back to the Boston review. One of the recommendations, which we put in place immediately, was that we have a much tighter governance process in theatres which Ms Kelly chairs. We have a cross-site theatre governance group which will now look at returns to theatre, wound infection and at other outcomes that we would be able to respond to much more quickly.

In respect of all of those recommendations, can we bring forward the timeline for the implementation of all of those recommendations in that report?

Dr. Allan Goldman

We are trying to do that as quickly as we can. We put in place immediately the clinical recommendations which came through, which we feel will make a big difference and which the Boston review had advised us to do. This is changing one of the techniques to standard length constructs, to changing the imaging in theatre, to ensuring that other teams are involved, such as the plastic surgeons and the neurosurgeons, to having a more specialised spinal team, to having two spinal surgeons in very complex cases working together on those cases, to improving the nutrition of children. We have put all of those in place immediately but there are also other very valuable recommendations which have come out of the Boston review which we embrace and will put in place as soon as we can, such as ensuring that we have a strong new specialty lead, which is going to be in place, and creating, very importantly, the theatre governance team with all the team representatives from all of the surgical teams and intervention teams to meet monthly, which will be going through the metrics and all of the standards we need to do for theatre. That is another important process.

The other bit which we need to evolve into is try to get good data collection on patient outcomes which we can benchmark with international registries. We do that for two of our teams, where these standards have already been in place for a long time, which is the ICU and the cardiac teams. We, however, now clearly need to expand that to other high risk specialties and the spinal team will certainly be the next. That requires infrastructure and people, with proper data collectors, data analysts and we need to be part of those registries. That is very much the most important bit going forward so that we can monitor our outcomes in real time and be able to compare ourselves with other centres of excellence.

I propose a break in the committee's proceedings for ten minutes. I will bring in the non-members of the committee to speak when we finish. I thank all of our contributors.

Sitting suspended at 3.06 p.m. and resumed at 3.17 p.m.

I thank the witnesses for the presentations and, in particular, solidarity with the families. When did CHI receive its first freedom of information request relating to the high rates of complications and the use of unlicensed implants?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

There are two elements here. One of them relates to-----

I am asking about freedom of information requests relating to either aspect and submitted by the journalist Pádraig Ó Meiscill.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I will have to get further information. We are happy to come back with the dates. The issues relating to the springs has been very latter, into July and August. I will come back with exact dates.

The first freedom of information requests went in on 13 October. When was surgery suspended?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

To which surgery is the Deputy referring?

I am asking about kyphectomies in particular.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

The kyphectomies ceased in November last year.

I think it was 7 November.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

Yes.

The internal review started at approximately that time, 7 November, and the external review.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

Yes, exactly.

Was there any relationship between the freedom of information requests coming in and the suspension of surgeries and the reviews?

Dr. Allan Goldman

I thank the Deputy for his question. During the months around October, after the patient very sadly passed away, we were seeing many complications and returns to theatre. At the end of September we had paused the complex surgery and were having ongoing discussions with our multi-professional team. I was meeting with the clinical directors, CDs, anaesthetic teams, ICU teams, neurodisability teams and nursing teams. It became apparent from their concerns, especially with regard to the infection rates, returns to theatre and, in particular, the metal work, that we needed to do something. We all sat in a meeting-----

To repeat the question, did the freedom of information requests coming in play any role in the decision to suspend-----

Dr. Allan Goldman

No. The main decision and our main concern was the concerns coming from all our teams. On 14 November we had a crucial meeting at which we made two decisions. The first was to pause kyphectomy surgery and then do a review to look at the outcomes of the patients. A few days later-----

Dr. Goldman has answered my question; he said "No". I am suggesting that the reason the internal and external reviews were initiated related to FOIs coming in. Dr. Goldman is saying that is not the case. That is the answer to the question and that is fine.

On the current external review that is being commissioned, is there any causative link between the publication of the article by the journalist on The Ditch, or Pádraig Ó Meiscill’s inquiries, and the initiation of that external review?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

To be clear, is the Deputy talking about the HSE-commissioned external review?

Yes, the current one.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

We are not involved in that.

In respect of parliamentary questions, the witnesses said the first that CHI became aware of this was on foot of my parliamentary questions that were answered in July, but I had asked previous parliamentary questions where, to be generous, the answers were misleading, and one of them had been signed off by Dr. Okafor. What does that process look like? CHI received a question on 8 May, which was answered on 10 May, that asked whether "all implants used in spinal surgery for patients with spina bifida and spinal muscular atrophy across Temple Street and Crumlin Hospitals [were] appropriately licensed", and the answer stated that to the best of CHI’s knowledge, it was standard practice that they were all licensed appropriately. I must say, the phrase "to the best of our knowledge" caused me to raise an eyebrow and encouraged me to ask a second question rather than just accept it. The answer, which was signed off by Dr. Okafor, dated 12 July and submitted on 22 June, stated it was standard practice that all the implants were approved and licensed appropriately. How does it work that CHI tries to find out, goes to Temple Street, asks around and gets information back? What does that look like?

Dr. Ike Okafor

When we get a parliamentary question, it goes through our liaison officer and comes to the head of operations within the directorate, and I would be made aware of it around the same time. If it is a clinical question, such as this one, it would go to the clinical specialty lead and I would have a discussion with the clinical specialty lead for that particular specialty. In this case, we had to give the Deputy a list of the companies that had supplied our implants, so we went through them and got all the information he needed. Sometimes, it would need members of the operations team just to get some details and we might need to go through records. It depends on the nature of the parliamentary question. Some of them need a lot of work.

In this case, did CHI get any information it did not give to me?

Dr. Ike Okafor

No, in this case, the question was not specific enough in terms of what subsequent-----

No correspondence that went to the people who were answering the questions used the word "springs", for example.

Dr. Ike Okafor

Yes, we did not expect we would find patients who had springs in them. The Deputy's subsequent parliamentary question was specific and that made it easier for us to identify what he was asking.

Dr. Okafor is saying definitively, on the record, that in terms of answering the questions for which I got an answer on 25 May and 12 July, CHI did not receive any correspondence that mentioned the word "springs".

