The Cameron Report into Hammersmith Hospital Imaging Department 2000

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Department of Health should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Christine England

To The Department of Health

Please provide a copy of the complete Cameron Report into Hammersmith Hospital's Imaging Department June 2000.

Yours faithfully,

Christine England

Do Not Reply, Department of Health

Thank you for contacting the Department of Health.

This is an acknowledgement - please do not reply to this email.

Where a reply is appropriate, we aim to send one within 18 working days,
or 20 working days if your query is a Freedom of Information request or
complaint.

If you have contacted the Department of Health about a current health or
social care campaign, please visit the [1]GOV.UK website, the UK
Government’s official information website, where a response may have been
published.

If your enquiry is about a medical matter, please contact NHS 111 or visit
[2]NHS Choices, or contact your GP surgery.

For general health information you may also find it helpful to refer to
[3]GOV.UK, which includes the Department of Health's [4]'What we
do' section.

Please note that the Department of Health does not process complaints
about the NHS or social services. If you wish to make a complaint about a
healthcare professional, an NHS organisation or a social care provider,
please visit the [5]'Complaints procedure' page on the GOV.UK website.

 
You can find out more about the Department’s commitments from our
[6]Personal Information Charter.

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

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

This email was scanned by the Symantec virus scanning service and was
certified virus free.
Communications may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for
legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. https://www.gov.uk/government/announceme...
2. http://www.nhs.uk/
3. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
4. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
5. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
6. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...

Do Not Reply, Department of Health

1 Attachment

Dear Ms England

Please find attached the Department's response to your recent FOI request
(our ref:1047275).

Yours sincerely
Dorothy Crowe
Freedom of Information

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

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

This email was scanned by the Symantec virus scanning service and was
certified virus free.
Communications may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for
legal purposes.

Christine England

FOI 1047275
Dorothy Crowe
Freedom of Information Officer
Department of Health

Dear Ms Crowe

Thank you for your response dated 12th September 2016.

In order to narrow the scope of my enquiry so that the Department can provide information without disproportionate costs, I request please the index to the 56 paper files.

If no index is contained within the documents, please provide a list of the labels on the files.

This should enable me to indicate which of the files is likely to contain the information I am seeking which is concerning patient safety and costs to the public purse at Hammersmith Hospital Radiology (later known as Imaging).

Thank you
Christine England

Do Not Reply, Department of Health

Thank you for contacting the Department of Health.

This is an acknowledgement - please do not reply to this email.

Where a reply is appropriate, we aim to send one within 18 working days,
or 20 working days if your query is a Freedom of Information request or
complaint.

If you have contacted the Department of Health about a current health or
social care campaign, please visit the [1]GOV.UK website, the UK
Government’s official information website, where a response may have been
published.

If your enquiry is about a medical matter, please contact NHS 111 or visit
[2]NHS Choices, or contact your GP surgery.

For general health information you may also find it helpful to refer to
[3]GOV.UK, which includes the Department of Health's [4]'What we
do' section.

Please note that the Department of Health does not process complaints
about the NHS or social services. If you wish to make a complaint about a
healthcare professional, an NHS organisation or a social care provider,
please visit the [5]'Complaints procedure' page on the GOV.UK website.

 
You can find out more about the Department’s commitments from our
[6]Personal Information Charter.

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

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

This email was scanned by the Symantec virus scanning service and was
certified virus free.
Communications may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for
legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. https://www.gov.uk/government/announceme...
2. http://www.nhs.uk/
3. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
4. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
5. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
6. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...

Do Not Reply, Department of Health

2 Attachments

Dear Ms England

Please find attached the Department's response to your recent FOI request
(our ref: FOI-1053054).

Yours sincerely
Dorothy Crowe
Freedom of Information

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

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

This email was scanned by the Symantec virus scanning service and was
certified virus free.
Communications may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for
legal purposes.

