Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Health debate -
Wednesday, 13 Jun 2018

General Scheme of the Patient Safety (Licensing) Bill: Discussion

The purpose of this morning's session is to meet officials from the Department of Health and representatives of the Health Information and Quality Authority, HIQA, as part of our pre-legislative scrutiny of the patient safety (licensing) Bill. On behalf of the committee, I welcome Dr. Tony Holohan, Dr. Kathleen MacLellan and Mr. David Keating from the Department of Health and Mr. Phelim Quinn, Ms Mary Dunnion and Dr. Máirín Ryan from HIQA. I apologise for keeping them outside for so long. We had a prolonged private session.

I wish to draw the witnesses' attention to the fact that virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Any opening statements they have made to the committee may be published on the committee's website after this meeting. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Dr. Holohan to make his opening statement.

Dr. Tony Holohan

I thank the committee for the opportunity to discuss this legislation. I am joined by Dr. Kathleen MacLellan, director of the patient safety office, and Mr. David Keating, principal officer in the patient safety office.

The legislation has been developed to facilitate the creation of a comprehensive, far reaching system of regulation to oversee all hospitals in the State, public and private, as well as providing the Minister for Health with powers to designate certain activities as carrying a sufficiently high risk as to warrant their providers also coming within the ambit of the new regime.

The committee's agreeing to undertake pre-legislative scrutiny will contribute significantly to our progression of this important legislation. As the committee is aware, the health service has been striving in recent years to place the safety of patients at the forefront of the work that is done. There have been a number of initiatives in this regard over the past decade, including the creation more than ten years ago of HIQA, which is also represented here this morning, and the updating of much of the legislation on the professional regulation of healthcare workers across individual professions. There is, however, something of a lacuna at present, whereby no specific legislation is in place on the operation of hospitals or other health service entities to minimum standards of clinical governance. The proposed legislation seeks to rectify this.

The Bill has been developed over the past number of years by officials in the Department and a working group made up of key stakeholders from the HSE, HIQA, the Private Hospitals Association and the Forum of Professional Regulatory Bodies. The introduction of a licensing system along the lines envisaged in the Bill was a key recommendation of the Madden report in 2008. While acute hospitals are currently subject to thematic monitoring by HIQA, the powers of HIQA in this regard are limited. The introduction of a system of licensing, however, will ensure that all hospitals, whether they are public or private, will operate to appropriate standards and will have the requisite governance arrangements in place to enable the delivery of the safest possible service. We will, therefore, be able to have assurances, which we cannot fully have at present, on the patient safety operating frameworks that will need to be in place in all hospitals. Such a framework will require management support and buy-in, a critical element of patient safety as the committee is aware, as well as patient engagement and accountability. Clinical audit, as well as implementation of clinical guidelines, will be regarded as an integral part of this overall approach.

It should, however, also be acknowledged that the delivery of healthcare is an inherently risky activity and it is inevitable that things will go wrong. As we say, the science is not perfect, the people are not perfect and the processes are not perfect so risk is part of the everyday delivery of healthcare. For example, studies of adverse events worldwide have demonstrated that between 4% and 16% of patients admitted to hospital may experience one or more adverse events, up to half of which may be preventable. In work published last year, the OECD estimated that more than 15% of hospital expenditure goes towards correcting technically iatrogenic, or preventable, medical mistakes or infections that people catch in hospitals across its member countries. Expenditure in this country in excess of €350 million is attributed by the State Claims Agency to healthcare patient safety claims for the years from 2012 to 2016.

The ability of the Irish health service to learn from mistakes and system errors also requires improvement. We have, as the committee is only too well aware, seen similar issues emerge across many hospitals after an incident has occurred, often related to weaker than desired governance and leadership. This legislation is part of our system-level efforts to respond to this situation but on its own it will not be enough, and in and of itself it will not provide an immediate solution to some of these issues. In considering this, it is important to recognise it is part of a wider programme of reform, being driven primarily by the patient safety office in the Department of Health, which I mentioned.

There are a variety of other initiatives in this regard, including the publication of monthly patient safety statements by all hospitals in the State, which started originally as patient safety statements relating to maternity services, the establishment of a national patient advocacy service, the introduction of what we call a patient safety surveillance system, the measurement of national patient experience, the extension of the clinical effectiveness agenda comprising clinical audit and implementation of national clinical guidelines, the roll-out of a code of conduct for health service staff, the publication of annual reports of the national healthcare quality reporting system the next report of which is imminent, and the planned creation of a national advisory council for patient safety.

In addition, as the committee is aware, Government approval has recently been secured to prepare a new patient safety Bill that will provide for mandatory open disclosure of serious reportable events. The Bill will also legislate for mandatory external notifications of incidents to the appropriate regulatory body for clinical audit, as well as the extension of HIQA's remit to the private hospital system. This legislation will build on the Civil Liability (Amendment) Act 2017, enacted towards the end of 2017, which will provide a framework for the operational delivery of open disclosure, the regulations of which will be signed before the end of June.