Dr. Ike Okafor

At the time I had the Deputy's parliamentary question, I was not aware of any springs having been used, but-----

That was not the question. CHI was asking for information from Temple Street and, presumably, looking for an answer to the question-----

Dr. Ike Okafor

Yes.

Did anyone mention anything about springs?

Dr. Ike Okafor

We had a report from the Boston review that a section in the table that mentioned growing rods with springs, but I am not an orthopaedic surgeon, so I did not know what that meant. It was not until the Deputy sent in his subsequent parliamentary question that we became aware he was referring to springs, and that made it easier for us to narrow down which patients we were looking at. We would have had to go through every single child with SMA who had had spinal surgery to be able to identify the patients-----

I think Dr. Okafor is referring to page 3 of the internal review, which refers to growing rods.

Dr. Ike Okafor

It is mentioned in both reviews. I first saw it in the Boston review.

Okay. Dr. Okafor might give me a "Yes" or "No" to the following question. Was there any reference to springs in any correspondence CHI got in answer to that?

Dr. Ike Okafor

No.

CHI's opening statement refers to the suspension of these surgeries in November 2022. Did Dr. Okafor participate in a meeting in March 2023 where pressure was applied on surgeons to restart surgery?

Dr. Ike Okafor

What surgery? That is a vague question.

To restart surgeries that were not happening as a consequence of the decisions that had been made in November 2022.

Dr. Ike Okafor

To restart kyphectomies? Absolutely not.

What about restarting other surgeries?

Dr. Ike Okafor

It was only kyphectomies that we had stopped at that stage.

Again, I submitted a parliamentary question, to which I got an answer on 8 May, asking whether the Minister for Health was aware of any external or internal pressure being placed on clinical staff to restart spinal bifida-related surgeries. Dr. Okafor is saying there was no pressure to restart spina bifida-related surgeries.

Dr. Ike Okafor

The surgeries on these patients were ongoing. They were having hip surgeries and foot and ankle surgeries. We never stopped all spina bifida surgeries.

There was no pressure to restart surgeries, in that case.

Dr. Ike Okafor

To restart them, we would have had to have stopped them.

Dr. Okafor is saying "No" and that is fine. Funding was provided for data-keeping and it was said to an advocacy group on 22 August 2022 that a data manager had been recruited and would commence a national spina bifida register. Has that register been created?

Dr. Ike Okafor

Not to the best of my knowledge.

Does Dr. Okafor have any idea why? CHI has had a data manager for a year and a bit.

Dr. Ike Okafor

Is the Deputy referring to spinal surgery specifically? Again, the question is vague.

If there is funding to approve data keeping in CHI-----

Ms Paula Kelly

We had a data manager in Crumlin but not in Temple Street.

What is the progress on a national spina bifida register?

Dr. Ike Okafor

We are in the process of setting up outcomes for children with complex spinal surgery. We have employed a data manager in Temple Street and we are in the process of replacing somebody else in Crumlin who left the office two months ago. We are looking at two systems, namely, Amplitude and REDCap, and we want to be able to feed our data into the Scoliosis Research Society. It is one of the improvement projects we are actively working on in order that we will be actively able not just to capture our outcomes but also to subject them to international scrutiny.

I have two final questions. Is Dr. Okafor aware of any documentation existing of any consent process surrounding the use of these springs? I understand no consent process could possibly agree to the use of these springs, which are not authorised and so on, but was there any consent process, even though it would not have been adequate?

Second, the letter of 21 February that purports to inform CHI about the use of experimental measures and so on has been mentioned. The witnesses mentioned it and stated they had checked their email and had not got it, which means it was sent by email. Is it possible to check whether it was sent from a Temple Street email or are the witnesses aware of that?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

No, we have not gone into further detail because that is part of the investigation and we want to demonstrate that that has been undertaken without interference. That will be part of that investigation.

What about the consent process?

Dr. Ike Okafor

I believe that is a matter for the investigation that is being commissioned. I do not think it would be correct to try to predict that.

I welcome the witnesses to what is an extremely important meeting. On the communication with the 19 people who were affected, why did CHI believe it was appropriate not to contact them until it had all its ducks in a row? Should it not have contacted them before that to alert them and perhaps follow up with the care plan or whatever else it was trying to put in place?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

For starters, we contacted the 17 who were in the review in November and December and we formally wrote to them to say they were going to be included in this and that it would take some time.

We got the reports back in July and had to plan for each patient because there are separate criteria and certain issues. We were ready to go with the process of phoning them first to let them know what we are doing. That is the first contact. Then it was setting up how they want to meet and getting the relevant clinical team. That took a little bit of time.

Since this broke in the media, are there a number of the 17 who were only contacted yesterday or since the story went public?

Dr. Ike Okafor

No. The people we contacted yesterday were not part of the 19 families. They were the children who were not part of it.

That is fine. The spring at issue was a non-medical grade device. I think that is the correct terminology. Was it from an approved supplier to the witnesses’ group?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

No.

How in the name of God did it get into the system?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I did not come in through the procurement process. It did not come in through that route.

I put this to the clinical director or the medical director, who has expressed surprise, and stated that this was unusual and so on. How can it be said that other similar devices are not being used within CHI? How can it be said with certainty, given this has happened?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

We have increased our awareness around this. There is a recognition this is a very unusual event. That is why it has caused such shock.

I know it is a very unusual event but there can be other unusual events. How can Ms Hardiman categorically assure people there are not other unusual events?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

Because we have a quality assurance process in our decontamination units. That process can pick up-----

What I cannot get is this: those quality control mechanisms were in place before this happened, yet it happened.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

It did. That is part of the-----

How can Ms Hardiman definitively say other issues of a similar nature have not happened?

Ms Paula Kelly

We apologise for what happened. It is indefensible. It would be up to the surgeon. There is a code of practice whereby each surgeon would know not to implant a non-medical grade device. Once we became aware, email correspondence went around to all theatre users, reminding them there is no permission from anyone to implant non-medical grade devices.

I give blood regularly and have to give my date of birth five or six times during the process, from arriving to leaving. I cannot get my head around the fact that in a medical theatre an item is being put into someone’s body and there is no cross-referencing, numbering or double- and triple-checking. Surely to God that goes on.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

Yes.

