LCP/statistics

Ann Reeves made this Freedom of Information request to Department of Health and Social Care

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was partially successful.

Dear Department of Health,

In response to my FOI and your response on the 1Oth December, I would be most grateful if you will answer this.. you are out of time.
For your convenience the request is below.

Formal FOI Act Request: I would be grateful if you could supply the full minutes of your round table discussions about the LCP with all the major stakeholders involved, along with the communications you have exchanged with them all on this matter.

Under the FOI please confirm if NHS hospitals are funded according to the number of patients dying on the Liverpool Care Pathway?

Please forward this request to the relevant desk.

Acknowledgement of case DE00000745054 received by the Department of Health.

Yours faithfully,

Ann Reeves

Department of Health and Social Care

3 Attachments

Dear Ms Reeves,

Thank you for your email.  A response to your FOI request was sent to your
Gmail email address on 10/1/13.  I attach a copy of the response below.

Kind regards,

Freedom of Information Team
Department of Health

Our ref: DE00000745054 
 
Dear Ms Reeves,
 
Thank you for your email of 10 December to the Department of Health
enclosing a letter to Norman Lamb dated 8 December. 
 
The last paragraph of your letter contains a Freedom of Information (FOI)
request, which I have been asked to respond to.  The other comments raised
in your letter will be responded to separately by the ministerial
correspondence and public enquiries unit at the Department.
 
The FOI request in your letter was:
  
I would be grateful if you could supply the full minutes of your round
table discussions about the LCP with all the major stakeholders involved,
along with the communications you have exchanged with them all on this
matter. Under the FOI please confirm if NHS hospitals are funded according
to the number of patients dying on the Liverpool Care Pathway? 
 
The Department does hold some information relevant to your request. 
 
With regard to the minutes of the roundtable meeting, we believe that s22
of the FOI Act applies.  Section 22 provides that public bodies are not
obliged to disclose information that is intended for future publication. 
Section 22 is a qualified exemption, and we are required to assess as
objectively as possible whether the balance of public interest favours
disclosing or withholding the information. 
 
Preparation for the independent review of use of the Liverpool Care
Pathway (LCP) is currently under way and the Department will announce the
Chair and the Terms of Reference shortly.  The review's report and
recommendations will be published by the summer of 2013.  We intend to
publish the roundtable meeting note as part of the review. 
 
The Department takes the view that any public interest in the disclosure
of this information will be satisfied by the publication of the review in
the near future. 
 
With regard to communications between Norman Lamb and major stakeholders
on the Liverpool Care Pathway, the Department does not hold any relevant
correspondence beyond the invitation to attend the meeting. 
 
With regard to your last question 'Under the FOI please confirm if NHS
hospitals are funded according to the number of patients dying on the
Liverpool Care Pathway?' I should explain that the FOI Act is to do with
transparency of information held by public authorities.  It gives an
individual the right to access recorded information held by public
authorities.  The FOI Act does not require public authorities to generate
information or to answer questions, provide explanations or give opinions,
unless this is recorded information that they already hold.  Your question
is asking us to confirm a statement made by yourself and is not therefore
a request for recorded information. 
 
Help and information on wording an FOI request can be found on the
Information Commissioner’s website at
[1]www.ico.gov.uk/for_the_public/official_information.aspx. 
  
However, for the sake of clarity, it might be helpful to explain about
Commissioning for Quality and Improvement (CQUIN).  This payment framework
was introduced to help to align health goals with funding.  The whole
scheme covers 2.5 per cent of hospitals’ contracted income.  There is a
set of national CQUIN goals and a range of local ones.  There is no
national CQUIN goal related to end of life care.  Some local areas have
elected to make end of life care a priority, and of those some have
included use of the LCP in their local CQUINs.  There is no single
formulation for these local CQUINs.  Some local CQUIN goals have adopted
formulations to encourage hospitals to use LCP but the Department does not
hold this information. 
 
I hope this reply is helpful.  If you are dissatisfied with the handling
of your request, you have the right to ask for an internal review. 
Internal review requests should be submitted within two months of the date
of receipt of the response to your original letter and should be addressed
to:
 
Head of the Freedom of Information Team
Department of Health
Room 317
Richmond House
79 Whitehall
London SW1A 2NS
  
Email: [email address]
 
If you are not content with the outcome of your complaint, you may apply
directly to the Information Commissioner (ICO) for a decision.  Generally,
the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted the complaints
procedure provided by the Department.  The ICO can be contacted at:
 
The Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF
 
Yours sincerely,
 
Sarah Walter
Freedom of Information Team
Department of Health
 
[2]Inactive hide details for Ann Reeves
<[FOI #145532 email]>Ann Reeves
<[FOI #145532 email]>

Ann Reeves To FreedomofInformation/OIS/DOH@DOH
<[FOI #145532 email]>  cc
Subject Freedom of Information request -
14/01/2013 13:24 LCP/statistics

     Dear Department of Health,
   
    In response to my FOI and your response on the 1Oth December, I
    would be most grateful if you will answer this.. you are out of
    time.
    For your convenience the request is below.
   
    Formal FOI Act Request: I would be grateful if you could supply the
    full minutes of your round table discussions about the LCP with all
    the major stakeholders involved, along with the communications you
    have exchanged with them all on this matter.
   
    Under the FOI please confirm if NHS hospitals are funded according
    to the number of patients dying on the Liverpool Care Pathway?
   
