133 Molesworth Street
PO Box 5013
Wellington 6140
16 June 2020
New Zealand
+64 4 496 200
Amy S Van Wey Lovatt
By email:
[FYI request #12922 email]
Ref:
H202003922
Dear Ms Van Wey Lovatt
Response to your request for official information
Thank you for your request of 29 May 2020 under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act)
for:
“Incident reporting by DHB - standards, requirements, policies
Request 1:
Please describe the best practice for a DHB to document any unlawful acts, such
as acts which are consistent with crimes under the Crimes Act, or incidents, which
have the potential to cause harm to a patient or DHB employee (i.e., internal
reports, eye-witness sworn statements, CCTV footage, etc.).
Request 2:
To which agency or agencies must DHB’s report unlawful acts, such as acts which
are consistent with crimes under the Crimes Act, which are committed by either
DHB employees, members of the DHB governance, or members of the public.
Request 3:
To which agency or agencies must DHB’s report incidents, which have the
potential to cause harm to a patient or DHB employee.
Request 4:
Impersonation of a physician is fraud, and thus a crime. Further, the impersonation
of a physician in a medical setting would be consistent with an incident which has
the potential to cause harm to a patient. I request, for each DHB, the total number
of incidents involving an allegation that a member of the public had impersonated
a physician, between 1 May 2019 and 31 August 2019, and in the event there
were such incidents reported, the date of the alleged incident, the names of the
agencies the incidents were reported to, and a description of the evidence
provided to support the al egation of the incident.
Request 5:
Unauthorised access, by a patient, to secure and restricted areas which require
employee key-card access, such as surgical theatres and pathology laboratories,
where diagnostic and biohazardous material are kept, would be an incident which
has the potential to cause harm to a patient or DHB employee. Such an incident
has the potential to be a crime, if it involved breaking and entering or theft of an
employee key-card. I request, for each DHB, the total number of incidents
involving an allegation that a member of the public had gained unauthorised
access to a surgical theatre or pathology laboratory, between 1 May 2019 and 13
August 2019, and in the event there were such incidents reported, the date of the
alleged incident, the names of the agencies the incidents were reported to, and a
description of the evidence provided to support the allegation of the incident.
Request 6:
According to the MoH standards and legal precedent, patients’ medical records
are confidential and access is restricted to the purpose in which they were
obtained (for the care and treatment of the patient) and may only be accessed
with the patients consent. Please refer to HISO 10064 and the Health Information
Privacy Code 1994]. MoH standards (HISO 10029:2015 Health Information
Security Framework) requires DHB’s to take steps to protect against re-routing or
interception of private (email) communications, as the interception of private
communications is a crime under section 216B of the Crimes Act. I request, for
each DHB, the total number of incidents involving an allegation that a DHB
employee had engaged in the interception of private email communications
between a patient and a DHB employee, between 1 January 2019 and 29 May
2020, and in the event there were such incidents reported, the dates of the
incidents, the names of the agencies the incidents were reported to, a description
of the evidence provided to support the allegation of the incident, and the outcome
of the investigation into the incidents (e.g., District or High Court Case Number,
Privacy Commissioner ruling, Ombudsman decision, Human Rights Tribunal
ruling, etc.).”
A response in relation to parts 1, 2 and 3 of your request is outlined below.
There is no best practice for a district health board (DHB) to document any acts as
described in your request. There is also no prescribed list of agencies that DHBs are
required to contact to report unlawful acts. As Crown Entities, the DHB’s accountability for
managing appropriate policies and processes is contained in the ‘Operational Policy
Framework’ (OPF).
The OPF is a schedule to the DHB Crown Funding Agreement that sets out specific
legislative requirements, business rules and policy/guideline principles for DHBs to
adhere to. For your reference, the 2019/20 OPF is publicly available at the following link:
https://nsfl.health.govt.nz/accountability/operational-policy-framework-0/operational-
policy-framework-201920. On 12 June 2020, parts 4, 5 and 6 were transferred to all DHBs in accordance with
section 14 of the Act. You can expect a response from the DHBs in due course.
You have the right under section 28 of the Act to ask the Ombudsman to review any
decisions made in your request for information.
Please note that this response, with your personal details removed, may be published on the
Ministry website.
Yours sincerely
Michelle Arrowsmith
Deputy Director-General
DHB Performance, Support and Infrastructure