Then how could this have happened?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

We are surprised as well. There is a clear process of tags on medical devices. Each one can be traced and that is taken up and put on the patient’s chart. That process exists. These devices, if non-medical grade, would not have those tags with them.

I get that, yet it happened. It is astounding. It was only picked up when a query went in from a concerned citizen, essentially. It was not picked up by any of CHI's internal or external processes.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

The other part is that as employers in the organisation we have processes in place but there is also a professional code for doctors, nurses and health and social care professionals to adhere to. There is clear guidance in the professional code for surgeons around devices. We are relying on an element of professionalism and people adhering in a professional way. We have acknowledged we need to do more work around professionalism just to be absolutely clear about the huge responsibility clinicians have for patients and their safety.

Dr. Allan Goldman

This has shocked us. It is unacceptable. We can only put our hands up at this stage and say exactly that. We need to understand what happened and then we need to improve and make sure it never happens again. That is the best message we can give.

That is grand and I totally accept Dr. Goldman’s bona fides on that but I am trying to find out whether there have been other instances. I cannot take the witnesses’ word that there have not been, simply because this has happened in spite of all their cross-references, checks and balance and so on. They cannot definitively tell me there are not other devices that were not of medical grade used on children.

Dr. Allan Goldman

All we can say is at this stage we are completely unaware of any other devices. Nobody can say 100% on anything. It is terrible. We put our hands up. We want to learn and make this better and make it never happen again.

Is CHI doing anything to review other procedures to double satisfy the witnesses in their conviction there are not other examples?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

We mentioned the quality, safety and risk. We are looking at all of those safety processes and procedures. That is part of the review the quality and safety team is carrying out to check if there is anything else that needs to be put in place.

Ms Hardiman said she never received the letter Deputy Shortall referred to. In that event, why did she feel it necessary to withdraw from the process? If she never received the letter, surely she did not need to withdraw from the process.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

It is because it states at the bottom of the letter that I am involved in the process. To ensure there is no conflict, to be fair to everybody involved and in case there is any suggestion of bias, it is the right thing to do.

Is the deputy CEO here?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

No, the deputy CEO is not here.

Why not? Did he or she not feel it was appropriate to attend the committee as well?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

She; it is a lady. We have her involved in lots of stuff happening around the hospitals today. I am happy on the next occasion for her to be in attendance.

Is Ms Hardiman confident the deputy CEO did not attend any of the meetings where these springs were discussed?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I am absolutely confident of that because she only started nine months ago. She has not met the surgeons or been involved in all of this. There is no conflict there.

I welcome the discussion on the invoice. A number of questions were asked by Deputy Cullinane earlier and we were told it was part of the inquiry and we could not go down that road. We got a few answers on the procurement process and on whether they came in through that process.

Next on the list is Deputy McNamara. He has ten minutes, but he does not have to take ten minutes, and Senator Clonan the same. I am conscious that-----

I always try to be succinct and brief. I do not know why there is laughter; I do.

The last time Ms Hardiman was before the committee was 11 November 2021. She was joined by Dr. Connor Green and Professor Damian McCormack. There was much discussion of ICU capacity. It was stated that it acted as a constraint in complex surgeries because you need an ICU bed in case it is needed. Was it €19 million the Minister subsequently pledged?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

Yes.

How many additional ICU beds are in place in Temple Street?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

None of that money was to increase ICU beds.

We have discussed time constraints. How many beds?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

We have nine ICU beds and six high-dependency beds.

How many new beds since then?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

There are 24 new beds in the hospital.

How many new ICU beds? Please stop the obfuscation.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

No ICU beds.

I thank Ms Hardiman

Did that act as a constraint on some of the complex surgeries? Was that part of the concerns around-----

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

It did.

For the record, Dr. Goldman is nodding his head.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

To be clear, there is no place to put extra ICU beds in Temple Street. There is no physical infrastructure.

So we are waiting for the national children's hospital. By the way, will Ms Hardiman be in charge of this national children's hospital, all going well

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

Yes, the three children's hospitals. We have all merged.

There will be no springs in it that Ms Hardiman does not know about? When did she become aware of springs? She said she had no recollection of being informed of springs at this meeting. As I understand it, the purpose of the letter that Deputy Shortall mentioned was more as a memorandum to recall what was discussed yesterday. Ms Hardiman said she did not receive the letter and there was no discussion of springs at the meeting. When was the first time she became aware that springs were being used in spinal surgery on children?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

We became aware of it from the responses to the questioning regarding parliamentary questions. That is when we started to investigate it a little bit more and that is when we discovered there was something there.

I thank Ms Hardiman. As for the reviews, there was the internal review and then there was the Boston review. Ms Hardiman's opening statement was slightly vague, and I am not saying it was intentionally so, as to where the impetus for these reviews came from. Who first suggested that there was a need for a review of the negative outcomes?

Dr. Allan Goldman

I will take that. I sort of began that earlier. Once the teams raised these concerns, we had a key meeting on 14 November and at that meeting we decided two things - first, that we would pause the kyphectomy operations, and rightly so, and, second, that we would do an internal review. Within a few days of regrouping with the executive team, we realised this went well beyond an internal review and to really get to the bottom of things, to understand, and to have independence and expertise, we needed to go outside CHI. We contacted Boston Children's Hospital, BCH,which I see as arguably the leading children's hospital in the world, and asked three questions. One, do we have a safety issue and what do we need to do about that? Two, are our outcomes in keeping with what should be expected internationally? Three, very importantly, what can we do to improve our systems to make them better? We engaged with BCH and we are very grateful to them for what they have done. It is a really important bit of information.

My question was: where did the impetus for the initial internal review come from? Dr. Goldman said that the team met and the team decided. Was it the consultants who were carrying out the procedures, was it other consultants from the multidisciplinary team or was it Dr. Goldman himself? Where did the impetus come from for the internal review?

Dr. Allan Goldman

As I mentioned, there were a series of meetings leading up to that. At that meeting, the surgeons were present, and they were supportive of that; the anaesthetists were really very supportive; we had a neurodisability team-----

I am sorry to jump across Dr. Goldman but I have been asked to use less than ten minutes so I hope to get relatively succinct answers. I appreciate it is difficult for Dr. Goldman to give succinct answers. Was the lack of ICU capacity raised at all these meetings, leading up to this meeting at which a review was determined to be appropriate?