    Please forward this request to the relevant desk.
   
    Acknowledgement of case DE00000745054 received by the Department of
    Health.
   
    Yours faithfully,
   
    Ann Reeves
   
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
   
    Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
    [FOI #145532 email]
   
    Is [DH request email] the wrong address for Freedom
    of Information requests to Department of Health? If so, please
    contact us using this form:
    [3]http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/contact
   
    Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be
    published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
    [4]http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offic...
   
    If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your
    web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
   
   
   

show quoted sections

Dr. Lofthouse left an annotation ()

Surely its in the Public Interest to be 100% transparent given the number of contentious deaths involved - the minutes must all have been typed up, and circulated to those attending - why not simply publish them?

Dr. Lofthouse left an annotation ()

This is why they refused to hold a Public Inquiry into the Liverpool Care Pathway: Hunt was ordered to hand over documents he sent on private email accounts to the Levinson Inquiry - Gove has also been found using private email accounts for Government business he didn't want covered by the FOI...the Information Commissioner has already told them that these should ALWAYS be handed over with FOI requests here : http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/201... .....so why are they refusing your request?

Dr. Lofthouse left an annotation ()

Here is the guidance the Information Commissioner gave regarding private email accounts being subject to FOI act requests http://www.ico.gov.uk/SearchResultAsHtml... emails ...they have to hand them over, and are playing for time..

Dear Department of Health,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Department of Health's handling of my FOI request 'LCP/statistics'.

In order to engage s22 (information intended for future publication) you must be able to show clearly which information within the scope of a request it intends to publish. It is not sufficient to say that it will identify for publication some, but not all, information within the scope of the request.

As I understand you only intend to publish the conclusions of the 'impartial review panel'.

Public confidence in the panels' conclusions is going to be seriously decreased as they appear to have deliberately appointed people who are far from 'impartial', and are on the record as saying they like the liverpool care pathway, and all submissions to the review were pre-sorted by people who work for the NHS End of Life Care Network ....

I have requested the assistance of the ICO who have informed me that I request an internal review.

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

Yours faithfully,

Ann Reeves

Department of Health and Social Care

Dear Ms Reeves,

I can confirm that the Department has received your request for an
Internal Review of your Freedom of Information request (Our reference:
DE00000745054).  This is now being processed by a member of the Freedom of
Information team, who will respond to you in due course.

Yours sincerely,

Jamie Scott

Freedom of Information Officer
Department of Health

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Paddy, Lynwen,

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Reeves,

 

Please find attached our reply to your internal review request.

 

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

Lynwen Paddy

Senior FOI Manager

Freedom of Information Team

Email: [1][email address]

 

I work part-time - Wed to Fri

show quoted sections

Incoming and outgoing e-mail messages are routinely monitored for
compliance with the Department of Health's policy on the use of electronic
communications. For more information on the Department of Health's e-mail
policy click here http://www.dh.gov.uk/terms

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Christoph Probst left an annotation ()

I can't see any logic in the argument not to release this - I feel you've been misled. Public confidence in the 'impartiality ' of the review hinges crucially on seeing the content of ALL of these exchanges BEFORE the report is published...its absolutely VITAL to any notion of open and transparent government that this review (which was an alternative to having all evidence given on oath at a Public Inquiry into wilful neglect and corporate manslaughter) is shown to be 'impartial'. For all we know, individual panel members may have even been in touch with those who have committed Health & Safety breaches by failing to train staff may have been conspiring to hide evidence of their own failings! ...given that failure to withdraw LCP v.11 (which had no consent process attached)appears to show Mr Lansley breached the NHS Constitution, this MUST BE SENT TO THE PHSO...these records must be released in the public interest BEFORE THE REVIEW FINDINGS ARE PUBLISHED....surely?

Dr Lofthouse left an annotation ()

Frankly Mrs. Reeves - this stinks of a cover up!

Emma D left an annotation ()

"This is because the Review Panel is independent of Government and, as such will determine for itself which documents will form part of the publication. " AND THAT'S A TRANSPARENT PROCESS? They could therefore determine not to include those that criticised the LCP or the Government, or the 'End of Life Care Strategy Team' members, couldn't they?

Ann Reeves left an annotation ()

Thanks for the advice on here, I am using it in my complaint to the ICO.. Ann

Dr Lofthouse left an annotation ()

'... ...Hadamar to Liverpool .... how to turn a War Crime into an 'Act of Compassion'....ICO it..

Department of Health and Social Care

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Reeves,

Further to your request for an internal review and our recent response,
please find attached the minutes of the Liverpool Care Pathway Roundtable
Meeting as promised.

The first numbered paragraph refers to an audio recording made of the
meeting.  This minute is a written version of that recording.

Please note that we have redacted a small amount of information under
s40(2) of the FOI Act which relates to personal data. In this case the
names of DH staff who were below senior civil servant grade and details of
members of the public representing patients and families have been removed
as disclosure would contravene the first Data Protection Act principle,
that processing must be fair.

Yours sincerely

Michelle Hinds
Freedom of Information Team
Department of Health

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Dr Lofthouse left an annotation ()

They were asked for copies of 'all communications shared between the stakeholders named here, and the DoH'..that includes emails ....where ARE they?

I see the only two patient representatives chosen to participate were those with relatives who were genuinely terminally ill too...and NONE of those whose relatives had been misdiagnosed, or just had Downs', or were just elderly too.

Stinks.