Ex-IC chief lodges ‘scapegoat’ claim

The former chief executive of the Information Centre (IC) has claimed that she was made a “scapegoat” for the heavily criticised joint venture between the Department of Health (DH) and information specialists, Dr Foster.

Professor Denise Lievesley, who left the top post at the IC last year, says in an affidavit submitted to an employment tribunal this week that she expressed serious concerns in writing about the joint venture before accepting the post.

She says she was assured by the then DH director of strategy, Hugh Taylor, early in 2005 that discussions were exploratory and at a very preliminary stage. “He assured me nothing would be signed without my agreement were I to accept the post.”

On taking up her post in July 2005, however, she said she quickly became aware that negotiations were much further advanced than she had been led to believe.

Her 11-page affidavit continues: “Shortly after taking up my post the chair of the IC board put me under pressure to sign the joint venture quickly. He made it clear his overriding priority was to maintain strong relationships with the DH and that nothing should be done which might jeopardise this. He even instructed me not to express my concerns to the non-executive IC board members.”

Professor Lievesley, a distinguished statistician and past president of the Royal Statistical Society, makes clear that she was highly critical of the deal throughout her two year term of office at the IC. She was especially concerned that the exclusivity of the relationship might have the effect of creating a monopoly in the provision of health data within the private sector and that proper procurement procedures had not been followed.

“In these circumstances and given the extent of the negotiations prior to my arrival, I felt I had no effective alternative but to work very hard on modification to the joint venture agreement to achieve the best outcome for the public sector,” she says.

When the joint venture was eventually investigated by the Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC), she says she sought to defend the arrangements as far as possible.

Shortly before the PAC’s report was published Professor Lievesley’s employment with the IC was terminated despite having received a positive appraisal of her work. She signed a confidential compromise agreement on 4 July 2007.

She says in her affidavit: “At this time I had no knowledge of the existence or content of the PAC’s report on the joint venture which was subsequently published on 18 July 2007. I had some expectation that the PAC may be critical of what happened but had no expectation that its criticisms would be as severe as they turned out to be.”

The close proximity of her departure and the publication of the PAC report led to media reports, including one published E-Health Insider and another in the Times, which linked the two events.

Professor Lievesley says she believes that the DH intended this outcome.

“This is particularly unfair to me, given that I had internally raised a number of concerns in relation to the joint venture and its operation,” she says.

“I did not and could not have known at that time the extent to which I would be vilified and my reputation damaged by the implication that I had been responsible for the arrangements in relation to Dr Foster,” she says, adding that the IC had ignored requests to publicly set the record straight.

She concludes: “It is ironic that my reputation should have been sullied when I was actually trying to uphold the principles of proper and ethical access to information and to promote its sound interpretation. I contend that it has been in the interests of the DH and the chairman of the IC to let me be the scapegoat for the joint venture decision and that they have failed to protect me adequately.”

Professor Lievesley has gone to the employment tribunal to attempt to revoke the confidential deal she signed on her departure from the IC. The tribunal reserved judgment; its decision will be announced later.

The IC issued a statement: “We can confirm that we are in tribunal proceedings. However these are at an early stage and the Tribunal Service first needs to determine whether or not there is case to answer. No evidence has been presented, tested or otherwise challenged in the tribunal so far. As legal proceedings are underway we are not able to comment further at this stage.

“The Information Centre’s joint venture with Dr Foster to form Dr Foster Intelligence was designed to harness private sector dynamism, efficiency and effectiveness to public sector expertise and ethics, in the health informatics field – a critical element of developing a more responsive health service.

“Dr Foster Intelligence provides the NHS with the information tools it needs to improve the quality of patient care and has done so with great success: more than 75% of hospitals in the NHS, for example, use these tools to monitor performance. The quality of data provided is of the highest standard. The Department of Health and the Information Centre are committed to the development and growth of the informatics field and believe that the Dr Foster Intelligence venture is a positive addition to the sector’s offering."

A spokesperson for the Department of Health said: "The Department and the Information Centre sought appropriate legal and professional advice throughout the planning and negotiation of the joint venture and followed this advice at each stage. The Information Centre has, throughout its existence, taken careful steps to seek to ensure that there is equal and fair access to data for all competitors of Dr Foster Intelligence, so as not to afford Dr Foster Intelligence any advantage."

E-Health Insider asked Dr Foster for a comment on the case but had not received a response by the time this article went online.