Dr. Allan Goldman

I am an intensive care doctor by background. The ICU capacity had become a limiting factor because these children were sick and were returning. However, the issue leading to the review was the concern about complications, including the number of returns to theatre, the removal of metalwork and the infection rate. That is where the concerns were coming from the team and that is what prompted us to do the investigation. Everybody embraced that we would go outside and we went to the best hospital in the world so that we could learn. If the Deputy does not mind, could I have a few minutes on that?

I am happy to give Dr. Goldman a few minutes but only if the Chair will give me a few extra minutes.

Let the discussion flow, if the witness wants to continue.

Dr. Allan Goldman

The point I would like to get across was that it was really important we did a very robust investigation. Initially, we had to get our general data protection regulation, GDPR, right with Boston in terms of data protection in that agreement. BCH staff were involved from March until June and we got the report in July. They visited us in May. Six clinicians came over - the head of spinal surgery, two anaesthetists, a neurodisability consultant and a senior nursing manager. This was a very extensive review, which we are very, very grateful for. They engaged very positively and we got a report in a very timely manner. I know for the public, the families and everybody else that seems an age but for such an extensive review, it was done, from a medical perspective, in a very timely manner. We are terribly grateful for that.

We got huge amounts of learning from the Boston review, which I alluded to earlier, about the clinical things we needed to do immediately and our systems changes that we needed to do. We continued to engage with BCH staff and our plan going forward is to improve things and to continue that engagement so we can do that with them. I just really wanted to make those points very clearly to this committee and to the families that this really was an extensive process and one we have taken enormously seriously. We are seeking to improve not only spinal surgery but our whole system of safety and of how we go forward.

Dr. Goldman spoke about how important it was that there was a robust review and a report. The report stated: "The external review did not include an assessment of CHI at Temple Street’s facilities, physical space, equipment, instruments, sterile processes or other specific conditions or aspects present in the operating theatre." Given that infrastructure was a major complaint of the two consultants who accompanied Ms Hardiman to this committee in November 2021, does that not seem to be an extraordinary omission?

Dr. Allan Goldman

They were not going to go down into the details of the sterilisation but what they did do, to describe it-----

Or physical space, facilities-----

Dr. Allan Goldman

I will come to that. They arrived on a Sunday. We started to do a tour of all of our facilities on the Sunday. We went to Temple Street. We had a theatre set up in exactly the way as if there was to be a spinal patient done there. They saw that. We toured around the facility. We then went to Crumlin and looked at the facilities there, and we did a tour of the new hospital. They had a very good look. They did not get into the nitty-gritty of sterilisation and those processes but they had a very good look at our facilities and all we had available.

They did have a look at the facilities but they say, for the purposes of their report, that it did not include an assessment of the facilities, physical space, equipment, instruments, or other specific conditions. The other aspect of this is that there are two main and separate issues. One is the use of non-authorised equipment, that is, springs, and the other is negative patient outcomes, most tragically in the case of Dollceanna Carter. Like Ms Hardiman, I wish to extend my sympathies, and I am sure we all would, to her family. As the mother of a young child, I am sure it is an incredible burden to carry, as I am sure it is for the medical professionals involved in her care. Ms Hardiman mentioned sharing the incident review report with Ms Carter's family. Is that review completed?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

No.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

It is still in progress and it is nearly completed. It is quite well advanced and we anticipate it will be completed in October.

That will be more than 12 months after the incident.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

This one is quite complex because of the nature of the condition. Very huge notes are involved and we have a broad team working on that. By that I mean orthopaedic surgeons, intensivists, nurses, and quality assurance so we had a broad team has come together to work on this. They are working on it and taking it very seriously. We take it very seriously-----

I should hope so.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

-----so we want to do it properly. It is complicated so to we want to give it an opportunity to be a proper report. We also have had some additional questions that came to us from the family and we want to include them and answer them. There are good reasons as to why it has taken until this time but our intention is to have it finished next month.

Have other internal review reports taken more than 12 months?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

It depends on how complex they are. Most of them are done in less than that but some of them can take that long. It depends. Sometimes, when one engages with the family, one gets additional questions that have to be incorporated those into the report.

Before we off the subject, Dr. Goldman mentioned there were three items there, one of which was on the inquiries into safety. Surely one would imagine that the whole idea of sterilisation would be fairly high with regard to the safety aspect, particularly in view of the reoccurring infections and so on? I would have thought that for any group coming in, one of the key things would be determining if the theatre is not sterile, and whether all the measures are being followed through. Meeting with some of the families, they suggested that they looked at the sterilisation process in Crumlin. Yet, strangely enough, in Temple Street, where the major problems seemed to be happening, they did not look at it. Could the witnesses shine a bit of light on that?

Dr. Allan Goldman

I will try my best. It is difficult to talk for others who have done the review. They had the latitude to look at whatever they felt was relevant to the investigation. We provided everything that the team was looking for. The focus was on the clinical outcomes and technicalities of the surgery, and looking at the X-rays. They had a good opportunity to see the facilities.

I am low on time but there is the question of the optics. They are getting their photograph with the new national children's hospital but clearly what they are over for is to look at this particular problem that is reoccurring for these children. I think the optics of it were wrong, and the fact that they have not done it. That is another reason why the families feel very frustrated about it. I thank Dr. Goldman for his answer, and Senator Clonan is next.

It was stated that the Boston team arrived on a Sunday at Dr. Goldman's invitation. How long did they stay in Ireland?

Dr. Allan Goldman

They stayed until the Wednesday.

They arrived on Sunday. I doubt whether they visited the hospitals on the Sunday.

Dr. Allan Goldman

They did. Yes, we set everything up.

Okay, so they arrived on Sunday. Most transatlantic flights come in during the early afternoon.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

They came in on Saturday.

Dr. Allan Goldman

I cannot remember. They came in at different times. We started-----

Okay, so they came at the weekend and they were gone by Wednesday. I presume they flew out on Wednesday?

Dr. Allan Goldman

Correct.

They were here for about 72 hours and they were accompanied by CHI.

Dr. Allan Goldman

For the tour?

Yes. During all of their visits and inspections, they were accompanied by somebody from CHI. Was it Dr. Goldman?

