Shooting PAHO messenger

FIRST, the public was promised full transparency.

Then, it was told to await the facts; independent probers from the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) had been called in.

Now that an expert, three-member mission of that organisation has submitted its final findings, and they contain unflattering findings which the Government would clearly have preferred not to receive, we are being told something else: the report is not the full picture, the process was flawed, PAHO will be given an “opportunity” to provide “clarification” on its recommendations about the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) of the Port of Spain General Hospital (PoSGH).

What nonsense.

Minister of Health Terrence Deyalsingh’s approach to the PAHO report is deeply unedifying. His public utterances over the last few days, in which he has brought into question the very investigation his own ministry commissioned, have the potential to do harm to this country’s relationship with global health stakeholders.

“Did you know that the head of NICU was not interviewed?” the minister said stridently on June 29.

“Do you know that the chief of staff of PoSGH was not interviewed?”

He repeated what he said in a Cabinet-approved four-minute statement read out in Parliament on June 28, that many of the recommendations were part of standard operating procedures locally.

“Almost all of the recommendations have been already a part of the national action plan,” he said, adding, ominously, that attorneys will be drafting a response.

But the fact that PAHO touched on things already meant to be a part of national procedure is a sign those procedures are not being fully adhered to – not that there is any deficiency in logic on the part of the expert mission. It is this that should partly concern the minister.

The Government received the report on June 21, but took a full week to study it before the minister spoke in Parliament on June 28.

In contrast, PAHO’s in-country review was done swiftly, from April 22 to 26. Limited time notwithstanding, the team of experts applied a systematic approach, reviewing multiple processes and procedures. They used on-site visits, discussions with select healthcare workers, review and analysis of data, and questionnaires.

They could not be expected to interview every single party, whether traumatised parent or implicated official. Their findings should be seen in this light, respected and acted upon, especially given the credibility of the organisation from which this report emanates.

PAHO and the World Health Organization were vital partners in this country’s response to the covid19 pandemic. Back then, they were the Cabinet’s guiding light.

It seems wanton to reject them now.

And it seems scandalous that the approach is, yet again, to shoot the messenger and not to improve the standard of care.