What was unique in severity and duration in case of Mid Staffs?

The government initial response to the Francis report has been published. I still worry that Mid Staffs has been unfairly singled out (see previous post). I'm also not convinced that the new Chief Inspector of Hospitals can provide a "single version of the truth", if there is such a thing, in his or her so-called balanced assessment of hospitals. These matters are always open to interpretation. How this will be helped by inspectors "looking the [Trust] board in the eye" I'm not sure.

Nor am I clear what embedding "a zero tolerance of avoidable harm" in the DNA of the NHS means (see previous post). Harm may appear avoidable in retrospect but not necessarily so before it happens.

It's also good to reduce "paperwork, box ticking and duplicatory regulation and information burdens" but why by at least a third and how will we know whether that target has been met (aren't we supposed to be moving away from targets)?