Damning report exposes NHS secrecy in breast cancer scandal As the scale of the scandal began to emerge, trust managers embarked on a policy of "secrecy and containment" - instead of alerting women that they had a far higher risk of breast cancer returning than they had been advised, the report said. A damning inquiry report by Prof Sir Ian Kennedy has told how doctors, nurses and other staff repeatedly warned managers that women were being left at risk. Mr Paterson, a cancer surgeon, carried out "cleavage-sparing" mastectomies, using a technique which left some breast tissue behind - breaching national guidelines, which warn that this increases the chances that disease will recur. The report describes as "extraordinary" a decision by Mr Goldman and then medical director Ian Cunliffe to recall just 12 patients in 2009 - when all women who had the procedure were at increased risk. It was not until 2011, after the media began to expose the scandal, and a new chief executive was appointed, that the full recall began. Dozens of women have already had to undergo more operations because surgery had failed to remove cancerous or potentially cancerous tissue. The report describes an "oppressive" culture at the trust and said managers appeared to be partly motivated by "a desire to contain and control the fallout from the concerns and thereby protect the reputation of the trust." Mr Goldman, who earned more than £230,000 a year, retired from the trust in 2010, with a pension of £2.7 million - one of the highest in the NHS. Last year he spent five months as acting chief executive of Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, on rates of more than £1,500 a day, paid via an agency. This year the trust was put on special measures after an investigation into its high death rates. The report criticises both senior managers for "clamping down" on communication, seeking to contain the fallout as the scale of the scandal emerged. Sir Ian said the surgeon's patients had been "plunged into uncertainty" with many left feeling betrayed and unable to trust any doctor. Sir Ian said: "It is a story of women faced with a life-threatening disease who have been harmed. It is a story of clinicians at their wits" ends trying to get the Trust to address what was going on. It is a story of clinicians going along with what they knew to be poor performance. It is a story of weak and indecisive leadership from senior managers. It is a story of secrecy and containment. Mr Paterson has been suspended by the General Medical Council and the NHS is facing a multi-million compensation bill. One legal firm alone is representing 400 women treated by Mr Paterson. The health service has settled around 10 cases in secret, with £150,000 the biggest payout yet. Every surviving woman who was operated on by Mr Paterson has now been warned they need to be re-examined for signs of cancer. So far studies have identified 237 women who definitely had "excessive breast tissue" remaining - raising the chances of them suffering a return of the disease, with 370 more women who potentially were at risk. Hundreds of women have now consulted solicitors but only around 10 cases are understood to have been settled, with payments of up to £150,000. Women treated by Mr Paterson said they were "disgusted" by how long it had taken the trust to stop the doctor from carrying out the procedures and offer them treatment. Lynda Johnson, a retired civil servant from Birmingham, had been referred to Mr Paterson as an NHS patient in November 2006, after being diagnosed with breast cancer. In July 2010, she was told that she required a full mastectomy. Miss Johnson said: "I thought I had been cured. I thought Mr Paterson had saved my life. So to be told that in fact the cancer could still be there was absolutely devastating. Following further treatment she is now in remission, but living in fear that the four years between the procedures could increase the risk that the disease will return, she said. The surgeon's private work is also being investigated by police. Officers from West Midlands are considering whether he gained financially from carrying out unnecessary procedures.