Dr. Allan Goldman

Yes, they would have to be to get to-----

Okay, so Dr. Goldman accompanied them?

Dr. Allan Goldman

Correct.

Did he accompany them to a meeting with the families, who gave a PowerPoint presentations on five of the case studies that were included in the review?

Dr. Allan Goldman

No.

Which member of CHI attended that presentation?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

Sharon Ryan.

Did Sharon Ryan attend that?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

Yes, she is the operations lead and was there to support them.

Okay, so is that the witnesses' understanding of an independent review? A group of people who come for 72 hours at CHI's invitation and are accompanied by people from CHI at all times? To me, it sounds like Professor Damian McCormack and Mr. Connor Green came in here and blew the whistle about their concerns, and then the witnesses invited the Boston group out and they did not cover many of the things that Deputy McNamara mentioned, which were raised by Mr. Green and Professor McCormack? As a layperson-----

Dr. Allan Goldman

Could I answer those questions?

I have not asked Dr. Goldman a question about them.

As a layperson, let me give some context and then I will ask a question. My son had spinal surgery in Temple Street hospital in 2018. He was 18 years old. He should have had that surgery when he was around 12 but he did not because it is Ireland and he was on an extremely long waiting list. His curvature was so pronounced that it compressed his organs and compromised his lung function so that he had something like 20% lung function. I do not know what the witnesses' higher specialist training is. I do not know what their memberships or fellowships are or what their discipline areas are. However, as a layperson, I know that is wrong. That should not happen. It is foreseeable, preventable and reportable.

Before surgery, he had to have a cardiac review. The cardiologist on the scan discovered that his heart was in a part of his chest cavity where it should not be. It was a teaching point, and she called her team over to have a look at it. Eoghan saw it on the screen and he vomited into the sink at the sheer shock of it. He said "It is all right for you. It is not your heart." The anaesthetist told us that he was an anaesthetic risk and that he might be inoperable, as is the case for some of the other parents here.

We went into surgery. The surgical teams were brilliant. The surgeons, the likes of Damian McCormack and Mr. Green. I was in the hospital in Temple Street when Ms Hardiman was CEO. I slept in my car outside on the street. Eventually I got a room after a number of days. I brought my son in. He was frightened, and he was wearing his mother's bracelet. When they gave him the initial little numbing rope to put the peripherally-inserted central catheter, PICC line in, or whatever it is, I was ushered out, handed his bracelet and left in the stairwell. That surgery was complex because of the delay.

Dr. Goldman comes from Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, according to his LinkedIn profile. He sees a cohort of patients and a way of treating people that is completely and utterly out of step with what happens in the rest of Europe, in terms of chronic delay. Did he report it to the international literature? Did he blow the whistle? Were research teams not invited to come in and look at this extraordinary hospital where all of these extremely complex surgeries take place because of delayed treatment? If not, why not, and can the witnesses stand over this system that we have, with all of these suboptimal outcomes? One patient was brought back on 33 separate occasions. At what point did the witnesses think, or did they ever think about that? The springs are just a symptom of a completely dysfunctional system that Ms Hardiman has presided over as CEO since 2018, and she came in here with two clinicians who blew the whistle.

Were the Boston group and the other review patient-centred? Did they involve the families? I think we are not seeing the wood for the trees here. Everything we are talking about here, and all of these investigations, are used as a rhetorical device to not answer questions. This is something that the HSE has employed under Paul Reid's stewardship and that of his predecessor. I do not know what Bernard Gloster is going to be like. It is often stated that individual cases cannot be commented on, or that there is an investigation under way. These are all rhetorical devices to evade the blindingly obvious about what was happening in Temple Street. I only know from my own experience. I know that what happened was unusual and I am very grateful to the surgeons who intervened. Ms Hardiman must know, as a medical professional who has been CEO of the hospital and prior to that was CEO at Tallaght Hospital. If she had a cardiac unit in Tallaght hospital that was performing suboptimally to that extent, would she not, like the airline industry, blow the whistle and call for help? If it was an oncology department that was performing in that way, would she not call for help? If it was a maternity hospital that was performing in such a strange way, would she not? She did not, and the reason why she did not is that our children are disabled children and do not have the value in Irish society of other human beings. I am surprised that Dr. Goldman came here from another jurisdiction and felt that was - I do not know what to call it; I just do not know.

I would like to invite Ms Hardiman and Dr. Goldman, in the time that is remaining, to tell me how their behaviour was consistent with their remaining as CEO and chief medical officer, CMO of CHI, respectively. I am a layperson, and I know this instinctively. Modern medicine is led and informed by research for best practices. What the witnesses are presiding over was a recurring, foreseeable, predictable pattern of suboptimal outcomes, leaving children on waiting lists for so long.

What did you do about it? Damian McCormack and the other fella came in here and blew the whistle. When did you blow the whistle, and if not, why not? If you did not, is your position tenable or credible?

Senator Clonan.

Do you still maintain that the Boston group was an independent group, that it was family-centred and an independent investigation or was the group accompanied at all times by senior people from CHI?

There are a number of questions.

Dr. Allan Goldman

I will take some of the questions. I am genuinely sorry that Senator Clonan's son had to wait that long. It is unacceptable and it is not what we strive-----

It is still happening to hundreds of other families, is it not? Sorry does not really cut the mustard. Dr. Goldman knows what happened to me; great. He knows what is happening to hundreds of other families. Has Dr. Goldman written a paper on that?

Senator Clonan.

Has he reported that to his professional organisation? Has he sounded the alarm? Has he raised a concern about it? Yes or no? No, he has not.

Let the witnesses respond. Senator Clonan asked a number of questions.

It is a simple yes or no. Has he raised a concern with his professional association or the international medical community about what is happening in Temple Street in Ireland?

Senator Clonan. Please allow the witnesses to respond to some of the questions.

The Cathaoirleach keeps interrupting. Will Dr. Goldman answer the question?

I have not interrupted. The Senator has ten minutes. I ask the witnesses to respond.

Dr. Allan Goldman

The system and restrictions we have at the moment are what we have. We are doing our very best. Last year, 162 more children were treated than before. We are working within the confines of Temple Street Hospital, with nine ICU beds and 100 beds, plus-----

Has Dr. Goldman raised the concern?

