They are still investigating whether there were suspicious circumstances

"They are still investigating whether there were suspicious circumstances."She was last seen alive on 30 August as she left her hotel in Guilin on her way to Hong Kong. "Some of the errors that were made would be unacceptable for a non-expert pathologist," the report says.A spokesman for the Royal Orthopaedic hospital said it had reservations about some aspects of the report but still "deeply regretted" the distress caused to patients and relatives in the last eight years."We have learned from the past and have changed our management and clinical practices accordingly."We believe this ensures the diagnosis we now employ represent the very best practice available today.". The body of a woman found in the Chinese beauty spot of Guilin is that of a British teacher, Gillian Llewellyn, it was revealed today. The Chinese Public Security Bureau told British officials they were "in no doubt" that it was 35-year-old Miss Llewellyn, who had been missing since the end of last month. The Foreign Office said local police had launched an investigation to determine whether she had been killed."The Chinese police are in no doubt that the body is that of Gillian Llewellyn," a Foreign Office official said. The tumour was benign.Mr Stoten said the SBHA accepted negligence in 15 of the legal actions it faced, and there had been four interim payments so far and one final settlement.The findings of the two-year inquiry, chaired by Dr Archie Malcolm, director of the North-East Bone Tumour Registry, is a damning indictment of mismanagement and poor communication which compounded the errors made by Dr Starkie.

"Most of the actors who were party to these events since 1985 have moved on," Mr Stoten said.Dr Starkie, 57, who had suffered from multiple sclerosis for many years, took early retirement shortly after the first misdiagnosis of a malignant tumour in a young boy came to light in May 1993. However, no disciplinary actions were pending nor would any cases be referred to the General Medical Council on the grounds of professional misconduct. It suggests that they failed to take action because they feared financial cuts.Hospital managers are criticised for ignoring the concerns raised by surgeons about Dr Starkie's work in numerous informal conversations, and for inadequacies in key policies and procedures which contributed to a disastrous failure of communication at the centre.Bryan Stoten, chairman of the SBHA said yesterday that he accepted the report's conclusions, and the authority was "fully accountable". Even so they apparently failed to recognise the seriousness or level of misdiagnosis until early 1993," the report says. "In 1990, the surgeons gathered cases where problems in diagnosis had occurred. The death of one other patient may have been linked to misdiagnosis.

A total of 53 patients are currently seeking compensation from the South Birmingham Health Authority which is expected to run into millions of pounds.An independent inquiry report into the errors which occurred between 1985 and 1993 blames Dr Carol Starkie, a consultant pathologist for "unacceptably high level of misdiagnoses in the Bone Tumour Centre at Birmingham's Royal Orthopaedic hospital".But the inquiry's findings also single out the surgeons who worked with her for failing to alert anyone to the misdiagnoses which were occurring as early as 1989. LIZ HUNT Health Editor A Birmingham health authority last night announced that no disciplinary action would be taken against any doctor or hospital manager implicated in the misdiagnosis and mistreatment of 79 patients at one of the country's leading bone cancer centres.Two of the patients underwent unnecessary amputations, and 13 others suffered "serious and long-term problems" as a result of unnecessary or incomplete radiotherapy and chemotherapy. "I have to say it was a classic example of brains in neutral," he said. "That is hardly an ideal condition to run a power station." He said staff seemed to have taken the view that because nothing was going wrong, they were entitled to assume everything was all right.The risk of a blockage in a fuelling channel was overwhelming and self- evidence and it was suprising that there had not been a melt-down.. From about 9pm, when checks revealed the missing metal must have fallen into the reactor, the only thing to do was to switch it off, said Mr Carisle. That was not done until 3.50 am.There was a "marked reluctance" to close the reactor down but to have continued with a rogue element inside a reactor was "indefensible", said Mr Carlisle. There may also have been concern with commercial considerations associated with having to shut the reactor down."The company, which admits four charges brought under the Health and Safety at Work Act, will be sentenced today by the judge, Mr Justice Morland.Hugh Carlisle, QC, prosecuting for the Health and Safety Executive, said that the metal grab had fallen into a fuelling channel in the reactor but there was a reluctance by station officials to assume the worst.The incident happened in 1993 - the year the station received a Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents' Gold Award for its safety record.The metal grab was discovered missing at 7.20 pm on 31 July.

Dr Harbison said in a statement read at Mold Crown Court that, in his view, the events were potentially the most serious in the UK during his time as chief inspector: "I am particularly concerned about the blatant failure of Nuclear Electric's safety culture."Despite the fact that the metal grab was missing, the operation of the reactor was allowed to continue, a "severe violation" of safety policies.Failure to act promptly to prevent a possible fuel channel blockage accident by immediately shutting the reactor down meant that, should something else have occured, there could have been a serious release of radioactive material."In my opinion, it is irrelevant to argue with the benefit of hindsight about the likelihood and potential scale of the release that might have occurred," Dr Harbison said."What is important is that the operators were prepared to continue to operate the reactor for several hours without being able to know the exact coolant flow conditions in the core, running some chance that the fuel could be over-heating."In any event, if any action can be readily taken to avoid risk, it should be taken," he said."I believe that throughout these events, the operators failed to adequately grasp the safety implications. The union's bank had threatened to intervene unless it put its finances in order.So far 26 employees have opted for voluntary redundancy, not enough to prevent the possible implementation of compulsory job cuts. We will be the Government and we will govern for the whole nation, not any interest within it."The Labour leader received a muted initial response, but delegates gave him a standing ovation in the wake of a passage of unscripted fervour towards the end of his address.Delegates listened in silence, however, as he told them that reform of the Labour Party would continue. Two patients had unnecessary amputations and 13 suffered "serious and long-term problems" as a result of unnecessary or incomplete radiotherapy and chemotherapy. The death of one other patient may have been linked to misdiagnosis.

A total of 53 patients are seeking compensation from the South Birmingham Health Authority (SBHA) expected to run into millions of pounds. The report of an independent inquiry into the errors between 1985 and 1993 blames Carol Starkie, a consultant pathologist for an "unacceptably high level of misdiagnoses in the Bone Tumour Centre at Birmingham's Royal Orthopaedic Hospital". The inquiry's findings also single out surgeons who worked with her for failing to alert anyone to misdiagnoses occurring as early as 1989. "In 1990, the surgeons gathered cases where problems in diagnosis had occurred. Even so, they apparently failed to recognise the seriousness or level of misdiagnosis until early 1993," the report said. It suggests that they failed to take action because they feared cuts.Hospital managers are criticised for ignoring the concerns raised by surgeons about Dr Starkie's work in numerous informal conversations, and for inadequacies in key policies and procedures which contributed to a disastrous failure of communication at the centre.Bryan Stoten, chairman of the SBHA, said he accepted the report's conclusions, and the authority was "fully accountable". But no disciplinary actions were pending nor would any cases be referred to the General Medical Council on the grounds of professional misconduct.