Christine England

06.03.17

FOI 1053054

Ms Dorothy Crowe
Freedom of Information Officer
Department of Health

Dear Ms Crowe

Thank you for your helpful response dated 26th October 2016 and the list of paper files held on the Cameron Inquiry.

I would like to request digital copies of the following files please which I believe should narrow the scope sufficiently to avoid disproportionate costs. If any files contain Hammersmith Hospital "policies and procedures" documents these need not be included.

01/09/1999 30/06/2000 CQY/0051 HAMMERSMITH HOSPITAL RADIOLOGY CAMERON ENQUIRY DOCUMENTS RE (redacted)

01/04/2000 17/04/2001 CQY/0022 HAMMERSMITH HOSPITAL RADIOLOGY CAMERON ENQUIRY WORKING PAPERS & CORRESPONDENCE WITH EXPERT ADVISERS

01/04/2000 30/04/2000 CQY/0056 HAMMERSMITH HOSPITAL RADIOLOGY CAMERON ENQUIRY EARLY DRAFTS OF REPORT VOLl

01/03/2000 31/03/2000 CQY/0057 HAMMERSMITH HOSPITAL RADIOLOGY CAMERON ENQUIRY EARLY DRAFTS OF REPORT VOL2

Thank you
Christine England

Do Not Reply, Department of Health

Thank you for contacting the Department of Health.

This is an acknowledgement - please do not reply to this email.

Where a reply is appropriate, we aim to send one within 18 working days,
or 20 working days if your query is a Freedom of Information request or
complaint.

If you have contacted the Department of Health about a current health or
social care campaign, please visit the [1]GOV.UK website, the UK
Government’s official information website, where a response may have been
published.

If your enquiry is about a medical matter, please contact NHS 111 or visit
[2]NHS Choices, or contact your GP surgery.

For general health information you may also find it helpful to refer to
[3]GOV.UK, which includes the Department of Health's [4]'What we
do' section.

Please note that the Department of Health does not process complaints
about the NHS or social services. If you wish to make a complaint about a
healthcare professional, an NHS organisation or a social care provider,
please visit the [5]'Complaints procedure' page on the GOV.UK website.

 
You can find out more about the Department’s commitments from our
[6]Personal Information Charter.

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

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

This email was scanned by the Symantec virus scanning service and was
certified virus free.
Communications may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for
legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. https://www.gov.uk/government/announceme...
2. http://www.nhs.uk/
3. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
4. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
5. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
6. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...

FreedomofInformation, Department of Health

Dear Ms England

 

With reference to your FOI request to the Department of 6 March, I can
inform you that we have now located a copy of the final Cameron Report.

 

In light of this, would you be content to limit your request to just that
Report (which was what you asked for in your original request of 20
August)?

 

Yours sincerely

Dorothy Crowe

Freedom of Information Officer

Department of Health

 

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

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

This email was scanned by the Symantec virus scanning service and was
certified virus free.
Communications may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for
legal purposes.

Christine England

Ms Dorothy Crowe
Freedom of Information Officer
Department of Health

27th March 2017

Dear Ms Crowe

Thank you for your message dated 27th March 2017.

Please send me the final Cameron Report into Hammersmith Hospital Imaging Department 2000 which you have now been able to locate.

The final report may prove sufficient to satisfy my enquiry though I will not know for certain until l have sight of it.

Thank you

Christine England

FreedomofInformation, Department of Health

Dear Ms England

 

I refer to your FOI request to the Department of 6 March, and our
subsequent email exchange of 27 March.

 

I am writing to inform you that the Department's consideration of the
balance of the public interest with regards to your request is not yet
complete, and requires further time to complete in line with Section 10(3)
of the FOI Act.

The Department is currently assessing the public interest in release under
Section 42 (legal professional privilege).

We anticipate this process will take no longer than a further 20 working
days to complete.  We therefore aim to respond fully to your request by 4
May 2017.

