NSFT data crisis: Criticism of bosses removed from report

Earlier this year, a damning independent review found that the Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust had lost count of the number of people who died in its care.

Now, it has emerged that an early draft of the report included several pieces of fierce criticism of management at the trust - which is still rated as one of the worst in the country.

But before the report was made public, many of these critical phrases were either rephrased or removed completely - despite the review being commissioned to be carried out independently by Grant Thornton.

Both the trust and the auditor told the BBC it is not unusual for draft versions of similar reports to be altered through a "fact-checking" process.

But campaigners have said these alterations were tantamount to a "cover-up", designed to spare the trust leaders from public criticism.

Hellesdon Hosptial, headquarters of NSFT (Image: Archant Norfolk Photographic © 2009)

Among the comments removed from the original draft were concerns from trust staff about its practice.

The first and second draft of the report read: "Some staff within the trust reported anxiety regarding how data is used and within the organisation and report a 'culture of fear'."

However, the final draft made no reference to these concerns and the paragraph was removed.

Other criticisms removed included:

• Descriptions of the trust's governance as "poor", "weak" and "inadequate"
• The use of the phrase "large" to describe the number of deaths within a month of discharge
• References to "gaps" in mortality data.

The review's publication sparked three campaigners, Emma Corlett, Caroline Aldridge and Anne Humprhys to present their own report into the matter which exposed further shortcomings in the trust's data approach.

Caroline Aldridge and Emma Corlett (Image: David Hannant)

This report - titled Forever Gone - prompted bosses at the trust to make a public apology over the ordeal.

But Ms Corlett said these apologies had been tarnished by the latest revelations.

She said: "People who apologised to bereaved families' faces did so knowing they had butchered the original report in their favour - putting reputational face-saving ahead of human decency.

"I feel sick to the stomach that we find ourselves here again - every part of the system available to us with a duty to make things safe has failed and failed for years.

"Then, in the most shameful act of all, they tried to cover up that failure."

The campaigners added that the latest scandal further fuels calls for a statutory public inquiry into deaths relating to the trust.

Stuart Richardson, chief executive of NSFT (Image: NSFT)

Stuart Richardson, chief executive of NSFT, told the BBC: "We have been open and honest about the failings highlighted in this report and are committed to bringing about the improvements that our service users and staff deserve."

A spokesman for auditor Grant Thornton said: "While the overall findings of the report did not change, new evidence did adjust our assessment of significance in some areas.

"In addition, wording changed in some areas to highlight areas of good practice that were brought to our attention and which we believed could be broadened out to help resolve issues.

"We maintain that the final public report is an entirely independent, robust and thorough assessment of the historic matters at the trust."

But concerns about the differences between the drafts have been highlighted by the Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman.

Rob Behrens said: "I am concerned at the difference between the draft report and the published reports - and because the differences in the texts at key points are so huge that this is not just a bureaucratic drafting issue."

A helpline for anybody affected by the issues in this story can be reached daily, from 8am until 8pm on 01423 856799.