ATOS Healthcare LiMA Software

As you probably know, HCPs are actively encouraged to use the drop down menus rather than the free-form text fields to make "best use" of the diagnostic algorithm. The user manual is at http://issuu.com/atosvictims/docs/lima-v...
Its short-comings are well documented - e.g. http://www.cpag.org.uk/cro/wrb/wrb189/co...

Thanks for that. You are right that I was aware of this. The ESA documentation also tells the HCP "It is important, however, to exercise care when using LiMA to ensure you check for typing errors or other information inadvertently added into the report when using the LiMA application." It is interesting that this is unclear if LiMA inadvertently adds this or the HCP! Im my case it was interesting that the report used two examples to doing things outside the house when the ESA documentation specifically states that the section ONLY relates to activities indoors! So was this the HCP being incomptenent or was it LiMA making it up all on its own!

Unless we are allowed around the other side of the desk we will never know. I do know that my surgical remedy is not on a drop down list, but appeared as one that is - coincidence perhaps? There are some huge contradictions and inconsistencies in this area between Atos & DWP - clinical exactitude vs. simplicity (for Decision Makers with no medical training) and the level of medical knowledge a HCP really needs. The FoI Act team in DWP even contradict themselves depending on how you phrase the question.
Decision Making is a made up job because you cannot have an outsourced company (Atos) making benefit payment decisions. Position the WCA within a reshaped NHS and many of these problems go away.

I guess that exactly what you'd expect them to say - everything is in perfect shape.

Which paraphrased means "ok, we were a bit late but so what?"
If you have the energy, this evidence-based thing they keep relying on is usually flaky when you press them so say exactly what and where it is. I have found that the will use the word "majority" for example without any data from which a % could be calculated. Pure supposition!!!

If you have the energy, you might like to see what the venerable Prof Harrington has to say about LiMA in his second review report - relatively complimentary. He does suggest greater use of the text fields to reflect individual condition nuances alongside the tick-boxes. However, the WCA Handbook (which is the HCP Bible), openly discourages their use as they are not (obviously) accommodated within the diagnostic algorithm.

I think the prof sees LiMA as no more that a recording tool used to ensure consistency in approach and if this was the full extent of its influence, we would all be a lot less concerned.

It like most other parts of the process has been developed to produce a predetermined end result, rather than from “the bottom up”.

Hi John,

I have read a few things about LiMA, usually written by people who have little understanding of IT systems. I see from some of your FOI requests that you have grave reservations about it as well. The system is clearly intended to discourage HCP from using free text. In my own case it led to the Nurse making statements that were untrue (factually and medically) and listing statements under descriptors that the HCP Manual (I have read this more this more times than I care to think about) specifically states are not relevant (e.g. talking about gardening under a descriptor that is only related to indoor activities).

I fully expect the DWP to give me some weasel words as to why I can't have what I asked for, but I live in hope!

To produce a system that accurately does what it is claimed LiMA does is not straightforward. I suspect that the system is far more basic than the DWP imply and is probably little more than a decision tree with some basic rules. The reply I received regarding testing and updating LiMA has all the classic hallmarks of an uncontrolled piece of software that is regularly 'hacked about' without the standard quality controls one would expect.

Regards
John

Hi John,

Indeed, but then the public sector's track record with IT development generally is less than impressive. A consistent framework is vital and a bit of "intelligence" to highlight potential contradictions is fine as long as it doesn't take over. The manual intervention should be forced, rather than discouraged. Regds

You may be interested to look up unum provident the giant u.s. disability insurance company that was almost ruined by £8 Billion dollars worth of lawsuits successfully won by disgruntled customers whose claims were refused using the Lima software system .
Two days ago I didnt even know what lima was. Now the experiences of this company will hopefully allow my appeal tribunal to see that as Paul Farmer has said , not only is it not fit for purpose but could in the long run be the ruin of Atos if enough people sue them. I have already filed for fraudulent misrep under the fraud act 2006 and am awaiting thier reply..
good luck
Baz

Baz, Atos will insist they only make a recommendation, DWP makes the decision, so any culpability rests with DWP. But DWP claims its decision is only about benefit payment and not about health & fitness to work. I have been pressing them to clarify precisely, but they are hedging. It needs a serious legal challenge and of course once the precedent is set, the floodgates will open.

If there's no answer to your follow-up soon, you should probably request an Internal Review.

A tip from my own experience if you don't mind.

Despite the excellence of this site, the "reply" feature here doesn't get attention at DWP. The only feature that they usually react to is the IRR, but that just adds another 20 days.

If the response comes through whilst the IRR is outstanding, the overlapping correspondence confuses them greatly.

There quickly comes a point when the "dialogue" is worth ending and raising outstanding matters as a new request. This does at least give you the opportunity to iron out the 'wriggle room' you inadvertently provided in the original question.

Give them little margin for error and refer all legitimate transgressions to the ICO promptly. I never used to, but I now believe that with rapidly deteriorating standards from DWP, this is the only way for us to paint the correct picture which ICO once deluged with complaints can address.

Hi,

Thanks for that. I'll give them a week and then send in an IRR to chanse them. To be honest I'm more interested in seeing the LiMA software (my other FOIA request) and getting the data about t he UC Programme. This one is just fun as it is obvious that they haven't got a clue what they are talking about.

Just be a wee bit careful - the Act specifically referes to "vexatious" requests.

Thanks for the heads up but the DWP would have to show that my request had little chance off success if they wanted to play that card. So far their understanding of English Law is very poor so it wouldn't surprise me if they tried :-)

Sometimes I wonder if they dont simply have a list of exemptions on a board and choose the one that the dart they throw lands on.

As an aside, I am ploughing through my first ICO referral on another FoI failure. Interesting. The acid test will ultimately be about how much they are prepared to support the spirit of the Act as opposed to allowing DWP to hide behind spurious "small print". I get the distinct impression that even the DWP staff assigned to field ICO queries have limited experience & understanding.