 

Please accept my apologies for this delay.

 

Yours sincerely,

Dorothy Crowe

Freedom of Information Officer

Department of Health

Richmond House

020 7210 6075

 

 

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

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

This email was scanned by the Symantec virus scanning service and was
certified virus free.
Communications may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for
legal purposes.

Do Not Reply, Department of Health

1 Attachment

Dear Ms England,

Please find attached the Department of Health's response to your FOI
request (our ref: 1077254 ) 

Yours sincerely,

 Dorothy Crowe 

Freedom of Information team
Department of Health

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

Please do not reply to this email. To contact the Department of Health,
please visit the Contact DH section on www.gov.uk/dh

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

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

This email was scanned by the Symantec virus scanning service and was
certified virus free.
Communications may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for
legal purposes.

Christine England

To Department of Health

I am writing to request an internal review of the Department of Health's handling of my FOI request 'The Cameron Report into Hammersmith Hospital Imaging Department 2000' which has never been published. Only a very misleading press release was made available to the public and I have never seen any indication that patients who had been adversely affected were ever informed.

When I began this Freedom of Information request It was originally stated that a copy of the Cameron Report could not be located, that only paper files were available and that several of these had been searched unsuccessfully for the report but it would be disproportionately costly to search all of the files. I then requested and was sent a list of the file names to ascertain which might hold the information I require.

I then requested digital copies of the following four files so while the internal review is in progress about release of the complete report, I request the following:
01/09/1999 30/06/2000 CQY/0051 HAMMERSMITH HOSPITAL RADIOLOGY CAMERON ENQUIRY DOCUMENTS RE (redacted)

01/04/2000 17/04/2001 CQY/0022 HAMMERSMITH HOSPITAL RADIOLOGY CAMERON ENQUIRY WORKING PAPERS & CORRESPONDENCE WITH EXPERT ADVISERS

01/04/2000 30/04/2000 CQY/0056 HAMMERSMITH HOSPITAL RADIOLOGY CAMERON ENQUIRY EARLY DRAFTS OF REPORT VOLl

01/03/2000 31/03/2000 CQY/0057 HAMMERSMITH HOSPITAL RADIOLOGY CAMERON ENQUIRY EARLY DRAFTS OF REPORT VOL2

I understand that one of these files contains my own evidence so there is no reason for that not to be released.

I can see no valid reason for the expert advisors not to be named since they were paid for by public money.

I can see no valid reason for the report not to have been written in a form which protected the identity of those who gave evidence, as I understand it should have been and as was standard practice for other reports.

If it is felt that names need to be redacted now, I can see no valid reason why that cannot be done.

It is indisputably in the public interest to see what the report should contain about what Professor Cameron and his expert advisors recommended on how to inform or monitor patients who had been potentially adversely affected, or whether it was recommended not to inform them.

These included the identifiable children who had been irradiated without gonad protection (which may have risked their future fertility) and the hundreds, possibly thousands, of patients who had received additional radiation (or "were fried" as some called it) because their original reports and/or images had been abandoned or deliberately deleted or severely delayed, or their reports had been issued with errors or under another patient's name.

One of those who was shown by the evidence to have caused these risks remained in a senior NHS post, even though the Chief Executive, the Chair of the Trust Board, the Clinical Director and the Business Manager all left on various grounds shortly after Cameron wrote to the Board after his inquiry, but none of them were ever held accountable for the risks they caused to patients.

The fact that a consultant was quoted by the Evening Standard as stating that they had "seen patients who could sue but I haven't told them" is surely indicative of a matter that is very much in the public interest.

I would also like to know whether the report recommended removal of substantial merit awards to certain medical staff.

I am aware that there may be a reluctance to release this report because Lord Professor Robert Winston supported the management against the whistleblowers, and because the current President of a Royal College was named in my evidence as stating that she would “have to lie” to a court. The involvement of such prominent people in this case is one of the many reasons, in addition to the primary one of harm to patients, why it is in the public interest to release the report.