As I have mentioned, the licensing Bill will apply to both public and private hospitals. It will be an offence to operate a hospital without a licence. Concerns have been expressed in the recent past about some private providers of cosmetic surgery services, for example. We have had some direct experiences with providers that may not be operating to the expected standard. This legislation will give us the capacity to respond to such situations. We have simply not had that capacity up to now. As I have said, the Bill will apply to designated high-risk activities which are conducted in other settings, such as private clinics. The nature of the activity, as opposed to where it takes place, will determine the requirement for the licence. Such activities might include the use of general anaesthesia. As a result of recent experiences, screening services will also be included. While such activities do not carry significant risks in and of themselves, we are aware from what has happened with the CervicalCheck programme that the highest standards must apply. The activities to be designated will be determined after a full consultation process has been completed. That will be subject to change on a continuing basis, given the powers that the Minister will have conferred on him through this legislation.

HIQA will be the licensing authority. It will process applications for licences and monitor the performance of licence holders. Regulations to be signed by the Minister will be used to establish the standards that licence holders will be required to meet. The regulations will be enforced by HIQA. This will ensure a level playing field across public and private services. They will be closely aligned with the existing national standards for safer and better healthcare. Where it is necessary in the interests of public safety, HIQA will have at its disposal a series of measures, up to and including the cancellation of a licence, which can be utilised. HIQA will have the power to attach conditions to licences and to require improvement plans to be submitted. The heads of the proposed Bill provide for a number of other offences and for the imposition of fines or terms of imprisonment, or both, depending on the nature of the offences. In line with the recommendations in my 2014 report on the deaths of babies at Portlaoise hospital, a licensed provider must prepare a patient safety statement with information on clinical activity, outcomes and patient safety incidents. Such statements must be updated monthly, published and made available to those who use these services. Fees will be set by the Minister and will be payable with licence applications and applications to remove or vary a condition of the licence. An annual levy is also proposed, with the intention that the system will be self-funding to the greatest extent possible.

The aim of the licensing legislation is to ensure health providers in Ireland are operating to minimum core standards so we can all have confidence in the clinical governance, safety, quality and effectiveness of the services being provided in the public and private systems. As a key element of the wider patient safety systems approach we are bringing forward, we will look to have a greater degree of awareness of issues that arise within the system. We will seek to provide assurances that patients are being informed of errors as they arise and that such errors are being reported appropriately to regulators. Improved complaints and advocacy processes are being developed to assist patients who are unsatisfied with their experiences. Ultimately, all the data generated through these activities should be used to provide insights for managers and clinicians within the health service regarding how to improve their own services before the cycle begins again. I hope the committee will welcome this initiative. I will be very happy to take any questions that members may have.

I thank Dr. Holohan. I ask Mr. Quinn to make his opening statement.

Mr. Phelim Quinn

On behalf of HIQA, I thank the committee for the opportunity to address it. I am joined by Ms Mary Dunnion, who is the chief inspector of social services and director of regulation; and Dr. Máirín Ryan, who is the deputy chief executive and director of health technology assessment. We are pleased to be here to discuss the general scheme of the patient safety (licensing) Bill. HIQA has 11 years of experience of regulating and monitoring Ireland's health and social care services. Over that time, we have developed our knowledge of systems and models of international best practice. Therefore, we are well placed to provide observations and advice on the significance of this legislation.

Before I discuss the main provisions of the general scheme, it is important to explain HIQA's current role in the healthcare sector. Although HIQA is known as the State's health and social care regulator, we do not have the power to regulate public or private hospitals. Our remit does not extend beyond monitoring the safety and quality of HSE-funded hospitals against the national standards for safer and better healthcare. We monitor a number of key areas of risk, such as medication safety, antibiotic resistance, infection prevention and control, nutrition and hydration. We have conducted full service reviews against the national standards. Under section 9 of the Health Act 2007, we can conduct statutory investigations if there is a concern about the health and welfare of people using health and social care services. Similar to our monitoring function, the recommendations HIQA issues on completion of investigations are not legally binding. We do not have the power to oversee or insist on the implementation of our recommendations which, in the past, have gone unheeded.

I emphasise that HIQA has no role in the monitoring or regulation of the private healthcare sector. In effect, there is no statutory oversight of private hospitals in Ireland. Any organisation or individual is free to establish a private facility without restriction. Last month, the Government approved a different patient safety Bill - based on a previous Health Information and Patient Safety Bill - which will extend the remit of HIQA to private hospitals and provide for mandatory notification of serious patient safety incidents to HIQA or the Mental Health Commission, as appropriate. It is important to be clear that even under the provisions of this new Bill, HIQA will not have any enforcement powers, which will make Ireland an outlier in healthcare regulation internationally. The new patient safety Bill will simply extend to the private sector our current powers to set standards, monitor compliance and undertake investigations. My concern is that when this legislation is enacted, the public may be of the impression that the private healthcare sector is now regulated and, as a result, they, as patients, are protected. Interestingly, a Red C poll conducted for HIQA last year showed that 83% of people believe private hospitals in Ireland are already subject to regulation.

