Bristol Histopathology Inquiry

Dear Monitor - Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts,

1. On 4th January 2012, Mr Robert Woolley, Chief Executive of University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust (UHBT), presented a document to South Gloucestershire Health Scrutiny Select Committee that contained this statement:

"Monitor recognised that the Independent Inquiry demonstrated that the Trust was not an outlier in terms of the clinical impact of histopathology on patient care."

Please send me the evidence that demonstrates to you that the Trust is not an outlier in terms of the clinical impact of histopathology on patient care. I expect to see comparative information with other Foundation Trusts.

2. Mr Woolley's statement also says "Monitor noted.........Evidence of good practice in the governance of patient safety and risk management in the Trust."

Please send me the evidence (i.e. that it works in practice and is not just documented) of good practice you have seen in the governance of histopathology, which I assume you satisfied yourselves can be related back to the many examples of good practice guidance issued by the Royal College of Pathologists and National Institute for Clinical Excellence.

3. Please send me copies of all communications between Monitor, UHBT Board Chair Dr John Savage, CEO Mr Robert Woolley and NHS Bristol Chief Executive Ms Deborah Evans relating to UHBT histopathology concerns, from June 2009 to the present - without redactions.

4. It is clear that Monitor did not pick up on UHBT's histopathology problems when the trust was applying for Foundation Trust status. Has Monitor put in place any processes for identifying such skeletons in the cupboard in respect of current and future Foundation Trust applications? If so, please provide details.

Yours faithfully,

Mrs D Havercroft

on behalf of South West Whistleblowers Health Action Group

enquiries, Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts

Dear Mrs Havercroft, thank you for your email.

It appears to us that points 1, 2 and 4 in your email below are requests for Monitor’s response to the issues you raise, rather than requests for information covered by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). Accordingly, we propose to treat these matters as a general enquiry and will be in touch with you on or before 1 February.

We can respond to point 3 of your email in this correspondence too, if you confirm to us that you are content for us to treat that also as an enquiry and not a request for information under FOIA in these circumstances.

Kind regards
Estelle

show quoted sections

Dear Estelle,

No, I don't want you to handle my requests for information under 1, 2, 3 and 4 as general enquiries.
I am not asking for Monitor's response to what you term "issues". If I wanted Monitor to respond to issues, I would raise a formal complaint, not a Freedom of Information Request.

I am asking for the following:

1. Information possessed by Monitor that it regards as evidence that UHBT is not an outlier in comparison with other Trusts in terms of the clinical impact of
histopathology on patient care.

2. Information possessed by Monitor which it regards as demonstrating good practice and has seen performed in the governance of histopathology, and which supports Monitor's decision to remove UHBT's amber/red rating.

3. Copies of all communications between Monitor,
UHBT Board Chair Dr John Savage, CEO Mr Robert Woolley and NHS Bristol Chief Executive Ms Deborah Evans relating to UHBT histopathology concerns from June 2009 to the present - without redactions.

4. Details of any processes Monitor may have put in place in respect of Foundation Trust applications that would now identify similar problems to the Bristol Histopathology concerns before a Trust was granted Foundation Status.

Please respond to these requests for information under the statutory provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. They are all covered by the Act, which is all about promoting openness and accountability across the public sector.

Yours sincerely,

Mrs D Havercroft

enquiries, Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts

Thank you for your email. Please accept this automated response as
acknowledgement that we have received your email. Please do not reply to
this specific email.

 

We will aim to reply to you within two working days. If we are unable to
reply in full within that time, we will let you know and send you a full
response within ten working days.

 

Please note, if  you have copied Monitor into the email you have sent us,
rather than  sending it directly to us, we will not reply to your email,
but we will retain any information relevant to our role in assessing
applicant NHS trusts and regulating NHS foundation trusts.

 

If your email is a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000,
please re-send it to  [1][email address] and we will  respond
within 20 working days of receipt.

 

You can find out more about our role on our website,
[2]www.monitor-nhsft.gov.uk

 

 

 

 

Monitor - Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts

[3]www.monitor-nhsft.gov.uk
4 Matthew Parker Street, London, SW1H 9NP

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.monitor-nhsft.gov.uk/
3. http://www.monitor-nhsft.gov.uk/

Diva Shah, Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts

Re: Request for Information under Freedom of Information Act 2000

Receipt of your request for information is acknowledged.

Monitor will respond to your request by 21 February 2012.

show quoted sections

Diva Shah, Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts

Dear Mrs Havercroft

We are due to be responding to your FOI request shortly. There is a lot of documentation which we will be unable to send you electronically. To that effect, I would be grateful if you could provide a postal address to which we can send you the documents.

Many thanks

Kind regards,

Diva Shah

Diva Shah | Legal Assistant

Monitor - Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts

Direct Line 020 7340 2449 | www.monitor-nhsft.gov.uk
4 Matthew Parker Street, London, SW1H 9NP

show quoted sections

FOI, Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts

1 Attachment

Please find attached a response to your request for information under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 dated 23 January 2012 from Anne Fillis,
Portfolio Director. We are awaiting details of a postal address so that
the documents can be sent to you.