At the conclusion of his inquiry, Professor Cameron completely rewrote his press release between showing a document to the whistleblowers, which he said he would not change and which he would publish the following day, and the time a totally different press release was published, which damaged the reputations of the whistleblowers. I want to know the reasons for this change and whether the pressure to alter it came from legal advisors or from his expert medical advisors or from the Department of Health or from another person or organisation.

The public has a right to know how such publicly funded inquiries are conducted, how they report, and whether or how they can be influenced.

The above are the reasons why re-opening this matter now is in the public interest. I have always tried to prevent unnecessary alarm to patients but patients and whistleblowers remain at risk until there is accountability.

Although I was dissatisfied from the outset when it was announced that the Cameron Report would not be released, I have since become aware of the continuing widespread pattern of cover-ups and victimisation of whistleblowers in the NHS. I have seen how the Freedom To Speak Up review was run by Robert Francis and how it failed whistleblowers and his own misconduct in handling of evidence submitted to it. (The evidence of this is available on www.compassionincare.com).

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/t...
I look forward to your response.

Yours faithfully

Christine England

Christine England

To Department of Health

On my request sent today for internal review about the release of the Cameron Report, the automated What Do They Know link to previous correspondence went incorrectly to another user's document so I am resending this request and the main body of the following is a duplicate message.
Thank you.

I am writing to request an internal review of the Department of Health's handling of my FOI request 'The Cameron Report into Hammersmith Hospital Imaging Department 2000' which has never been published.

Only a very misleading press release was made available to the public and I have never seen any indication that patients who had been adversely affected were ever informed.

When I began this Freedom of Information request It was originally stated that a copy of the Cameron Report could not be located, that only paper files were available and that several of these had been searched unsuccessfully for the report but it would be disproportionately costly to search all of the files. I then requested and was sent a list of the file names to ascertain which might hold the information I require.

I then requested digital copies of the following four files so while the internal review is in progress about release of the complete report, I request the following:

01/09/1999 30/06/2000 CQY/0051 HAMMERSMITH HOSPITAL RADIOLOGY CAMERON ENQUIRY DOCUMENTS RE (redacted)

01/04/2000 17/04/2001 CQY/0022 HAMMERSMITH HOSPITAL RADIOLOGY CAMERON ENQUIRY WORKING PAPERS & CORRESPONDENCE WITH EXPERT ADVISERS

01/04/2000 30/04/2000 CQY/0056 HAMMERSMITH HOSPITAL RADIOLOGY CAMERON ENQUIRY EARLY DRAFTS OF REPORT VOLl

01/03/2000 31/03/2000 CQY/0057 HAMMERSMITH HOSPITAL RADIOLOGY CAMERON ENQUIRY EARLY DRAFTS OF REPORT VOL2

I understand that one of these files contains my own evidence so there is no reason for that not to be released.

I can see no valid reason for the expert advisors not to be named since they were paid for by public money.

I can see no valid reason for the report not to have been written in a form which protected the identity of those who gave evidence, as I understand it should have been and as was standard practice for other reports.

If it is felt that names need to be redacted now, I can see no valid reason why that cannot be done.

It is indisputably in the public interest to see what the report should contain about what Professor Cameron and his expert advisors recommended on how to inform or monitor patients who had been potentially adversely affected, or whether it was recommended not to inform them.

These included the identifiable children who had been irradiated without gonad protection (which may have risked their future fertility) and the hundreds, possibly thousands, of patients who had received additional radiation (or "were fried" as some called it) because their original reports and/or images had been abandoned or deliberately deleted or severely delayed, or their reports had been issued with errors or under another patient's name.

One of those who was shown by the evidence to have caused these risks remained in a senior NHS post, even though the Chief Executive, the Chair of the Trust Board, the Clinical Director and the Business Manager all left on various grounds shortly after Cameron wrote to the Board after his inquiry, but none of them were ever held accountable for the risks they caused to patients.