I will discuss the general scheme of the patient safety (licensing) Bill as it relates to HIQA. The Bill sets out the legislative framework for the introduction of a mandatory system of licensing for public and private hospitals and other providers of high-risk healthcare activities, which are known as "designated activities". Under the Bill, as the licensing authority HIQA will process licence applications, monitor the performance of licence holders against regulations and standards and take enforcement measures to address non-compliance where there is a risk to the health or safety of the public. Under the proposed scheme, HIQA will grant a licence to an applicant when a number of criteria have been satisfied. When HIQA is considering a licence application, it will assess whether the licensed provider and the person in charge are fit and proper persons. Persons in charge are nominated by the licensed provider and are described in the general scheme as the person with responsibility for managing the service on a day-to-day basis. While HIQA must be satisfied that the person in charge is a fit and proper person for this role, the Bill does not explicitly outline the specifics. It appears that this judgment is to be made at HIQA's discretion. In the absence of any statutory underpinning of hospital groups, the licensed provider in a statutory hospital will be the HSE or a voluntary organisation funded under a section 38 arrangement. In the case of private hospitals, it is likely that the licensed provider will be the body corporate - the legal entity that owns the hospital. We understand that in situations of sustained non-compliance in an individual public hospital, enforcement will centre on the HSE directorate as the licensed provider. Therefore, clarity on the status of the legal entity to be licensed is essential.

When determining whether a licensed provider of a private facility is a fit and proper person, HIQA will need to assess the character and competence of the licensed provider as well as all of its principal officers. Principal officers are defined as directors, secretaries or members of the management committee. This reasonable measure is broadly in line with how HIQA currently assesses the fitness of providers in designated centres. However, the Bill explicitly precludes the regulator from assessing the character and competence of the principal officers of the HSE or voluntary hospitals. This means HIQA will assess the fitness of the HSE or the voluntary organisation as a whole and will not be required to assess the character and competence of its principal officers. In effect, this approach will treat private providers differently from public or voluntary providers and will limit the regulator's power to assess the fitness of individual managers in public hospitals. It could result in circumstances in which the oversight of governance arrangements and competence of decision makers in public or voluntary hospitals is less rigorous. Clear lines of accountability are essential to ensure hospitals, which are large and complex organisations, are well governed and provide good-quality and safe care to the public. Our experience has shown that many failures in the provision of health and social care can be traced back to poor governance and a lack of accountability.

Applying different approaches to the regulation of private versus public and voluntary providers, specifically in terms of governance and financial capability, could lead to a lower standard of care in public and voluntary hospitals compared to private hospitals, and could be open to legal challenge by private providers and patients.

An additional point to note in this context is the requirement to assess the financial viability of the service provider. According to the Bill, licensed providers will be required to submit evidence of their financial capability to carry on the business of a hospital. The Health Information and Quality Authority, HIQA, will assess the ability of the intended licensee to meet the costs of carrying on the hospital or the designated activity and also the licensee’s insurance indemnity provisions and other financial assurance instruments to cover liabilities.

HIQA welcomes this measure, and it is something we advocated for in our discussions with the Department of Health. However, this test of financial capability only applies to private providers, not to Health Service Executive, HSE, and voluntary organisations. There may be an argument for excluding the HSE from such a test as it is fully funded by the State; however, it would be prudent to require voluntary providers to also prove their financial capability.

In this context, it is crucial that legislators recognise that healthcare is continually evolving and that current service models may not be suitable in the future. We believe reform of the way HIQA registers and regulates services is needed to respond to the various existing and emerging models of care in Ireland.

I am sure many members would question the readiness of the acute hospital sector to meet the regulations and standards that will arise from the proposed licensing system. When independent regulation was introduced into the social care sector, significant investment in many nursing homes and residential centres for people with disabilities was required to make them compliant with the regulations. It is reasonable to expect that the hospital sector will be no different.

I note that the Department of Health proposes to carry out a regulatory impact assessment, RIA, to examine the costs and benefits of introducing a licensing framework. The results of this RIA must be examined closely as it is likely to give an indication of the level of public investment needed to bring the hospital sector up to the required standards.

There has been a good deal of discussion in recent years about reforms to our health service. The Sláintecare report and the health service capacity review both looked at our future needs and, if implemented, will require significant levels of funding. This level of investment, coupled with the resources required to meet licensing regulations, could represent a massive commitment of public funds.

Based on our research on healthcare regulation internationally and our experience of social care regulation, HIQA strongly supports the proposal to introduce a system of licensing to the healthcare sector to bring Ireland in line with our OECD peers. HIQA’s experience in the social care sector has shown that regulation drives improvement, and we welcome the proposals contained in this Bill. Retaining the status quo is simply not a viable option. Nonetheless, a number of issues still need to be ironed out. Clarity on the legal status of the licensed provider is necessary, as is a greater emphasis in legislation on effective governance and clear accountability at the level of the provider.

The Department of Health must be realistic about resourcing HIQA as the regulator of hospitals and other designated activities. Hospitals and clinics providing healthcare services are complex organisations, different from the types of services HIQA encounters in social care regulation. The proposed model of regulation will require competent and robust assessment by an adequate, skilled and knowledgeable workforce, not only in the area of front-line inspection but also in terms of managerial, administrative and technical support.

I wish to thank members of the committee for inviting us here this morning. We would be happy to answer any questions they may wish to ask.

I thank Mr. Quinn. We will open the meeting to our members. The first contributor is Deputy Margaret Murphy O'Mahony.

