When is a report not a report?

To nobody's surprise Labour and Conservatives at Westminster are in dispute again - this time about how soon the ministers knew of the findings of the report into the C-difficile deaths at Kent Hospitals.

The Convervatives are claiming that the Department received reports as early as 3rd May 2007, and a further one on 12th September. Mr. John,son, Secretary, claimed to have received the report on 9th October. His Department adds that the report of 3rd May was an outline of the final report, lacking conclusions or recommendations.

Leaving aside the fact that we do not what difference there was between the September draft and the October published report, it is probable that Mr. Johnson is telling the truth, that the final report arrived on his desk in October.

But are we being led to believe that there was no suggestion of culpability in May or September, that Mr. Johnson was ignorant of the fact that in two years over 1,100 patients had been infected, of whom 90 had died principally due to the infection? In which case who deceived him?
Is he also suggesting that in little over four weeks the September report was enlarged to include details and recommendations, and went through the printing process?

I suppose he could claim that until he knew the facts he could do little to prevent patients becoming infected at the rate of about 2 per day, and dying at the rate of about one every 8 days? But did he not not know enough, certainly by September, to close wards, and suspend those in charge? Certainly there seemed to have been no suspensions until the media became aware of the problem at the hospital.

We give great powers to Ministers, and we certainly expect decisive action. What point is there in preliminary reports or draft reports if they do not prompt action in such terrible cases?

At what stage does a report become a report for action?