Talk:Cynthia Bower

"Not on my Radar" false

The article states that Cynthia Bower "admitted" that the situation at Stafford Hospital "wasn’t on her radar". This is untrue as she was the Chief Executive of the NHS West Midlands, which Stafford Hospital belongs to, at the time of the failings brought to light because of the investigation by the Healthcare Commission.109.150.227.167 (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The full phrase, reported in the HSJ (West, Dave.(26 March 2009) "Who let standards fall so low at Mid Staffordshire?"): "Before taking up her current post in August, Care Quality Commission chief executive Cynthia Bower was the first chief executive of NHS West Midlands, and from June 2006 was interim chief executive at Birmingham and the Black Country strategic health authority. Ms Bower told HSJ: "From my point of view this wasn't a trust that was on my radar."" Keri (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

NHS West Midlands

Reference 1 of this article is taken from a Daily Mail article from February 2012, a year before the Francis Report was published. The actual article states: "A separate report later this year is expected to throw the spotlight on Miss Bower over the hospital scandal at Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust where as many as 1,200 patients may have died due to poor care." This is pure speculation, and based on Hospital Standard Mortality Rate figures that cannot be used to calculate excess deaths. These figures do not appear anywhere in the Francis Report, published in February of 2013. It is therefore completely inaccurate to claim that the Inquiry found that these deaths to have occurred, as this is not stated in the reference article, only speculated. The Daily Mail, an openly Conservative newspaper, has a well-known reputation for having a highly subjective and editorially biased view against the NHS.

And to the Wikipedia contributor who reverted my edit of the NHS West Midlands section of this article after only 29 minutes, claiming that the "source supports original text", when the source is speculatory, inaccurate and misleading - these are three standards that are surely unacceptable on a website that aims to be accurate and factual at all times? (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC) (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huffy1968 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cynthia Bower. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130717143550/http://www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/documents/grant_thornton_uk_llp_morecambe_bay.pdf to http://www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/documents/grant_thornton_uk_llp_morecambe_bay.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)