Robert Wrinch

The Inquest heard evidence that the pathology department at the Trust had no system for tracking samples_ As a result; it was unclear when samples had been received and analysis had taken place. There was no documentation of conversations with other clinicians and SO, it was difficult to be clear about the chronology of events. Transmission dates of the sample t0 another Trust were unclear: It was also difficult to know on what date the report of the pathologists findings had been issued to the treating clinician: It was unclear if these issues are specific to the pathology department of the Trust or more widespread:
2. The Trust had a system of issuing reports digitally to clinicians to speed up receipt. In addition the Inquest were told that due to preferences of clinicians paper copies were also produced and sent via internal mail to the treating clinicians_ The Inquest heard that the responsible orthopaedic consultant relied on wholly on the paper system although this built in delay.
3. At the Trust, some departments such as the respiratory department had clear tracking systems to identify outstanding pathology reports: Other departments such as orthopaedics did not_ a result, clinicians could not readily identify where there was delay in receipt of information required to assess and diagnose a patient:
4. The I.T systems of the pathology department of Trust and other hospital Trusts were incompatible with each other: This meant that transfer of information between trusts to obtain a second opinion were more difficult:
5. The Inquest heard that the delay in analysis of the sample taken was due to a backlog: The backlog was not unique to the Trust and such backlogs were prevalent across pathology departments nationally due to a local and national shortage of pathologists.