The fact that a consultant was quoted by the Evening Standard as stating that they had "seen patients who could sue but I haven't told them" is surely indicative of a matter that is very much in the public interest.

I would also like to know whether the report recommended removal of substantial merit awards to certain medical staff.

I am aware that there may be a reluctance to release this report because Lord Professor Robert Winston supported the management against the whistleblowers, and because the current President of a Royal College was named in my evidence as stating that she would “have to lie” to a court. The involvement of such prominent people in this case is one of the many reasons, in addition to the primary one of harm to patients, why it is in the public interest to release the report.

At the conclusion of his inquiry, Professor Cameron completely rewrote his press release between showing a document to the whistleblowers, which he said he would not change and which he would publish the following day, and the time a totally different press release was published, which damaged the reputations of the whistleblowers. I want to know the reasons for this change and whether the pressure to alter it came from legal advisors or from his expert medical advisors or from the Department of Health or from another person or organisation.

The public has a right to know how such publicly funded inquiries are conducted, how they report, and whether or how they can be influenced.

The above are the reasons why re-opening this matter now is in the public interest. I have always tried to prevent unnecessary alarm to patients but patients and whistleblowers remain at risk until there is accountability.

Although I was dissatisfied from the outset when it was announced that the Cameron Report would not be released, I have since become aware of the continuing widespread pattern of cover-ups and victimisation of whistleblowers in the NHS. I have seen how the Freedom To Speak Up review was run by Robert Francis and how it failed whistleblowers and his own misconduct in handling of evidence submitted to it. (The evidence of this is available on www.compassionincare.com).

I look forward to your response.

Yours faithfully

Christine England

FreedomofInformation, Department of Health

Dear Ms England,

Thank you for your below email requesting and internal review into the handling of FOI 1077254.

I have accepted your request for a review and will endeavour to complete the review and get back to you within 20 working days - in this case by 26 June 2017.

Thanks,
Harish

Harish Sehdev
Deputy Head of Freedom of Information
Department of Health, Room G18, Richmond House,
79 Whitehall, SW1A 2NS
Follow us on Twitter @DHgovuk

show quoted sections

Data Protection, Department of Health

 

Dear Ms England

 

Thank you for your email of 28 June about the Cameron Report into
Hammersmith Hospital Imaging Department 2000.

 

You have requested information from four files, which you state includes
your own evidence.  We are therefore treating part of your request as a
Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act 1998. The Freedom of
Information team will be responding to you separately in respect of the
remainder of the information, which does not constitute your own personal
data, in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

 

A search of the four files which you have requested is underway. However,
in line with Section 7(3) of the Data Protection Act 1998, before we can
comply with your request I require further information that will enable me
to establish your identity, and to locate any personal data the Department
of Health may hold about you.

 

Section 7(3) states that “A data controller is not obliged to comply with
a request unless he is supplied with such information as he may reasonably
require in order to satisfy himself as to the identity of the person
making the request and to locate the information which that person seeks”.

 

As the Department takes its responsibilities very seriously, please could
you also provide an alternative direct email or postal address for us to
send a final response to your query so that we can avoid putting your
personal data at unnecessary risk on a public website when sending it to
you. You are welcome to respond either to this email address or by post to
the address in the signature below, whichever you prefer. To protect your
personal data, we strongly recommend that you provide your ID and any
other personal data from an alternative email address or by post.

 

For identity purposes please send me any one of the following documents
listed below. Any original documents will be returned once the search has
been completed.