The witnesses are welcome and I thank them for coming in this morning. I have two questions, the first of which is for Dr. Holohan. Why is HIQA's position limited to acute public hospitals? He stated that there will be assurances regarding patient safety. What standards of safety are in place currently and how are they being monitored? He also stated that high risk activities such as the use of general anaesthesia will be included and that that is likely to include screening services. Surely nothing should be precluded and all decisions relating to this should be in place now given that the Bill is published.

My second question is for Mr. Quinn. He advised that licenceholders will be monitored. How will that work? Does he believe it is wise to allow judgment at HIQA's discretion? Should guidelines be in place from the outset?

The witnesses might bank the questions. I will call Deputy Durkan and we can then deal with the answers.

My question on the degree to which the public and the private sector are monitored has already been asked. Why exclude the private sector from the supervision and monitoring that is required? That leads to my next question. If the private sector is excluded, I cannot ask for a comparison between the number of incidents reported from the private sector and the public sector, which would be crucial information for the purposes of this exercise, so I will ask the question in a different way. From the cases already appearing in the public arena from the public and private sectors, it must be possible to have some idea as to where the incidents are originating, even with the limited supervision taking place now.

Regarding the procedures in hospitals, from the experiences and the litigation to date, has it been found possible to take steps to the operation of various hospital inpatient or outpatient clinics or whatever the case may be to reduce the degree to which accidents or incidents can take place?

The next question relates to the costs associated with that. It appears to me that the costs arising from litigation are rising rapidly. That may or may not be true but it appears to me to be so. What procedures are being followed? For example, would it not be better to examine a case in a without prejudice setting to see what can be resolved without necessarily going through the entire litigation process? I have nothing against litigation but if the problem can be resolved quicker and as effectively, it should be followed.

Finally, from the cases already referred to that have been resolved in the courts to the satisfaction of the offended party, what percentage of the total of those were resolved on the steps of the courts without judgment in the formal way? Is that information known? It should be known. It is a statistic that should be readily available. Of the settlement costs accruing to the complainants, what are the associated legal costs? I ask that question to determine if it would not be better to have a resolution process dealing with these cases that would short-circuit the long legal process and the payment of legal fees and try to accommodate the complainant, not accepting liability that could be abused in the future, which could be examined? I would like information on those issues. I have raised questions about them many times in the House previously. I believe we have come to a juncture now where it is imperative that we learn from past mistakes, put in place measures to ensure we do not find ourselves in that position again and that the complaints are dealt with in a way that is cost effective and efficient and meets the requirements of both sides to the best of our ability.

Ms Mary Dunnion

I thank Deputy Murphy O'Mahony for her questions. To answer the one about how one would monitor, there is a benchmark, the national standards for safer better healthcare which exist already and are mandated. The monitoring activity around issuing a licence would be aligned to what the licensing regulations will be. Dr. Holohan spoke about them and they will be determined by the Department of Health. The normal process thereafter is that we will monitor compliance with those regulations. There is nothing secret in that because that monitoring activity will have beside it guidance for people and it has a judgment framework, which shows how to make the judgment on the compliance. One would welcome the concept of licensing in healthcare because we can see its benefits in social services. It is important because there will be a huge engagement with the sector first. While public hospitals are used to seeing the Health Information and Quality Authority, HIQA, in a certain way in the context of monitoring, the private sector has no exposure to it. There will be engagement with people to bring them to an understanding of the approaches we take. Any monitoring activity is coupled with guidance in terms of documentary evidence and a dialogue between the providers and us. Then, so that somebody does not get a surprise, we always engage at the end of an inspection with those responsible for delivering the service in order that they know what we have seen, found and what our judgments are. How we make the judgment and what is expected when that judgment is made is very clear in the legislative framework and in our communications with providers. That is compounded by our experience which evolves all the time and we, as regulators, are maturing because we have been here for 11 years. The greatest learning is that the people we inspect understand how we make the judgments. That is always available.

Mr. Phelim Quinn

I will address one point that Deputy Durkan made. Our organisation does not have a remit or the competence to deal with the issues of litigation as he has described. However, some of his points looked to the prevention of some patient safety issues in our hospitals. The evolution of regulation in health and social care services in Ireland, and internationally, has proved to be a mechanism whereby patient safety incidents can be prevented and the education part of the regulation cycle helps to ensure improvements in health and social care services. In his opening statement Dr. Holohan referred to a range of initiatives being promoted through the National Patient Safety Office. We work in partnership with several of those initiatives. The national patient experience survey, the health technology assessment, the development of standards and regulation all play their part in creating a safer environment and promoting a higher quality service. That is HIQA's involvement in prevention. I do not know if colleagues from the Department would want to add to that.

Dr. Tony Holohan

I will reply to some of the questions. In response to Deputy Murphy O'Mahony's first question on why we are excluding the private, we see what we are describing here as ultimately a full set of licences that will apply to public and private. The step we are proposing along the way, as part of the proposed patient safety Bill recently approved by Government, is to pull out the patient safety parts of what was the health information and patient safety legislation which was considered by this committee. The committee made substantive observations about the non-patient safety parts of that legislation and recommended it be broken into separate components. That is happening now and the patient safety legislation is moving forward under its own steam and will move faster as a consequence.