Dr. Allan Goldman

Just to finish, it is the same with Crumlin. Both hospitals are operating at absolute maximum capacity. The new hospital holds potential and hope that we can move in a different direction but right now, we need to do whatever we can - and we truly are - to do things as best we can in order to treat as many children as we can. We have 39 specialties. We can only work within the confines we have.

Is what Dr. Goldman sees here consistent with what happens in Great Ormond Street or in any other jurisdiction in the EU? We are outliers and you have not raised a concern.

Senator Clonan.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I can help to answer that. I am sorry that Senator Clonan's son had to wait so long for treatment. We identified two principal risks for our organisation. One relates to patient safety and the other to access to care. We are putting in our reports and escalating to the system that we have challenges with delivering what we want to in Children's Health Ireland. We know the standards. People come back to us internationally wanting to work and we are limited. We are constrained with some of our physical infrastructure. I am not making excuses but we are going to move out of these facilities in the next year and a half. We have 12 theatres and we will have a 13th. There will be 22 in the new children's hospital. There are real, genuine constraints. As an organisation and as somebody who values children and their families, we have identified patient safety and escalated it through our processes. It is compromising and we are sorry about that. There are other issues around access to care.

I thank Ms Hardiman. Who did you escalate it to? Who did you raise those concerns with?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

We have a process with our board. We also have a monthly meeting with the HSE around performance at which we escalate matters. We also produce an annual report in which we escalate it.

It is escalated to the HSE, so it is internal.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

That is our reporting line for elements like that. If I may, the Boston review was not sold by us as an independent review. That is important. It was external to us; they were to come in and look at clinical elements. We were concerned around the clinical elements, which was the focus. What the HSE is doing is independent. It is a different type of review. I wish to clarify that.

I have to move on to other members.

Dr. Allan Goldman

I would like to deal with the Boston aspect so it is not left as it is. It was not just a three-day visit; I want to make that clear. The Boston team was involved for at least a month, if not six weeks, before, during which it reviewed charts and notes and had virtual conversations with many members of staff. It was not just a three-day visit, it was much longer. I truly have respect for the organisation, its integrity and that it would do an independent review, not influenced-----

You knew from your time in Great Ormond Street that Temple Street was out of step with international practice.

I am moving on.

Pressure came on for progress on children's spinal interventions from this committee, the Minister and parents and families of the children involved. We were all conscious of it. That is why it was raised at a special meeting of the committee. That is the background to the urgency of the situation. When you realised there were problems regarding the procedures, who did you inform first?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

First of all, the reporting line is through the HSE, which we report to.

What about the board?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

Our board has had a subcommittee since last July because we escalated the issue. We noticed that activity was going up and length of stay was starting to. We had a board committee at which we raised the issue. It has met seven times, I think. It is specifically to support and guide the executive in relation to this issue.

By the time it was informed that CHI was not happy and that some procedures were not in accordance with best practice, what did the board do? Did it initiate an investigation or a report?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

We had concerns, as the CMO said, around complication rates, which we raised. The executive initiated the internal review and sought the expertise of our colleagues in Boston to look at clinical quality care. We kept the board well briefed of this. It meets monthly. From a HSE perspective, there are two ways of reporting. One is a monthly performance meeting and the second is a patient safety protocol when there is a patient safety issue.

Why was the Minister not apprised of the situation in tandem with the board?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

The reporting line for us is to the HSE and the HSE on to the Department. That is how it is reported.

Who in the HSE had ultimate control in relation to the action to be taken and procedures to be ceased or paused? At meetings when the board is present, we, as public representatives, ask questions and await a response. Sometimes, the response comes but not in the way or time anticipated. The question still remains - who was in control of the situation, to move it on quickly?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I assure the Deputy that once we - the executive - became aware, we made the decisions, raised the issues with the clinician and-----

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

The chief medical officer, it came to the executive team that we needed to-----

How many people are on the executive team?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

There are 11.

It is a big team. Were they all apprised of the situation as it emerged?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

The chief medical officer and clinical director were working on this and it then came to the executive level, particularly when we had engagement to actually cease a particular surgery. It is up to Children's Health Ireland to act in that way. We were really concerned about it because it concerned patient safety. The clinician agreed to cease doing the high-risk surgery, kyphectomy, which we supported. That is within our rights as employers and as the body running the services.

Did you have information in relation to the procedures in question before they started? For instance, did they start at a particular time? Were they new procedures? To what extent did you have information on the procedures, such as the success or failure?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

From an activity perspective, the most complex procedure is kyphectomy.

Just to be clear, there were seven of those in the review. One took place in 2020, two took place in 2021 and four took place in 2022 in a short period of time. It was when the fourth took place in a short period of time we were able to see the trend of what was happening with those from failure rates in relation to the metal work. That is what sparked us to say, "We have got to do something here." One can have a single patient, but it is very hard to know if there is a trend there.

Were inquiries made of the supplier?

Sorry, Deputy Durkan.

It is my last question.

The Deputy is over the time.

They might answer it again or give a written reply.

The Deputy might ask for that.

It is important for us to appreciate the scale of the overall failures that families and children feel in relation to a litany of issues. We are discussing here today the issues of the use of springs and non-medical grade devices and all of the issues that arise in relation to the post-surgical complications and infections but we must bear in mind as well that there have been years of broken promises, Ombudsman's reports and children waiting for a long time. That is why there is a catastrophic breach in trust.

I will put one question to Ms Hardiman, because we had a lengthy discussion in the Dáil on this. Does Ms Hardiman accept the view of the families of children and advocate groups that Children's Health Ireland, CHI, should have no hand, act or part in the crafting of terms of reference for the external review and that it should be as many steps removed from the CHI and the HSE as possible?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

That is a HSE review. It is not a CHI review. As I have said in my statement-----

Does Ms Hardiman accept that CHI should have no role?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

We fully support this being a HSE commissioned review and we will work-----

Some would say the HSE should not be involved either. Maybe it should be the Department. In any event, I want to be clear that Ms Hardiman is agreeing that CHI should have no role whatsoever in crafting the terms of reference.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

We are supportive that this is a HSE process, and is an external review to CHI.

