Report comment

Anonymous 10 March 2021 06:48 writes that "This obviously has been written to look like a manipulation of the review"

In the absence of an alternative explanation Lawrence Dunhill's steer seems a reasonable conclusion.

Of course, NHSi might like to ask if, given the distance between the draft and final conclusions in this report, did something similar happen to the 2012 and 2018 reports referred to in the article?

I have written reports for a range of organisations. Requests for changes are not unusual. But these changes to conclusions are U turns since the underlying evidence appears to not be questioned