One part of that will be to extend HIQA's existing powers. That is fully recognising the point made earlier by the chief executive officer, that we know those powers are not adequate. It is a stepping stone to take us some way towards being able to address issues that currently arise but we are not at all saying we are satisfied that it is enough. Licensing ultimately will be the full set. It will take time to get to a point where that legislation is enacted, where the regulations are in place, where the system is prepared in the way that Ms Dunnion described, for that to be fully operational. Our proposal is that we extend of HIQA's existing powers, even though we know that is not the full ideal. One example, which the committee may recall because it considered it, is the case of the defective breast implants some years ago. A group of women dealt with completely in the private hospital system found themselves unable to seek any form of engagement or redress. This brought home the extent to which the public is vulnerable in that situation and the limited powers we have other than to simply appeal, as we did, to reasonable people, who turned out not to be reasonable, and to the providers of those services asking them to respond to, and fulfil their duty of care to, those women they had brought into their services. People were harmed and exposed as a consequence. The extension of HIQA's existing powers, although not ideal, will allow us to address some of those kinds of issues. Cosmetic surgery comes up from time to time as an issue when people seek services outside the public system without protection.

The Deputy also asked a broad question about patient safety. Without giving a full treatise, it is important to point out that everything we do in patient safety is not just a question of regulation. There are other systems of regulation. The professions in most of the major healthcare providers, such as the Medical Council or the Nursing and Midwifery Board, are either currently regulated or new professions being brought into the Health and Social Care Professionals Council, CORU, and we are continually extending the powers and modernising those frameworks. A great deal of work has been done on audit and clinical guidelines. We have established that the national level of capacity for the Minister to approve national clinical guidelines on major issues and many of the recommendations coming out of important reports such as the Halappanavar report, the material we prepared on the Midland Regional Hospital Portlaoise and further recommendations arising from previous HIQA reports, have led to major national clinical guidelines being developed with the aim, or in the interest, of creating a common standard. One example is the idea of an early warning score to allow patients to be monitored in a hospital environment so that those who are deteriorating can be picked up. The international evidence is very clear that this can have an important impact on in-hospital mortality. We now have that national standard in this country. Through these means we are giving ourselves a stronger mandate to be able to support and assure the implementation of those standards because, even though we have mandated that standard, I could not sit here, hand on heart, and say this is being fully implemented and in the best way possible in every clinical situation in which it should be. Giving ourselves the means of being able to see and assess that is part of what this legislation aims to do.

We have increased the range of reporting and referred to the patient experience survey. There is a range of other matters such as reporting of serious reportable events, which now forms part of the monthly public relations reports of the HSE. We will in time make all of that mandatory as part of our mandatory disclosure. There is already an administrative system providing those reports in public and we have mentioned our national healthcare quality reporting system. These all involve increasing the level of reporting and transparency. It is not easy for the healthcare system to put itself in a situation where it puts more and more of this kind of information out into the public domain because, of course, it creates questions. It is a necessary part we believe of engaging with the good and the not so good in the delivery of healthcare and not putting our heads in the sand. The first step in improving patient safety, as in most other aspects of life, is acknowledgement and acceptance of the scale of the problem we have in the first instance. Every country that has been trying to do this has had this experience. Much has been said, and we have had an opportunity to talk to this committee on many occasions, about open disclosure and we can talk more about that. We have a national open disclosure policy and we are supporting that with legislation to create the safe space and mandatory reporting of serious reportable events.

That has been done because, as I have stated, the only thing in which we are interested from a health system point of view is full, proper and well structured open disclosure in respect of every clinical incident. Patients simply must know, and that has been our policy position all along.

Patient involvement is another key element. We have increasingly involved patients in the development of policy, the oversight of its implementation and a range of other measures. Without boring the committee with all the details, I will cite some examples. There was direct patient involvement in the development of the cancer and maternity strategies. The patient experience survey is an example of that. Two patients were directly involved in the committee overseeing work done in the recent past following an escalation from HIQA in regard to the national management by the HSE of serious infection by carbapenemase producing enterobacteriaceae, CPE, which are a type of superbug. It is not always easier to have patients in the room when those decisions are being made but it is better and it works. I offer those examples as a flavour of our efforts in this area. We do not say that all our eggs are in the basket of regulation or the basket of licensing but it is an important additional strengthening of our implementation and oversight.

On the question of whether all activities will be licensed, the idea is that, without ruling anything out in the future, what everybody would understand to be hospital-type activities will be licensed. Activities that do not take place within hospitals but are the kind of things that one would expect hospitals to undertake will be the subject of requirements for licensing. That is why I mention things such as general anaesthesia. If a person gets a general anaesthetic in a non-hospital environment, the fact that they are having a general anaesthetic generates------

It is to do with the procedure.

Dr. Tony Holohan

Yes. For example, a primary care setting would not require a licence as things stand but if it were to start doing work involving one of the designated activities, it would require a licence for that activity. If it started to do work under general anaesthesia in a primary care setting, for whatever reason, that would require a licence, and that is our intention in that regard.

I hope I have dealt with Deputy Durkan's first question, regarding the exclusion of the private sector. I think Mr. Quinn addressed some of the question regarding incidents and litigation. We can get information to answer some of Deputy Durkan's specific questions on the proportion of cases because the State Claims Agency has been asked for and is providing that information to other committees which are considering similar questions. I do not wish to mislead the committee. The vast majority of cases dealt with by the State Claims Agency do not go to full hearing. I can obtain the figures in that regard for the Deputy and we will write back separately to the committee.