At the heart of this current tragedy, if I may call it that, are two issues, and scandal. The first is the use of these non-medical grade springs. We have had some discussion on it. We must wait for this current review, which is under way, and that might answer questions on procurement. Ms Hardiman is adamant that neither she nor anybody else, other than, I assume, the people who used them, had any knowledge of the non-medical grade equipment. She also said she has no knowledge of being asked her advice or guidance, not only on the use of those non-medical grade devices but also on the techniques which underpin it. A number us talked Ms Hardiman through those letters that she says she did not get. That is Ms Hardiman's testimony to this committee. Obviously, we will have to wait and see what the review says.

The more complex question and, I would argue, equally serious issue is that issue of the high-level of post-surgical complications and the high number of infections, and what caused that. I will go back to what I said earlier. There is a picture being painted that all of this is down to one person. One could argue that, and maybe that is what is being said in relation to the use of non-medical grade devices. It is easy to sidestep a bigger issue, which is whether there are or were bigger problems in Temple Street in relation to why we had that high level of post-theatre complications. Is the lack of ICU capacity, in part, in Ms Hardiman's view, possibly one of the reasons we had so many complications?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

The clinicians can answer this question.

I will ask Dr. Goldman then. Is the lack of ICU capacity in Temple Street potentially one of the reasons?

Dr. Allan Goldman

The lack of ICU capacity would affect the total activity.

So it is possible.

Dr. Allan Goldman

In terms of patients' safety, that is a different issue.

No. This is what I am asking, to be clear. We have reports published which cite very high and, it has been argued, unusual levels of post-theatre complications and infections. Is that not what is being examined here?

Dr. Allan Goldman

Correct.

Exactly. I am asking if it is possible that a lack of ICU capacity was in some way part of the problem here.

Dr. Allan Goldman

I do not believe that was the problem.

Okay. Dr. Goldman says, "No."

Dr. Allan Goldman

If I could-----

I have a very short time. My other points are in relation to the volume about which I asked earlier. Is the volume of work that was done by some of these surgeons maybe part of the problem? Most crucially, is it possible that the main reason or one of the real reasons we had so many complications and returns to surgery is because of the length of time that those children were waiting? Is it the case that the longer the child waits, the more complex it is? That is what I am asking. They should understand the point I am making. Is this down to one person, which is what we were being led to believe at the start, or is it a more systemic problem that is down to capacity?

Dr. Allan Goldman

I thank the Deputy.

I will leave it at that.

Dr. Allan Goldman

That is a question we asked ourselves - exactly that, the long waits, and that affecting outcomes. We asked that of Boston. In its report, it said that it did not believe that was a factor and that it saw patients of a similar complexity.

So what does Dr. Goldman think happened?

Dr. Allan Goldman

I am just answering that particular question the Deputy asked.

But why does Dr. Goldman think it?

Let Dr. Goldman answer the question. Go ahead, Dr. Goldman.

Dr. Allan Goldman

Why do I think-----

Dr. Allan Goldman

First of all, nothing is ever one thing when you have a thing of this scale. There were clinical issues in the Boston report that were very specific technical issues that needed to change, and we changed those immediately. There were other system issues, as I outlined earlier, and I could go through those, that needed changing as well. It was a raft of things that we needed to change, but there were very clearly technical issues with the operation that were leading to some of the complications in the most high-risk group. It was about the use of a short structure instead of a standard-----

I suppose my question is about the practices of one consultant or more systemic problems arising from those technical issues. That is the key.

Dr. Allan Goldman

It is not a system issue. That was a technical issue that we are now aware of. We have stopped treating that-----

That they were able to trace back to a consultant.

Dr. Allan Goldman

That related to one group of operations, but in terms of the whole capacity of it, the long wait list around the system and us trying to do the very best we can within the structures that we have-----

I thank Dr. Goldman.

I thank Dr. Goldman. I call Deputy Lahart, followed by Deputy Shortall. If they can cut it short, I might get in at the end.

I want to put on the record that I have encountered the CEO, Ms Hardiman, on a number of occasions in my time as a public representative and I have no reason to question that she is a public servant of the highest integrity. I have no reason to believe that Dr. Goldman, or his two colleagues here, should not be considered in the same light. That does not detract, obviously, from the questions we must ask them.

Coming back to the letter, I do not want to invest too much importance in it. For me, the letter was important for the following reason: the consultant orthopaedic surgeon is raising in it, to a layman, a number of procedures, techniques and possible use of equipment that would not necessarily be standardised. It might be slightly out of the norm, but it seemed to be a standard enough approach and they were looking for guidance. Let us accept that Ms Hardiman did not receive this letter, but there does not seem to be anything secretive about it. It is not presented in a dramatic case. It seems to be matter of course. It states:

The solutions presented to families will be Drummond technique for [a particular professor] and a spring assisted distraction device for me. Both techniques are not commercially available. We have told families and told them these are an off label and experimental techniques using devices not designed for this purpose.

That seems to go to the heart of some of the things that are going on here. From a reportage point of view, this letter is copied to Professor McCormack in Temple Street. It might be useful, as part of the investigation, if Ms Hardiman did not receive it as CEO but if Professor McCormack received it. That is the first point. A piece of this letter seems to be describing an environment in which unusual techniques and maybe not recommended equipment is not usual, notwithstanding the investigation and the oversight that is required. That is one question.

In regard to the clinic environment, is there a reasonable possibility that the pressures under which surgeons, doctors and the medical team operate in restricted environments are not ideal, as we await the long-awaited children's hospital? Have the outcomes here been a function of that environment? Have there been any complications with CE equipment or approved equipment similar to the complications that arose here?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I will take the first question. I understand this and I will have it verified, that the first technique referenced in the letter is an approved technique. However, I will have that verified. In regard to the issue of the clinical environment, we have excellent staff working in an inadequate environment. The difference in the theatre being put into Temple Street which is opening next month is of a higher standard than existing theatres. They are old. The hospital is 151 years old. There is only so much we can do within that. We were pleased to have that investment and we are making that change because our colleagues on the Boston team pointed out some safety equipment issues that would actually make the spinal services better. We were able to adapt that. We were only able to do it because the room being put in now is bigger than the existing rooms in the theatres. That is because technology and techniques have moved on and the hospital is not able to keep up. We have an excellent team. I would not like to think that we do not value and recognise that people are working extremely hard. We measure our outcomes in some of our services, in particular with cancer, and we are as good as anywhere in the world in that regard. The team is as important as the environment. We have constraints. This is why we went to the Boston Team. The Boston report says they have children who undergo surgery with a spinal curvature of more than 100 degrees, sometimes 120 degrees. They still do very complex spinal surgery but their outcomes were better than ours. That is why we looked at getting some examples of international comparators. It identified a technique that needed a longer rod than a shorter rod, particularly for a kyphectomy. That came from clinical expertise. We did it in a very collaborative way with the clinician, in a way of working together for the best. It was not done on two people. The clinician actually participated and welcomed the investigation. We want to do this together, to make the patient safer. I believe we have a lot of support across the hospitals to improve services. However, we are restricted in some of our facilities.

