Health ministry faces scapegoat claim over Dr Foster
The Department of Health made a "scapegoat" of a top statistician who raised the alarm with senior officials about the contentious public private venture Dr Foster Intelligence joint venture's worth and its handling of information.
Prof Lievesley's claims are the latest in a series of questions raised about the joint venture, known as Dr Foster Intelligence, which a committee of MPs last year said had been set up in a "backroom deal" at a cost of £12m to the taxpayer.
In an affidavit lodged at Leeds employment tribunal, Prof Lievesley, a former Royal Statistical Society president, claims the health department let her become a scapegoat for the deal.
Stuart Ritchie, for Prof Lievesley, who was not at the hearing, said she had "consistently complained about the joint venture and its operation" throughout her two-year tenure at the Information Centre.
In her affidavit, Professor Lievesley says she felt she had no alternative but to sign off in January 2006 on the creation of Dr Foster Intelligence, as talks on it were far advanced by the time she arrived at the Information Centre in July 2005. She claims she helped the public sector secure better terms for the joint venture, which is 50-50 owned by the Information Centre and Dr Foster LLP, a successful private health data company.
In her affidavit, Prof Lievesley, who was a non executive board member of Dr Foster Intelligence, says some data processed by the joint venture was not, in her view, "fit for purpose".
She describes an incident last year in which the joint venture included unvalidated official hospital data on a prototype website, creating "grave" potential to mislead the public. She says she high-lighted a "wholly inappropriate" use of statistics in letters to senior officials including David Nicholson, chief executive of the NHS.
Dr Foster hit back at the allegations, saying its data were of a high standard and did not mislead the public. The company said: "We understand [Prof Lievesley] is in dispute with her former employers but do not know the details. We have not seen this affidavit, but we refute the criticisms that appear to have been made."
The Dr Foster deal first came under fire in a National Audit Office report in February last year, which rebuked the health department for failing to follow a proper tendering process and for paying too much for its half of the joint venture.
In July the Commons public accounts committee unveiled a stinging report on the deal, in which the Information Centre paid £7.6m to Dr Foster LLP and sank another £4.4m into the joint venture company.
Prof Lievesley has gone to the employment tribunal to try to revoke a confidential deal under which she received a pay-off in exchange for her silence about the circumstances surrounding her departure from the Information Centre in July.
She says the agreement was unfair as the health department failed to point out in public that her exit was unconnected with the criticism of the Dr Foster deal made in the Commons public accounts committee report a few weeks later.
Her affidavit says: "It is ironic that my reputation should have been sullied when I was actually trying to promote the principles of proper and ethical access to information."
The Department of Health said it had sought and followed legal and professional advice during the creation of the venture. It declined to comment on the claim it had made Prof Lievesley a scapegoat, saying it could not speak about an ongoing case.
He said Prof Lievesley had come to the tribunal in part because she was worried about the damage caused to her reputation by events subsequent to her departure.
From:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ee18797c-c30c-11dc-b617-0000779fd2ac.html
Prof Lievesley's claims are the latest in a series of questions raised about the joint venture, known as Dr Foster Intelligence, which a committee of MPs last year said had been set up in a "backroom deal" at a cost of £12m to the taxpayer.
In an affidavit lodged at Leeds employment tribunal, Prof Lievesley, a former Royal Statistical Society president, claims the health department let her become a scapegoat for the deal.
Stuart Ritchie, for Prof Lievesley, who was not at the hearing, said she had "consistently complained about the joint venture and its operation" throughout her two-year tenure at the Information Centre.
In her affidavit, Professor Lievesley says she felt she had no alternative but to sign off in January 2006 on the creation of Dr Foster Intelligence, as talks on it were far advanced by the time she arrived at the Information Centre in July 2005. She claims she helped the public sector secure better terms for the joint venture, which is 50-50 owned by the Information Centre and Dr Foster LLP, a successful private health data company.
In her affidavit, Prof Lievesley, who was a non executive board member of Dr Foster Intelligence, says some data processed by the joint venture was not, in her view, "fit for purpose".
She describes an incident last year in which the joint venture included unvalidated official hospital data on a prototype website, creating "grave" potential to mislead the public. She says she high-lighted a "wholly inappropriate" use of statistics in letters to senior officials including David Nicholson, chief executive of the NHS.
Dr Foster hit back at the allegations, saying its data were of a high standard and did not mislead the public. The company said: "We understand [Prof Lievesley] is in dispute with her former employers but do not know the details. We have not seen this affidavit, but we refute the criticisms that appear to have been made."
The Dr Foster deal first came under fire in a National Audit Office report in February last year, which rebuked the health department for failing to follow a proper tendering process and for paying too much for its half of the joint venture.
In July the Commons public accounts committee unveiled a stinging report on the deal, in which the Information Centre paid £7.6m to Dr Foster LLP and sank another £4.4m into the joint venture company.
Prof Lievesley has gone to the employment tribunal to try to revoke a confidential deal under which she received a pay-off in exchange for her silence about the circumstances surrounding her departure from the Information Centre in July.
She says the agreement was unfair as the health department failed to point out in public that her exit was unconnected with the criticism of the Dr Foster deal made in the Commons public accounts committee report a few weeks later.
Her affidavit says: "It is ironic that my reputation should have been sullied when I was actually trying to promote the principles of proper and ethical access to information."
The Department of Health said it had sought and followed legal and professional advice during the creation of the venture. It declined to comment on the claim it had made Prof Lievesley a scapegoat, saying it could not speak about an ongoing case.
He said Prof Lievesley had come to the tribunal in part because she was worried about the damage caused to her reputation by events subsequent to her departure.
From:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ee18797c-c30c-11dc-b617-0000779fd2ac.html
posted by Dr Search- Principal Consultant at the Search Clinic at
4:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home