Timing of health-board case reviews
Flaherty asked why the review followed court hearings; Woods said an initial investigation followed the deaths, but the matter was sub judice until court reports became available, after which a broader review began.
I should like to know why the review of these cases took place after the court hearings rather than following the incidents. Does that procedure not raise serious questions about the review procedure within health boards?
Comment on this
Initially an investigation was undertaken into the position following the deaths. After that the matter was sub judice for some time and subsequently a full report was available from the court. As the Deputy has stated this was initiated in January and it is something she would have been close to at that time. On the basis of the findings a more comprehensive review was set up.