The survey is a very important part of the answer. There are two criticisms in there, and they're sort of related and sort of different. One is the ability to understand the magnitude of the problem, who has it and who doesn't, and whether problems are increasing or decreasing. That's an important public health surveillance function that we need to have, and we have pieces of that in place. We also need to understand how CF operations are affecting the mental health of CF members if we're going to appropriately manage our program and take care of our people. We absolutely get that, and we agree with that 100%.
A second functionality is also very important, and we agree 100% with the ombudsman that we need to do a better job of documenting, in detail, what kind of care we're providing and how the quality of it compares with our aspirations. We also need to document better the outcomes of that care. Where we disagree with the ombudsman is in the best strategy for doing that. The ombudsman's office has been fixated for quite some time on this idea of having some kind of a database that lists all the people with operational stress injuries, so that at any given time we can press a button and say, “As of today the magic number is 3,722”, or whatever it happens to be.
As a public health expert, as someone who's supposed to keep on track with this, I can tell you this is not very helpful to me. Instead, the path that we've chosen is to use a bunch of different ways of answering these fundamental demands—to understand the care we're delivering, the effect it's having, and how the mission is affecting health.