Policy on requests from third party providers of pathology specimens for second opinion
Amy S Van Wey Lovatt (Account suspended) made this Official Information request to Nelson Marlborough District Health Board
Response to this request is long overdue. By law Nelson Marlborough District Health Board should have responded by now (details and exceptions). The requester can complain to the Ombudsman.
From: Amy S Van Wey Lovatt (Account suspended)
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
From: OIA Request NMDHB
Nelson Marlborough District Health Board
Dear Amy
Re: Official Information Act request – Policy on requests from third party
providers of pathology specimens for second opinion
The Nelson Marlborough District Health Board acknowledges receipt of your
request for Information under the Official Information Act 1982 (“the
Act”), received on 23 March 2020.
Your request has been forwarded to the appropriate person/service for
response within 20 working days of receipt, and if we are unable to
respond to your request by 22 April 2020 we will notify you of an
extension of that timeframe.
Consistent with the purpose of the Act, the letter notifying you of the
decision on your request will confirm if we intend to publish the
information contained in the response online, with your
personal/identifying information redacted.
We will endeavour to respond to your request as soon as reasonably
practicable.
Best Regards
Nelson Marlborough District Health Board | Private Bag 18 | Nelson 7040
DISCLAIMER: This electronic message together with any attachments is
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, do not copy,
disclose or use the contents in any way.
Please also advise us by return e-mail that you have received the message
and then please destroy. NMDHB is not responsible for any changes made to
this message and / or
any attachments after sending by NMDHB. We use virus scanning software
but exclude all liability for viruses or anything similar in this email or
any attachment.
[1]nmh icon
From: Amy S Van Wey Lovatt
[mailto:[FOI #12510 email]]
Sent: Sunday, 22 March 2020 4:32 AM
To: OIA Request NMDHB <[email address]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Policy on requests from third
party providers of pathology specimens for second opinion
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[2][FOI #12510 email]
Is [3][Nelson Marlborough District Health Board request email] the wrong address for Freedom of
Information requests to Nelson Marlborough District Health Board? If so,
please contact us using this form:
[4]https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[5]https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Visible links
2. mailto:[FOI #12510 email]
3. mailto:[Nelson Marlborough District Health Board request email]
4. https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
5. https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
From: OIA Request NMDHB
Nelson Marlborough District Health Board
Dear Amy
Re: Official Information Act request – Policy on requests from third party
providers of pathology specimens for second opinion
We refer to your official information request received by Nelson
Marlborough DHB on 23 March 2020.
The Official Information Act requires that we advise you of our decision
on your request no later than 20 working days after the day we received
your request. Unfortunately, it will not be possible to meet that time
limit and we are therefore writing to notify you of an extension of the
time of an additional 20 working days to make our decision, to 21 May
2020.
This extension is necessary because, and as specified under Section
15A(1)(b) of the Official Information Act 1982, ‘consultations necessary
to make a decision on the request are such that a proper response cannot
reasonably be made within the original time limit’ by the necessary
people.
It has recently been a very busy time for us.
On behalf of the responding services, we will endeavour to respond to your
request as soon as reasonably practicable.
You have the right to seek an investigation by the Ombudsman of this
decision. Information about how to make a complaint is available at
[1]www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or free phone 0800 802 602.
Nelson Marlborough District Health Board | Private Bag 18 | Nelson 7040 |
[2]www.nmdhb.govt.nz
DISCLAIMER: This electronic message together with any attachments is
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, do not copy,
disclose or use the contents in any way.
Please also advise us by return e-mail that you have received the message
and then please destroy. NMDHB is not responsible for any changes made to
this message and / or
any attachments after sending by NMDHB. We use virus scanning software
but exclude all liability for viruses or anything similar in this email or
any attachment.
[3]nmh icon
From: Amy S Van Wey Lovatt
[mailto:[FOI #12510 email]]
Sent: Sunday, 22 March 2020 4:32 AM
To: OIA Request NMDHB <[email address]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Policy on requests from third
party providers of pathology specimens for second opinion
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[4][FOI #12510 email]
Is [5][Nelson Marlborough District Health Board request email] the wrong address for Freedom of
Information requests to Nelson Marlborough District Health Board? If so,
please contact us using this form:
[6]https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[7]https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Visible links
1. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url...