 

·       Photocopy of passport

·       Photocopy of Driving Licence

·       Original of electricity bill

·       Original of gas bill

·       Original council tax bill

·       Original of any other bill in your full name

·       Bills should be in your full name and should not be more than six
months old.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Karen Edwards
Data Protection Team
Workplace and DH Transformation
E: [1][email address]
Department of Health | 7^th floor South, Wellington House | 133-155
Waterloo Road | London SE1 8UG

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

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

This email was scanned by the Symantec virus scanning service and was
certified virus free.
Communications may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for
legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Data Protection, Department of Health

Dear Ms England

 

Following my email of 4 July (enclosed), we have located your personal
data from the four files.

 

As indicated in my previous message, to enable us to send your personal
data to you we need an alternative direct email or postal address for
this, so that we can avoid putting your personal data at unnecessary risk
on a public website. We also need confirmation of your ID.  Please can you
provide these at your earliest convenience.

 

To protect your personal data, we strongly recommend that you provide your
ID and any other personal data from an alternative email address or by
post.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Karen Edwards
Data Protection Team
Workplace and DH Transformation
E: [1][email address]
Department of Health | 7^th floor South, Wellington House | 133-155
Waterloo Road | London SE1 8UG

 

From: Data Protection
Sent: 04 July 2017 15:31
To: '[FOI #353408 email]'
Cc: FreedomofInformation
Subject: RE: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - The
Cameron Report into Hammersmith Hospital Imaging Department 2000

 

 

Dear Ms England

 

Thank you for your email of 28 June about the Cameron Report into
Hammersmith Hospital Imaging Department 2000.

 

You have requested information from four files, which you state includes
your own evidence.  We are therefore treating part of your request as a
Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act 1998. The Freedom of
Information team will be responding to you separately in respect of the
remainder of the information, which does not constitute your own personal
data, in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

 

A search of the four files which you have requested is underway. However,
in line with Section 7(3) of the Data Protection Act 1998, before we can
comply with your request I require further information that will enable me
to establish your identity, and to locate any personal data the Department
of Health may hold about you.

 

Section 7(3) states that “A data controller is not obliged to comply with
a request unless he is supplied with such information as he may reasonably
require in order to satisfy himself as to the identity of the person
making the request and to locate the information which that person seeks”.

 

As the Department takes its responsibilities very seriously, please could
you also provide an alternative direct email or postal address for us to
send a final response to your query so that we can avoid putting your
personal data at unnecessary risk on a public website when sending it to
you. You are welcome to respond either to this email address or by post to
the address in the signature below, whichever you prefer. To protect your
personal data, we strongly recommend that you provide your ID and any
other personal data from an alternative email address or by post.

 

For identity purposes please send me any one of the following documents
listed below. Any original documents will be returned once the search has
been completed.

 

·       Photocopy of passport

·       Photocopy of Driving Licence

·       Original of electricity bill

·       Original of gas bill

·       Original council tax bill

·       Original of any other bill in your full name

·       Bills should be in your full name and should not be more than six
months old.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Karen Edwards
Data Protection Team
Workplace and DH Transformation
E: [2][email address]
Department of Health | 7^th floor South, Wellington House | 133-155
Waterloo Road | London SE1 8UG

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

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

This email was scanned by the Symantec virus scanning service and was
certified virus free.
Communications may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for
legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[email address]

Do Not Reply, Department of Health

1 Attachment

Dear Ms England

Please find attached the Department of Health's response to your recent
FOI request (our ref: 1088964 ) 

Yours sincerely,

 Dorothy Crowe 

Freedom of Information team
Department of Health

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

Please do not reply to this email. To contact the Department of Health,
please visit the Contact DH section on www.gov.uk/dh

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

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

This email was scanned by the Symantec virus scanning service and was
certified virus free.
Communications may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for
legal purposes.

Christine England

Ms Karen Edwards
Data Protection Team
Workplace and DH Transformation
Department of Health
7th floor South, Wellington House
133-155 Waterloo Road
London SE1 8UG

Dear Ms Edwards

Thank you for your letters dated 4th and 21st July 2017 via www.WhatDoTheyKnow.com.
I am sending by post the following letter and am copying it here (after removal of my personal details) and I understand that you will respond by sending my personal information by post or to my personal email address and not via www.WhatDoTheyKnow.com.

