A/ Puzzling . B/ Missing the BIG point?
I have only contempt for the "senior" medical profession in the UK -- saw nothing but bullshit and VirtueDisplay posturing in the 20yrs I was there, from them. (My favourite was the decision to kill a lot of people nastily because to do otherwise would, and I quote, "send the wrong message".)
But this woman, despite having an equivalent title/status and although coming quite close to the usual redflag wording, is always a little bit off, and in significant ways. Positive, real-person ways.
I'm taking a "wait & see" approach on this. I suspect SHE is in the right, but that this is her first proper experience of serious organisational parasite-bullshit, that this is all a bit startling for her when she had only been told things were being done as agreed (vs done as who-gives-a-fuck). Or she could just be better at imitating a real person than most parasites are. I'll wait & see.
In other, far more important news, has no one else picked up on the STRONG implication in her testimony that the app was essentially useless, did NOT do what it said it would do, could NOT provide diagnoses at all?
Such that any kerfuffle re data-inputs is all quite academic, since they were near meaningless in any IT sense (as most people here are going to assume) .
To be clear: the data was not actually being USED for diagnosis. Despite the money poured down the project drain to do so.
I would have thought that THIS would have been the big story.