2. http://www.nmdhb.govt.nz/
4. mailto:[FOI #12510 email]
5. mailto:[Nelson Marlborough District Health Board request email]
6. https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
7. https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
From: OIA Request NMDHB
Nelson Marlborough District Health Board
Dear Amy
Please find attached the Nelson Marlborough DHB response to your Official
Information request regarding a policy on requests from third party
providers of pathology specimens for second opinion.
Nelson Marlborough District Health Board | Private Bag 18 | Nelson 7040 |
[1]www.nmdhb.govt.nz
DISCLAIMER: This electronic message together with any attachments is
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, do not copy,
disclose or use the contents in any way.
Please also advise us by return e-mail that you have received the message
and then please destroy. NMDHB is not responsible for any changes made to
this message and / or
any attachments after sending by NMDHB. We use virus scanning software
but exclude all liability for viruses or anything similar in this email or
any attachment.
[2]nmh icon
From: Amy S Van Wey Lovatt
[mailto:[FOI #12510 email]]
Sent: Sunday, 22 March 2020 4:32 AM
To: OIA Request NMDHB <[email address]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Policy on requests from third
party providers of pathology specimens for second opinion
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[3][FOI #12510 email]
Is [4][Nelson Marlborough District Health Board request email] the wrong address for Freedom of
Information requests to Nelson Marlborough District Health Board? If so,
please contact us using this form:
[5]https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[6]https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Visible links
1. http://www.nmdhb.govt.nz/
3. mailto:[FOI #12510 email]
4. mailto:[Nelson Marlborough District Health Board request email]
5. https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
6. https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
From: Amy S Van Wey Lovatt (Account suspended)
Dear OIA Request NMDHB,
I was very confused by your response. Even if your DHB contracts out pathology services, third party health practitioners would make requests directly to your DHB for pathology specimens as the DHB ultimately responsible for the tissue. Thus, to clarify:
Request 1: Does this mean your DHB has adopted the RCPA policy, which is the professional standard, for such requests given there is no written policy?
Request 2: If not, I respectfully request a description of your DHB's standard practice regarding such requests and in the event that your DHB's standard practice is NOT consistent with the RCPA policy, then an explanation for the deviation from the professional standards.
Request 3: You stated that the contracting agency has their own policy. Thus, I fail to understand why you did not include the policy in my request as clearly you have the policy at hand or know where to obtain it. I respectfully request you provide me with the aforementioned policy or transfer my OIA request to the appropriate agency, pursuant to section 14 of the OIA. To avoid any misunderstanding, when I refer to policy, I would also include any standard practice, written or unwritten.
Yours sincerely,
Amy S Van Wey Lovatt
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid requests for Official Information (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this requestAct on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Policy on requests from third party providers of pathology specimens for second opinion
To Counties Manukau District Health Board by Amy S Van Wey Lovatt (Account suspended)
Policy on requests from third party providers of pathology specimens for second opinion
To Whanganui District Health Board by Amy S Van Wey Lovatt (Account suspended)
Policy on requests from third party providers of pathology specimens for second opinion
To Hutt District Health Board by Amy S Van Wey Lovatt (Account suspended)
Policy on requests from third party providers of pathology specimens for second opinion
To Lakes District Health Board by Amy S Van Wey Lovatt (Account suspended)
Policy on requests from third party providers of pathology specimens for second opinion
To MidCentral District Health Board by Amy S Van Wey Lovatt (Account suspended)
Policy on requests from third party providers of pathology specimens for second opinion
To Northland District Health Board by Amy S Van Wey Lovatt (Account suspended)
Policy on requests from third party providers of pathology specimens for second opinion
To Auckland District Health Board by Amy S Van Wey Lovatt (Account suspended)
Policy on requests from third party providers of pathology specimens for second opinion
To South Canterbury District Health Board by Amy S Van Wey Lovatt (Account suspended)
Policy on requests from third party providers of pathology specimens for second opinion
To Bay of Plenty District Health Board by Amy S Van Wey Lovatt (Account suspended)
