Public-health data changes as fast as the systems it describes, and any publication that cites official statistics will eventually need to fix something. This article sets out how the London Health Infrastructure Review handles factual errors and data updates, distinguishing between a routine revision and a genuine correction, and explaining what happens once an inaccuracy is reported.
Why a corrections policy matters for a public-health review
An independent archive-and-commentary project covering health infrastructure and policy is only as useful as its accuracy. Readers use articles on this site to understand borough-level services, screening programmes, and equipment standards — decisions that can affect how people plan care or evaluate provision. A clear, published corrections policy is not a legal formality; it is the mechanism that lets readers trust a claim enough to act on it, and it is standard practice across UK journalism and official statistics alike.
Revisions versus corrections: a distinction worth keeping
The Office for National Statistics maintains a formal Revisions Policy alongside a separate Correction of Errors Policy, and the difference is instructive for any publication that cites official data. A revision is a scheduled update that improves the quality of a statistic as better data becomes available — a routine, expected part of how population and health statistics are produced. A correction, by contrast, addresses a genuine mistake: a miscalculation, a wrong figure, or a misattributed source. The ONS reports corrections at the top of the affected release with a banner explaining what changed and why, rather than silently editing the number.
This Review applies the same distinction. Where a statistic we cited has since been revised by its original source (for example, an updated estimate from a national dataset), we treat that as a routine update and note the source’s revision alongside the figure. Where we ourselves got something wrong — misquoted a report, mislabelled a chart, or misattributed a claim — that is a correction, and it is disclosed, not quietly fixed.
What triggers a published correction
UK press regulation gives a useful benchmark for deciding what counts as significant. The Independent Press Standards Organisation’s Editors’ Code of Practice requires that a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement, or distortion be corrected promptly and with due prominence, with an apology published where appropriate. The National Union of Journalists’ Code of Conduct, in place in one form or another since 1936, sets the same expectation in narrower terms: journalists should strive for accuracy and do their utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies.
In practice, this Review treats an error as significant — and therefore correction-worthy — when it changes the substance of a claim: a wrong figure, a misidentified institution, an incorrect date, or a mischaracterised finding. Typographical slips that do not alter meaning are fixed without a formal notice. Anything that does alter meaning gets a visible correction note on the article itself, stating what was wrong and what has been changed.
Sourcing: primary data first, dated clearly
The UK Statistics Authority’s Code of Practice for Statistics sets out how producers of official statistics should behave, and its underlying principle — trustworthiness, quality, and value — guides how this Review cites data. Wherever possible, we cite a primary source directly: an official statistics release, a government report, or a named public body’s own publication, rather than a secondary summary of it. Secondary sources, such as commentary or analysis pieces, are used to provide context, not as the evidentiary basis for a factual claim.
Because health and infrastructure statistics have a shelf life, every figure on this site should carry the date it reflects, not just the date the article was published. A screening uptake rate from three years ago is a different fact from the same rate this year, and conflating the two is exactly the kind of error a corrections process exists to catch. Bodies such as the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities publish statistical releases on a defined schedule; where our figures lag behind the latest release, that gap should be stated rather than left implicit.
How to flag an error
The corrections process depends on readers being able to report a problem easily. The following steps describe how a report is handled once it reaches the editorial team:
- Report: a reader or contributor identifies a specific claim, ideally with the article title and the exact figure or statement in question.
- Verify: the claim is checked against the original source material cited in the article, and against the source’s own current publication where relevant.
- Classify: the finding is sorted as either a routine revision (the source has updated its own data) or a genuine correction (the Review misrepresented the source).
- Fix and disclose: for a significant correction, the article is updated and a visible note is added explaining what changed; minor, meaning-neutral fixes are made without a separate notice.
- Close out: the person who reported the issue, where contactable, is told the outcome.
The standard this sets
None of this is unique to health policy writing, and it should not be. The same expectations — distinguish revisions from corrections, disclose significant errors with due prominence, cite primary sources and date them — are what UK statistical and press bodies already require of anyone who publishes claims about public services. Applying them consistently is what allows a civic resource covering London’s health infrastructure to be cited itself, rather than simply cite others.
It also sets a practical expectation for how this site should be used. An article here is a snapshot built from named public sources at a stated point in time, not a live feed of official statistics. Where a figure matters to a decision — commissioning, provision planning, or simply understanding a borough’s services — the underlying source cited in the article is the authoritative record, and this Review’s role is to explain it clearly and keep the explanation current.