Fair point but an anonymous response from 381 covering 90% of trusts. No benefit or sanction for speaking honestly. But yes there are limits to this.
-
-
-
Appreciated. I can't imagine any of them saying anything else though, given that they know it's their legal duty. Anonymous or otherwise.
-
Follow the thread for detailed graph. It could have been and should have been a lot better. So....
-
Yes, actually, that is interesting. That's a big chunk of no change, (never thought I'd get to use that phrase), or worse. Also interesting that every time I see Birmingham Uni's name on anything since their Mid Staffs involvement, I twitch. Whether I'm wrong to do so or not.
-
I know why but this is
@DrJudithSmith and she is great. Adviser to Francis Inquiry and witness. -
Thank you Shaun. That helps.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@heatherawwood@ShaunLintern I don't believe it..The children's hospital I deal with has been unwavering in its dishonesty. -
No.. I'm not convinced either. Whether you're dealing with an honest or a deceitful person, both will tell you they're telling the truth. Without data to support it, it's of limited meaning, imho.
-
if a culture of candour existed, it would feel wrong to cover up past events.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.