Commissioning Policy

The request was partially successful.

Dear Liverpool Primary Care Trust (PCT),

1. Please provide all sexual health service commissioning policies, including HIV services.

2. Please provide any specifications for the service delivery of sexual health services (inc. HIV) which are in place with RLBUHT or any such document.

3. Please provide any service level agreements which are in place in relation to sexual health services (inc. HIV) with RLBUHT or any such document.

4. Please provide any service monitoring, evaluation of service reports or audits conducted on sexual health services (inc. HIV) provided by RLBUHT or any such document, in the last three years.

5. Please provide any commissioning policies which deal with the issue of social care and pyschological support for people diagnosed with sexual health problems, including HIV.

Yours faithfully,

C Smart

Dear Liverpool Primary Care Trust (PCT),

Was this request received?

Thanks.

Freedom Of Information (PCT), Liverpool Primary Care Trust (PCT)

1 Attachment

Please see attached letter.

Information Governance
Liverpool PCT

show quoted sections

Dear Freedom Of Information (PCT),

We do not agree to the request for an extension and expect a full response within the statutory timeframe i.e. no later than 2nd August 2011.

Freedom Of Information (PCT), Liverpool Primary Care Trust (PCT)

Dear Requestor

Thank you for your email.
We will be in touch shortly with a response to your Freedom of Information request.

Kind Regards

Information Governance
Liverpool PCT

show quoted sections

Freedom Of Information (PCT), Liverpool Primary Care Trust (PCT)

2 Attachments

Dear Requestor

Please see attached response letter and supporting documentation.

Kind Regards

Information Governance
Liverpool PCT

show quoted sections

Dear Liverpool Primary Care Trust (PCT),

Please pass this communication to Anne Thompson.

I am writing to request an internal review of Liverpool Primary Care Trust (PCT)'s handling of my FOI request 'Commissioning Policy'.

The request has been handled in a particularly poor manner and the response does not comply with the Act.

This request for internal review using the same numbering convention as the original request and reponse.

1. The request was not for "specific" commissioning policies "just for HIV services". The original request was for "all" sexual health commissioning policies, including HIV. You have failed to provide this information or confirm whether it exists focusing only on the HIV element whilst the original request concerns all elements of sexual health, including HIV. We will clarify the request at this stage as pertaining to all commissioning information, if the word "policy" has caused an issue.

2. You have listed a number of pieces of "national guidance and best practice" in response to this section. You are obligated under the Act to actually provide the information to which you refer to or sign-post us to where this information can be obtained if it is already publicly available. Furthermore, the information provided should be in intelligible form (including non-use of abbreviations or acronyms which cannot be interpreted by the requestor). You have failed to do this.

As an example, you refer to "FSRH 2008:Guidance on Intrauterine Contraception", however you have not provided this information, nor do you state where this information can be obatined from if it is already publicly available, nor have you provided the data in an intelligible form - what is "FSRH"?. Please note that this is one example but applies to the entire list you have provided in response to this section.

You have referred to "block contract arrangements" which may contain information relating to the original request. You have not supplied information relating to these nor stated that they are exempt or under which section of the Act.

You have referred to "contract requirements" which may contain information relating to the original request. You have not supplied these nor stated that they are exempt or under which section of the Act.

3. You have claimed an exemption under Section 43 (2) for this part of the original request. We do not believe that this exemption can be applied to this request, mainly for the following reason. The disclosure of information pertaining to the relationship between RLBUHT and the PCT is non-prejudicial in a commercial sense in as much as the connection between prejudice to the relationship and prejudice to one or other party's (or both parties') commercial interests is not real and is not demonstrable. As the PCT is the only orgnisation which can procure these services in the locality it is not at risk commercially through disclosure of this information. Similarly as RLBUHT is the only orgnisation in the locality which can provide the range of services covered by the request and the contract and the level of services, it is not at risk commercially through disclosure of this information. Smilalrly as both orgnisations are public bodies operating within a non-competitive environment for clinical services (the NHS), the commercial relationship is not distinct. Finally it is not believed that the exemption, as claimed, can possibly relate to every single document or piece of infromation pertaining to these "contractual arrangements".

4. You refer to "various mechanisms" and then go on to state only two. You do not clarify if there are other mechanisms than the two referred to within this section and give no reason as to why, if there are more, disclosure in relation to them may be exempt.

You refer to "performance reporting" "through the main contractual reporting framework that exists" yet you have not disclosed this framework or any data which relates to it as requested, nor have you stated that an exemption applies to this part of the request or why it may do so.

You have provided an attachment in relation to this section. You have not stated what this information is, how it relates to the original request not provided it in an intelligible form so that it can be understood.

5. You refer to social care services as being commissioned by Liverpool City Council. However you then contradict this statement and state that these services have, in fact, been "procured in line with Liverpool PCTs Procurement policies". If the latter is the case, you have not disclosed the information in respect to this nor have you claimed an exemption. We will clarify the request at this stage as pertaining to all commissioning information, if the word "policy" has caused an issue.

In addition to the specific numbered points, above, we are concerned with a number of other issues in relation to your response:

- Throughout your response you refer to RLBUHFT. No such organistion exists. Please clarify which organisation you have referred to as foundation trust status has not been granted to RLBUHT. You also refer to RLBUTH?
- You appear to have focused in sections 1-4 on the provision of HIV services only - particularly in section 1. However, the entirety of the request made is in relation to either sexual health and/or HIV (as a subset of sexual health). At no time did you seek to clarify any aspect of this request yet you clearly have not understood it.

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

Yours faithfully,

B Bart

Freedom Of Information (PCT), Liverpool Primary Care Trust (PCT)

Dear Requestor

We acknowledge your request for an internal review; this has passed to
Anne Thompson.

In line with the Trust's Freedom of Information complaints and appeals
process the normal target time for responding is 20 working days; which
is 26th August 2011.

Kind Regards

Information Governance
Liverpool PCT

show quoted sections

Palmer Kathryn, Liverpool Primary Care Trust (PCT)

2 Attachments

Dear Requestor

At your request an internal review has been completed.

Please find attached response letter and supporting documents.

Kind Regards

Information Governance

Liverpool PCT