Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
The answer to your question about data which may have indicated an
underperforming cardiac centre is clearly b, that is passing the data to
the appropriate NHS authorities should have been the approach. This would
allow a proper analysis and review (such as subsequently took place)
without causing all the distress and confusion to patients, families and
health care workers.
In return I ask two further questions.
a) Who has been damned following the publication? The families wrongly
traumatised by the misleading information, the clinical staff unfairly
criticised, the authors of the paper, the referees, the editorial staff at
BMJ, the credibility of BMJ as a solid scientific journal or all of these?
b) Is your use of the expression 'publish and be damned' and
acknowledgement of the inaccuracy of the data an apology for publishing
it?
Competing interests:
I work for Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS trust
Answer to your question and 2 further questions
Editor
The answer to your question about data which may have indicated an underperforming cardiac centre is clearly b, that is passing the data to the appropriate NHS authorities should have been the approach. This would allow a proper analysis and review (such as subsequently took place) without causing all the distress and confusion to patients, families and health care workers.
In return I ask two further questions.
a) Who has been damned following the publication? The families wrongly traumatised by the misleading information, the clinical staff unfairly criticised, the authors of the paper, the referees, the editorial staff at BMJ, the credibility of BMJ as a solid scientific journal or all of these?
b) Is your use of the expression 'publish and be damned' and acknowledgement of the inaccuracy of the data an apology for publishing it?
Competing interests: I work for Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS trust
Competing interests: No competing interests