Dear DHB,

I am a New Zealand citizen, which is demonstrated by the fact that the MoH has already confirmed my citizenship prior to responding to my OIA requests (or a google search of my name).

The Royal College of Pathologists Australasia has a policy titled "Provision of second opinions with particular reference to morphological examination", which addresses the best practice with regards to referral for second and subsequent opinion of pathology specimens.

Request 1:
I respectfully request your DHB's policy on second opinions requested by a third party who is a medical practitioner currently involved in the medical care of the patient from whom the pathological material was originally obtained.

Request 2:
In the event that your DHB deviates from the aforementioned RCPA policy, I request an explanation for why your DHB deviates from best practice.

Please note, my request does not reflect the standard of care provided at your DHB, but is to ascertain whether there is consistent adherence to RCPA best practice amongst all NZ DHBs.

Yours faithfully,

Amy S Van Wey Lovatt

Dear Elaine Keenan (ADHB),

I would like to thank you for your response to my OIA request, but I note that the response I received is incomplete.

You mention that ADHB does not have a policy regarding requests by third party providers for second opinions of pathology specimens.

Request 1:
To be clear, does this mean that ADHB does not follow the RCPA policy regarding such requests?

Even if there is not a written policy, ADHB must have a standard practice.

Request 2:
I respectfully request a description of ADHB's standard practice regarding requests by third party providers for second opinions of pathology specimens.

Request 3:
In the event that ADHB's standard practice is inconsistent with the RCPA policy, I respectfully request an explanation for why ADHB deviates from the professional standard set out by the RCPA policy.

Yours sincerely,

Amy S Van Wey Lovatt

Dear Elaine Keenan (ADHB),

This is a gentle reminder that I am still waiting for the information I requested in March 2020, as the response I received from ADHB in April was incomplete. I think it would be quite helpful if the respondent was the same employee who handled the response to my request: Best Practice: Archiving, Storage, Biobanking of Human Tissue for Diagnostic Purposes, as that response was the best I have received from ADHB.

Yours sincerely,

Amy S Van Wey Lovatt

Dear Elaine Keenan (ADHB),

Thank you very much for the response dated 22 June 2020 and submitted to FYI.org.nz on 30 June 2020. I am bit concerned that you mentioned that the response had been emailed to me. I have not provided you with my email address, and there was no posting on FYI.org.nz on 22 June 2020. Perhaps the response was emailed to someone else inadvertently.

Thank you again.

Yours sincerely,

Amy S Van Wey Lovatt