There are just a couple of minutes left so we can have one more question.

When the story broke last Monday week we were told that the two reviews were going to be published, and then they were not because CHI put out a report on them. CHI said it could not possibly publish them for reasons of confidentiality. It took some pressure finally to get them published on Wednesday. Why were they not published on the first day?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

Our intention was to put it into one and have them all ready-----

No, the HSE announced that the two reviews were going to be published that day. There were then claims that CHI could not publish them. Why was CHI resisting their publication?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

We were not resisting publication. We were trying to do this in a way, and I regret, I would have, because it is not about being anything but open and transparent.

Okay, that is what it sounded like. Is it not the case, Dr. Goldman, that the external review did not actually draw attention to shortcomings of particular consultants? It was predominantly management and governance issues that were highlighted.

Dr. Allan Goldman

From the review, the way I read and understood the review and discussions, there was a range of different things. There were clinical improvements that needed to be made.

Yes, about the clinical director-----

Dr. Allan Goldman

No, that is technical issue with the operation.

Okay. A short while ago Dr. Goldman said that, following that review, he sent out directions to staff. He also said "we have a tighter governance process now." That is what he said. The implication of that is that there was a looser governance process prior to the external review. Would Dr. Goldman accept that?

Dr. Allan Goldman

We strive to make improvements all the time.

There were 50 recommendations in the external review. Reading between the lines, they were pretty damning in terms of governance and management. Dr. Goldman now says he is moving to get tighter governance. The implication of that is that there was looser governance, that goes without saying.

Dr. Allan Goldman

We are looking to continuously improve and that is what we strive towards. We will put our hands up at any point to say "this was not good enough" and that we want to improve on that.

Fine, I hear what Dr. Goldman is saying. Is it the case that the consultant at the centre of this actually requested and was very much in favour of an external review?

Dr. Allan Goldman

The consultant was part of that discussion where we chose to do an external review.

So he wanted an external review, is that the case?

Dr. Allan Goldman

He was supportive of the external review, as we all were when we discussed it in the room.

I would like to ask Ms Kelly about data collection. Did she know that Temple Street had no data collection resource in relation to surgical outcomes?

Ms Paula Kelly

Sorry, just to clarify, the lack of data collection was a lack of a data manager to look at outcomes. Yes, but not all data.

We have heard about this very unfortunate case with 33 returns to theatre. Of those 33 returns, roughly what was their breakdown in terms of wound washing, bowel management and other things that would not involve serious surgery?

Ms Paula Kelly

I will pass that question to Dr. Okafor who is the clinical director for orthopaedics.

Dr. Ike Okafor

In regard to the returns to theatre for that particular child, what was published was limited to the time of the review. That particular child actually went back to theatre more times than was stated in the report.

That is not the question I asked.

Dr. Ike Okafor

When you break it down, the majority of the returns to theatre were for wash out and for review of metalware. That is all.

Okay, so particularly in the case of children with co-morbidities many other procedures such as wash outs would be required. Is that right?

Dr. Ike Okafor

Yes.

That would be expected.

Dr. Ike Okafor

Yes.

Okay, I thank the witnesses.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

I need to clarify something in regard to the theatre governance. We have had a theatre governance but it has been hospital specific. We have moved with it since April this year to go across site. We have used that as an opportunity actually to increase some of the work we have been doing. That has been planned and is under way. I would not like people to think we were waiting for a report to actually do it. When we actually went with a cross-city directorate we put in place cross-city governance structures. We have been doing such things as monitoring and comparing much more. Instead of the hospital just looking at its own it now looks as performance indicators.

Is that a new arrangement?

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

That has been in since last April, which was before we got the report. It was part of our restructuring.

Ms Eilísh Hardiman

The consultant was not carrying out procedures at that point.

I am conscious that there are probably many families at home watching this meeting. My question is, and the question those families are probably asking, is there a plan in place for their children? CHI might come back with a written answer.

Ms Hardiman stated CHI reached out to the 19 families in respect of Temple Street but I am thinking of the broader cohort of families who are affected. What are the waiting times those families are facing? We are all conscious we were told there would be no child waiting more than four months for surgery. It has gone far longer than that. There has been a suggestion that some of the children may have to travel abroad or go to CHI Crumlin. There is a cohort of children, however, whom going abroad or being seen at CHI Crumlin will not suit. Is there a plan in place in that regard?

I am conscious that we, as a committee, may have further hearings on the issue. I appreciate the witnesses' time and effort. Our discussion today was heated at times. People are extremely concerned about this issue. I am conscious of the apologies made in the opening statement and so on. I hope that gives some sort of succour to families but I do not know if it will. The inquiry is important. Meetings with the advocacy groups, the Taoiseach and the Minister for Health will take place tomorrow. I wish them well in that regard. I believe there will be discussion of the terms of reference and so on.

Unfortunately, we have run out of time. I thank the representatives of CHI for their engagement with the committee on the important matter of spinal surgery at Temple Street hospital. The committee will carefully consider today's discussions as well as other developments in the matter in deciding how to proceed with its consideration of it. We may decide to have further public sessions on the matter.

May I remind the witnesses of the commitment to provide data on the international norms in terms of children in this category, as well as an update on the progress being made on the external review recommendations?

Notes have been made of many of the asks members have made. I again thank the witnesses for their time.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.32 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 4 October 2023.
Barr
Roinn