I am specifically interested in the number of cases that have gone to a full hearing as opposed to those settled on the steps of court.

Dr. Tony Holohan

Yes. We are happy to come back and clarify that question.

The Deputy's question on costs and rising costs is a fair one. I point out in a general sense that the consideration of litigation is of importance and that we look at trends. There has been a significant trend, in particular in regard to birth injuries. The proportion of State Claims Agency claims relating to obstetric activities is very high and is increasing in this country.

The so-called patient safety surveillance was mentioned in passing in the opening statement. It arises from work we did in Portlaoise, where it became clear that in respect of that hospital there were different pieces of information in different parts of the overall health system. Some of the regulators, such as the Medical Council, HIQA, the HSE or the State Claims Agency had dealt or had engagement with issues there. Different agencies at a national level had small pieces of the jigsaw but nobody was putting the whole picture together. The claims experience of a service is one part of the picture. The Department is trying to build and strengthen that so-called patient safety surveillance system so that we have a profiling of all the pieces of the jigsaw at any one point in time in respect of every hospital. That is part of the function of the patient safety office. If an incident occurs in a certain setting, one is able to put that into a better context than might previously been the case because one now has a better understanding of the care and practice in that setting. Claims and understanding the claims experience is one of the aspects which feed into that system of patient surveillance.

Is open disclosure practised in all hospitals?

Dr. Tony Holohan

Open disclosure should be practised in all hospitals, yes.

That does not answer my question.

Dr. Tony Holohan

I know it does not. I cannot assure the Deputy that it is being practised in every setting in which it should. I have had too many direct experiences of situations where not only was open disclosure not taking place but patients were actively being lied to in certain situations. That has been identified in work that we have done. We still have a journey to go to be able to say that open disclosure is occurring in the manner it ought in all settings in our healthcare system.

It does not happen in all settings.

Dr. Tony Holohan

It does not. I am not trying to qualify or justify that but I am not aware of a healthcare system of which it can be said that that is fully the case and there are many reasons for that. From our point of view and what we are trying to support through open disclosure, open disclosure is not the ticking of a box and telling somebody a piece of information so that it cannot be said that they were not told. Rather, it is properly supporting a patient from the moment at which harm is recognised through fully helping him or her to deal with that and any consequences therefrom because his or her health can often be significantly impacted, sometimes in life-altering ways. All the international evidence is very clear that the sooner that disclosure takes place, the more constructive that discussion and the more likely that trust and confidence, particularly in the doctors, will be maintained, which reduces the risk of litigation. The international evidence is very clear in that regard.

I thank Dr. Holohan. I refer to the latter section of Mr. Quinn's statement, where he stated that clarity on the legal status of the licensing provider is necessary, as is a greater emphasis in legislation on effective governance and clear accountability at the level of the provider. I ask him to expand on that.

I assume that in his last paragraph he is calling for more resources because an expansion of licensing will require a substantial increase in personnel and resources for HIQA. I ask him to deal with those two items.

Mr. Phelim Quinn

As regards the issue of clarity on the status of a licence provider, we currently have a fledgling system of organisation of our hospitals and hospital groups, which aims to ensure a determination of the legal status of either the hospital group and-or the hospital. It is concerned with the identification of the licensed entity.

As regards the resources required by HIQA in respect of undertaking a new licensing function, it would be a large and complex sector. Front-line inspection activity would not be the only requirement. Deputy Durkan discussed statutory notifications and reporting. All regulation is reliant on information and intelligence. We need information in order to derive risk profiles from across the sector. It is not just information that we collect at the point of inspection but, also, that which we receive by way of statutory notification, complaints and unsolicited information from the public. Although we absolutely need resources in respect of the management and front-line assessment of services, we will also need technical and administrative support to help us in the receipt, risk assessment and administration of large pieces of information. Over the past year we have presented an indicative workforce plan based on the licensing system to the Department as well as other functions that have been assigned to HIQA into the coming months and years and we will continue to work with the Department in refining that workforce plan.

Dr. Kathleen MacLellan

I wish to address one or two points. We have worked closely with HIQA through our working group to look at the types of resources and requirements that will be required for HIQA to do this. It is important to note that this year we secured through the Estimates an increase of €3.5 million for HIQA to build on its functions over this year. That is a significant increase to allow it to start preparing and to take on new functions.

Our intention in this Bill is for the licensed entity to be as close to the hospital as possible. Hospitals are not established homogeneously across the public and private sectors. We will work with the Attorney General's office and drafters to pin all of it down through the general scheme. Internationally, it is felt that the closer a licensed entity is to the coalface of the delivery of a health service the better the processes.

Deputy Durkan mentioned clinical incidents and asked about the tracking of incidents across private and public hospitals. We support that. All hospitals are obligated to record all incidents, regardless of the level, on the national incident management system. This builds capacity and resources in the public hospital system but we do not have access to incident management across the private sector. However, as we move forward with the legislation we expect that the private sector will participate in the support systems by making the information available. As Dr. Holohan said, we are looking at an analysis of incidents across the system because while they are tragic, requiring some issues be managed for individual patients and families, they provide significant learning for the system. The international patient safety science field is about learning from patient safety incidents as quickly as possible, rather than over a year or two years, and acting as quickly as possible. This is something we need to focus on in our healthcare system.