I am writing to make a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act 1998, for copies of all information held by the Department of Health relating to me. Please provide all information in all formats from 1st September 1998 up to the present date, including any relating directly to me, and also any in which my name appears in any format in any matter related to any other person or organisation, including but not limited to the Cameron Inquiry into Hammersmith Hospital Radiology 1999-2000, the Brindle Report and the Hodgson Report.

To assist you in your search I have listed key people and events where I would expect ‘personal information’ to have been generated by the Department of Health, which I hope will help you to locate all the information more easily.

Between 1990 and 1995 I worked as Senior Medical Secretary in Radiology at Hammersmith Hospital in London, which I left in 1995 after raising concerns. In September 1998 I relayed the then current Staff’s ongoing concerns about patient safety and Radiology Department management to the Department of Health.

I liaised with the Department of Health, the London North Thames NHS Executive, was in contact with the local Community Health Council and the Commission for Health Improvement and I arranged media coverage on behalf of the whistleblowers and witnesses. This included discussion of terms of reference for the various inquiries and in relaying Staff feedback about investigation panels and suspension of whistleblowers. I gave evidence to four investigations.

My first contact with the Department of Health was on 1 September 1998 (attached).
My electronic correspondence was from the email [email address] and some correspondence was by fax.

Mr Robin Heron Head of Employment at Quarry House Leeds, passed the case to
Mr William (Billy) Flynn who arranged with the NHSE an internal investigation led by
Dr Humphrey Hodgson, then after whistleblowers’ protests an external inquiry was led by
Dr Michael Brindle.

My contacts at the London North Thames NHSE Regional Office were
Dr Maureen Dalziel Regional Director of Public Health
Ms Sue Atkinson
Mr Angus MacDonald and
Ms Kate James Director of Corporate Management

Mr Frank Dobson Secretary of State ordered a third investigation, the Cameron Inquiry by
Professor Ian Cameron in response to the whistleblowers’ allegations of a cover-up.

Mr Tony Welch provided support to the Brindle panel.

Mr Brian Jones was the main secretary to the Cameron Inquiry (I cannot recall his predecessor’s name at the time of writing this) and wrote that he “had written most of the report” when I queried fundamental errors in notes made about my evidence so I particularly request the notes of all my meetings with Professor Cameron.

Ms Janet Grauberg in the Secretary of State’s office dealt with with at least one item of correspondence and possibly may have made internal notes.

Mr Alan Milburn Secretary of State was asked by the Commission for Health Improvement for a copy of the Cameron Report during their investigation into the West London Breast Screening Service which was under the same Radiology management. He refused to provide it, as did Professor Cameron himself when he was a member of CHI.

Professor Cameron held individual briefings for the whistleblowers and possibly representatives for the Trust, showing each of us individually a press release (my own meeting was on 17.05.00) which was never published. Notes would have been made from that meeting.

Mr John Denham Secretary of State later issued a very different press release and there would have been correspondence or briefing notes generated by Professor Cameron, Mr Denham, the Press Office and possibly others about the reasons for this.

Mr Laurence Knight, Mr Mark Purcell & possibly other colleagues in the Press Office may have generated notes, some of which may have mentioned my name, because the case featured in Private Eye, Hospital Doctor, London Evening Standard, Health Service Journal, a local newspaper, Times Education Supplement, Sky News and BBC TV Newsnight April 2002. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/ne... was the programme in which Mr Billy Flynn and I took part and another Newsnight about the case focused on Professor Peter Dawson.

Journalists involved included Dr Phil Hammond, Matthew Hill, Zoe Morris, Belinda Finlayson, Jo Revill, Clare Dyer and Kaye McIntosh amongst others.

Lord Professor Robert Winston was referred to a number of times in my correspondence though my reference to his conduct was cut from Newsnight by the BBC.