 

Monitor - Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts

 

 

FOI, Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts

1 Attachment

Dear Mrs Havercroft,

 

I write further to my emails on 20 February 2012. The documents which are
being disclosed are ready to be sent to you. I would be grateful if you
could provide a postal address so that we can arrange for these documents
to be sent.

 

Many thanks.

 

Kind regards,

 

Diva Shah

 

 

From: Diva Shah On Behalf Of FOI
Sent: 20 February 2012 17:58
To: '[FOI #100931 email]'
Subject: FOI Response to request made on 23 January 2012

 

Please find attached a response to your request for information under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 dated 23 January 2012 from Anne Fillis,
Portfolio Director. We are awaiting details of a postal address so that
the documents can be sent to you.

 

Monitor - Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts

 

 

Mrs D Havercroft

Dear Monitor - Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Monitor - Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts's handling of my FOI request 'Bristol Histopathology Inquiry'.

Section 33(1)b exemption. I do not accept this. I have documented examples of the trust failing to deal fully and frankly with Monitor, just one example being its 12 month delay in telling Monitor about serious histopathology patient safety issues.I have seen no evidence that Monitor is carrying any effective audit of the reason for this trust board's unsatisfactory conduct in relation to the histopathology inquiry. Therefore my FOI request cannot be prejudicial to something that does not exist - namely effective audit function in relation to all the questions that the public wants answered.

Public interest test - you state that if this test prevails, NHS foundation trusts and other relevant third parties are likely to lose confidence in Monitor. Too late. Members of the public have already lost confidence in Monitor's handling of the histopathology governance issues at this trust - you have sat back while it has flouted the law on FOIA, spent public money on a flawed inquiry and, in my opinion, committed very serious breaches of the terms of its FT authorisation, for reasons I shall spell out in a separate letter to your Acting Chief Executive.

Section 31 - you claim exemption because "disclosure of the information would or would be likely to prejudice the exercise by a public authority of its functions for the purposes of ascertaining whether circumstances exist or would arise which would justify regulatory action in pursuance of an enactment". The histopathology inquiry report was issued nearly eighteen months ago. My FOIA request relates solely to histopathology. If you were going to "pursue an enactment", you would surely have done it by now.

Section 41 - The information you have withheld using this exemption was provided by public servants, who are accountable to the public. I cannot agree that public servants, involved in matters of considerable public interest, have a right to expect that information they provided to Monitor should automatically remain confidential.

Section 43 - Commercial interests - "competitors may be able to use such information to their advantage to the detriment of the Trust's legitimate interests." The NHS constitution and government policy requires the trust to demonstrate that its histopathology services match the standards of other NHS and private providers. This is not a "legitimate" reason for Monitor to withhold the information I have requested.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/br...

Yours faithfully,

Mrs D Havercroft

FOI, Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts

We acknowledge receipt of your email dated 16 May 2012 asking for an internal review.

This internal review will be considered as set out in Monitor’s decision letter. Accordingly, we aim to write to confirm the outcome of that review within 20 working days of receipt of your email. If for any reason we are unable to achieve this, we shall inform you of any expected delay.

Monitor - Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts

show quoted sections

FOI, Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts

Dear Mrs Havercroft,

We write further to our email dated 17 May 2012 in which we acknowledged receipt of your request for an internal review dated 16 May 2012.

We will be unable to respond to your request within 20 working days. We will write to confirm the outcome of the internal review within 40 working days from the date of the request for an internal review, so by 16 July 2012.

Kind regards,

Monitor - Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts

FOI, Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts

1 Attachment

Please find attached a response to your Internal Review of Monitor’s response to your Freedom of Information request, from Sue Meeson, Director of Public Affairs and Communications.

Kind regards,

Monitor - Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts

Mrs D Havercroft

Dear Diva Shah,

Thank you for the further information send by post. I still require all the information, without redactions.

I regard the Public Interest test as overriding your withholding of information using sections 31 and 33 of FOIA.

As this request has already been through your internal review I am escalating it to the Information Commissioner.

The Public Interest test is very simple. The Histopathology Inquiry that cost the public over £720k failed to investigate the reasons why University Hospitals Bristol NHS Trust managed to achieve FT status on 1st June 2008 when its failures of corporate and clinical governance meant that histopathology misdiagnoses were not properly investigated for years and have still not been properly investigated to this day.

The information you are withholding will provide the public with some long overdue answers.

Yours sincerely,

Mrs D Havercroft

on behalf of South West Whistleblowers Health Action Group

http://swwhag.wordpress.com/

FOI, Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts

1 Attachment

Dear Mrs Havercroft,

 

Please see attached correspondence dated 26 November 2012 in relation to
your complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office.  

 

Kind regards,

Monitor