As the chief medical officer said, we have introduced a number of national clinical guidelines on foot of major patient safety events. In addition to the early warning system, sepsis management has reduced mortality rates across all inpatients and the clinical handover is another clear patient safety measure. The patient safety licence system gives us a real opportunity to ensure these measures are fully integrated across the whole system so that the public can be reassured. Every month, patient safety statements will be published for everybody - the public, hospital staff and clinical governance within hospitals - to read.

We fully accept that we need to develop these systems much further within the private sector. We have engaged very strongly with the private sector on the national clinical effectiveness committee and the sector has agreed, in principle, to implement the national clinical guidelines. One of the current audits is of radiology and we have discussed how it can be implemented with both the private and public sector. The first clinical audit was the trauma audit and that has contributed to the development of trauma strategy.

The legislation is expanding licensing but it is not introducing elements of enforcement. HIQA can make recommendations on public hospitals but it does not have powers in enforcing those recommendations.

Mr. Phelim Quinn

The licensing Bill will have significant enforcement elements, with a stepped process ranging from the introduction of improvement and prohibition notices to the application of conditions on the licensee and the cancellation of licensing, as well as criminal offences for breaches of the legislation.

Dr. Tony Holohan

The next step, the patient safety Bill, will extend HIQA's existing powers and will extend the current powers into the private system. Licensing will bring all the attributes Mr. Quinn mentioned and HIQA will have a broad range of powers to act in both the public and private spheres.

I apologise for not being here earlier but I had to be in the Seanad for a Commencement matter. I have come across open disclosure on many occasions. If an incident occurs in which the medical team does not know exactly what went wrong, it can decide on an external review. However, I have seen cases where there was agreement as to who would carry out the review but where the HSE administration interfered and the review was still to be completed 18 months later. The medical people had a problem meeting the patients concerned because they did not have all the answers and they felt an independent medical review was the best way to get the correct information for those patients. How do we intend to manage situations whereby a medical team does not know exactly what went wrong and wants a second opinion so that accurate information can be given to the patient? What about the timeline in such cases? We want open disclosure but we have to ensure the medical team does not give one view without having all the answers, while an independent review leads to a different opinion. How does the office co-ordinate that? Open disclosure is very important.

Dr. Holohan said that €350 million was paid out between 2012 and 2016. My understanding was that the amount was far higher than that. Is it possible for the health committee to get the exact figures, both for compensation and legal expenses, for each of the past four years? These are important because we are supposed to be learning from the process so that we can reduce the level of claims and the risks involved but it appears to be going in the opposite direction. How will we deal with it without a handle on the number of claims that are coming in? We need to learn from mistakes made in the past.

My third issue is the movement of personnel in the HSE. Somebody spoke about learning from previous mistakes but how can we do that when a hospital has ten hospital managers in 18 years? The average hospital manager stays in one hospital for 18 months so how can we have continuation and improve the standard of care if the administration keeps moving, meaning mistakes which have been made are not learned from going forward? This is a question of accountability in respect of both the administration and the medical team. There is a constant movement of people and some of them have responsibilities for one area on 1 January but for another area on 1 June, which is a big issue for the HSE. It is something we need to deal with by giving people fixed-term contracts, especially at senior level in the HSE administration.

There have been examples of administrators overruling medical personnel. I was speaking to a consultant recently who told me the administration had started dictating to them how to run their operating lists, asking consultants to do minor procedures first and then complex work at the end of the day.

As the Chairman will be aware, if one is doing a complex case, one should be fresh doing it. It is probably the first thing one should be doing. An administration was dictating how medical people should provide a service and do the work in a particular hospital. How is that dealt with? We want to reduce risk and improve the level of care but we have non-medical staff dictating to medical staff about how they should provide that level of care.

The witnesses should bank those questions while I bring in Deputy Louise O'Reilly.

I apologise for not being present earlier but I had to do a radio interview. There is no point in me saying I was doing something else because it was public. I have some questions which may have been asked. If they have, I will check the Official Report so the witnesses should not feel they need to answer them again. I will go through them in the order in which each issue appears in the heads of the Bill.

My first question is on head 4, which excludes alternative and complementary therapies. Will they be regulated elsewhere? Is it the Department's view they do not need to be regulated? I need to understand where that is coming from.

Head 5 states: "HIQA will continue to set non-mandatory standards for hospitals and designated activities and will monitor compliance with those standards." I am not trying to be smart but, presumably, if they are non-mandatory hospitals, they could just say they are not doing it and HIQA would have nothing to monitor. Was consideration given to making these standards mandatory given we have had difficulties and disagreements over what should and should not be mandatory? People came down on the side of mandatory standards because that would be better.

Head 9 deals with statistical information to gauge compliance. They may or may not provide it. We are all discussing the availability or otherwise of information for a particular cohort of patients. A lot of the work the witnesses do will be based on the information provided to them by providers. If that information is not forthcoming, would it be safer to use the word "should" rather than "may" to make this compulsory?

I have a concern about section 39F because the hospital groups comprise groups of hospitals and, therefore, there may be issues with individual hospitals and not with the group. This is a question for the future. When the hospital trusts and the groups are fully established, is it the witnesses' view that additional legislation will be required to take account of individual hospitals or will it be applied to the hospital group? That will be difficult.

