HEALTH Secretary Alex Neil chose his words carefully when he told MSPs there was "no evidence of deliberate manipulation of the figures like those found at NHS Lothian".
The internal health reports released by Scotland's 14 health boards into waiting times procedures unearthed no further cases of patients being declared "socially unavailable" for treatment if they could not keep a short-notice appointment in Northumberland.
But the analyses paint a picture of a system that was open to abuse and, in places, was abused.
It showed patients may have been wrongly declared unavailable so boards could claim to have met the Government's 18-week treatment pledge.
Examples include patients in Grampian who were told they may not be treated within the period and were then declared unavailable if they agreed to a delay. In Lanarkshire, patients received written offers of appointments at very short notice.
In Tayside there was evidence of such pressure on staff to meet the waiting time pledge it "could be construed as bullying". As in Grampian, patients who agreed to a delay were deemed "unavailable". But there were even more blatant abuses, with some patients being marked as unavailable "simply to avoid a month-end breach" .
Others were declared unavailable because they needed time to fill in and return a questionnaire on their symptoms, or because the equipment needed to treat them was not available.
NHS Tayside apologised for "unacceptable practices". NHS Grampian denied manipulating figures and insisted appointments were managed "in accordance with the spirit of Government guidelines".
The limited scope of the internal inquiries, and lack of information recorded about why patients were marked unavailable for treatment, makes it impossible to work out how widespread the abuses were, or to assess the true impact on patient care.
However, the ISD [Information Services Division] figures raise questions about whether health boards were using "social unavailability" as a means of delaying treatment without breaking the waiting time pledge – until the practice came to public attention.
When the unavailability code was introduced in 2008, fewer than 5000 patients were declared unavailable for treatment for social reasons such as family holidays. But as pressure grew to meet Government targets, use of the code increased.
It peaked at 19,396 in September 2011 and was running at 17,360 three months later, when the NHS Lothian waiting lists scandal broke.
In September, the most recent figures, 9537 patients were socially unavailable.
Labour's health spokeswoman Jackie Baillie claims the sharp fall suggests boards became much more cautious about declaring people socially unavailable following the furore over NHS Lothians.
Ms Baillie wasted no time in declaring Mr Neil's performance a "whitewash". She said his announcement that changes will be made to the system was an acknowledgement the figures were being manipulated.
Mr Neil took the flak at Holyrood yesterday but the revelations are a greater embarrassment for Nicola Sturgeon, his predecessor as health secretary, who in opposition accused the previous Labour and LibDem administration of operating "hidden waiting lists" and resolved to reform the system.
It was under her stewardship of the NHS that managers clearly felt under so much pressure to meet the Government's politically sensitive waiting times targets – and make her look good – that abuses crept in.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article