Several MPs were also involved in this case and I had contact myself with Mr Clive Soley and Ms Phyllis Starkey.

In 1999 Professor Dawson and I wrote to the Department of Health in support of a suspended whistleblowing doctor at Northampton Hospital (whose name I will not include here as this will become a public document on WhatDoTheyKnow.com but their name is in my correspondence).

Capsticks were the legal advisors for the Trust and Mr Denham and/or Professor Cameron wrote to Capsticks in June 2000 recommending compensation should be paid to me. As I refused to negotiate on this until Chief Executive Mr John Cooper, the Chairman of the Board Mr Murray Stuart, Professor David Allison, Mrs Nuala Martin and Mrs Jane Phillp had been removed from Hammersmith, correspondence continued in 2001.

Mr William (Bill) Erwin and the Trust Board were also involved in correspondence which may have been discussed with or forwarded to the Department of Health. Professor Cameron wrote to the Trust Board several months after he concluded his investigation when he became aware that the Board was still supporting management.

Several items of correspondence were also sent to Sir Alan Langlands, Sir Liam Donaldson, Counter-Fraud Services, the Bristol Inquiry and the Advisory Committee on Merit Awards so may also have generated some notes and/or correspondence. At one stage the Department of Health library rang the publication Hospital Doctor to request a copy of the report so it might be worth checking if any notes came from that. There may also have been a contact from the local Coroner’s office regarding the death of a baby.

Please note that this list is not exhaustive, but indicative only.

Information which I seek in particular will be in correspondence and notes with some of the above, as well as possibly with or about persons/organisations/patients unknown, relating to what, if any, action was taken regarding patient safety in response to evidence given by myself. I know some of the patients’ names but the vast number of them are unknown and I wish to find out what action, if any, was taken to trace and monitor or at least inform patients or their referring doctors, and if no action was taken, why not. This is in particular with regard to all the children irradiated without gonad protection who were easily identifiable.

In retrospect it may be possible that the Department of Health were alerted by the Trust of the concerns I had reported about the IT failures and risks to patients as early as 1994 due to the combined failures of PACS, Phillips and Siemens systems as the Department of Health funded installation of PACS (Picture Archiving & Communication System) which was a flagship project being studied by Brunel University so there were probably updates to the project’s progress log and risk log, and again in 1995 when I was suspended after submitting concerns and Unison recommended an industrial tribunal.

If there are any redactions or withheld data, could you please note which exemption has been relied upon and a description of the negative effects of disclosure.

Please find enclosed a processing fee in the form of a postal order of £10, plus a photocopy of my passport and a pension document as proof of identity and address.

If I can help in any way to clarify the terms of my request and help in processing this Subject Access Request, please contact me by email.

Thank you.

Christine England Date: 4th August 2017

Edwards, Karen, Department of Health

Dear Ms England

 

Thank you for your message of 4 August. This is to confirm that a search
of our files was started on receipt of your message and is underway.

 

Thank you also for letting us know that you had sent a copy of the query
with the requested contact details and ID. Unfortunately we do not appear
to have received this. Please can you resend? Please mark for my
attention. You may wish to send ‘signed for’ for security.

 

Thank you

Karen

 

Karen Edwards
Data Protection Team
Workplace and DH Transformation
E: [1][email address]
Department of Health | 7^th floor South, Wellington House | 133-155
Waterloo Road | London SE1 8UG

 

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

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

This email was scanned by the Symantec virus scanning service and was
certified virus free.
Communications may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for
legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

FreedomofInformation, Department of Health

Dear Ms England,

You internal review request was previously allocated to a colleague but due to staffing issues has been escalated to me to complete. I will aim to do so within 10 working days.

I apologise for the delay incurred to date in dealing with your request.

Kind regards,
James

James Shewbridge
Freedom of Information Team
Department of Health
39 Victoria St
London SW1H 0EU

show quoted sections

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org