Section 39Q refers to an appeal being brought to the District Court and section 39R refers to a belief there is a risk to the life or serious risk to the health and welfare of the patient. It also caters for the service continuing to be delivered. I was a member of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. I do not propose to go into that. One of the issues we discussed at length was the difficulty of grading risk. Doctors, consultants and medical staff appeared before us and said they did not feel comfortable grading risk. That means risk would have to be graded. We would have to examine whether there is a serious risk to allow it to continue. Perhaps a definition is needed under the section.

In the same vein, section 39AK provides a hospital that has not applied for a licence can be allowed to operate until the outcome of the licence application is known. That does not sit well with me. If something is up and running and established, it becomes harder to revoke the licence. It is also dependent on many other factors. It is worrying that there could be a scenario where a facility is operating without a licence, notwithstanding the fact that some of the measures are not mandatory and so on.

Under head 20, the proposed section 101A(2)(j), states there should be an appropriate system in place for the management of patient safety incidents. Does this mean legislated for and mandatory open disclosure or something else? I will introduce a Bill next Thursday that will provide for mandatory disclosure. Is that what this means? What is the appropriate system for the management of patient safety incidents? I do not want to open a debate about mandatory versus non-mandatory because we have had that previously. We will get the view of the Oireachtas on that in time.

I apologise if those questions have been answered or addressed. The witnesses should feel free to skip over them and I can check the Official Report.

Dr. Tony Holohan

I will address Senator Burke's question on open disclosure. I accept his point and his description of the scenario is not unrealistic. The key thing in the first instance is the maintenance of effective communication between the medical team and the patients. At all times, the patient should feel that whatever information is available, including the limitations of that information, has been shared with him or her. If the trust and confidence can be maintained in that way, that is the best means of ensuring patients are properly supported. Patients often find themselves in a position where they have no recourse other than to litigation to get answers to basic questions because they feel the system has closed ranks and communication has stopped and broken down. It often is not the situation that patients do not know something because the team does not know it. Unfortunately, it is often because the team has stopped communicating effectively with the patient. No relationship, in any walk of life, can be maintained in such a situation.

There are other factors that are part and parcel of the answer to the question. The time that some investigations have taken to complete has been unacceptably long. It should not take 15 months, as in the case the Senator mentioned. Unfortunately, we have examples of investigations that have taken even longer than that to complete. Work has happened, and is happening, on the setting of standards and outer limits for the period of time that should apply. We can set out some more detail for the committee on that. The nature and depth of an investigation should determine the time it takes. Whatever information is known at a point in time should be shared with a patient. That includes doctors telling patients they are not sure but they have a particular concern or worry and they are sharing it with the patient. That constitutes the right kind of disclosure environment as opposed to one where doctors tell patients they cannot tell them anything until they know the outcome of something that will be months away.

On the question on the breakdown of costs, we will get the Senator the information. I would like to clarify that he asked for the figures year-on-year and for the difference between the amount paid in compensation and the amount spent on legal fees.

Dr. Tony Holohan

With regard to the movement of people within the HSE, I understand the point he made. It is not good, in terms of stability, to have continuing change of the nature he described. An additional dimension is the movement of medical teams and other services. By design, the provision of medical services involves the movement of staff on a continuing basis. Work that has to happen in the future, and which we have to get better at as a healthcare system, relates to putting standardisation in place. As a random example, junior doctors moving from one location to other may have to interface with a different prescription system for prescribing and writing up medicines.

Why should that be different in every hospital environment? Why should it be a new learning that must take place separately in every hospital? If teams are changing on a continuing basis, in as much as possible there should be standardisation of that which can be standardised and that reduce the risk to patients. I refer to the ways in which medications are stored and all those kinds of things. A lot of work is happening in the HSE as things stand to try, through its quality improvement programmes, to push on some of these kinds of issues. However, I offer that just by way of example and I take the point the Senator made.

Regarding the question of administrative decisions, I would not support the idea that an appropriate medical decision be taken by someone other than the person who is appropriately medically qualified. It is also fair to say, however - and I do not make this particular point in the context of the example the Senator has chosen - that there must be a situation in which doctors, in the provision of services, are open to the idea that there are ways and means of doing things that work better in some situations than others. Sometimes one can encounter resistance. Sometimes it can be the case that doctors will cite things like medical autonomy as a reason not to engage in something in which they do not want to engage. I do not say that is what is happening in this situation. It can be the case that there is good evidence around how one organises and schedules theatre lists, for example. Perhaps not every surgeon will welcome such engagement coming from his or her leadership, and that does not mean they are wrong. I see both sides of that argument.

All of Deputy O'Reilly's questions are new so perhaps I can address some of them. Under head 4, alternative and complementary therapies are excluded. There is no proposal at this point in time to make regulations in this regard. I had an opportunity to talk a little about this in the context of our recent discussion at this committee about chiropractors. As it stands, we have no plans to regulate alternative and complimentary therapy.

Regarding HIQA, I take the points Deputy O'Reilly has made about the monitoring of compliance. The regulations the Minister will have power to make under the Act will essentially set out the mandatory standards and HIQA will set other standards, which will be non-mandatory. Perhaps this "need" to do things which will be the subject of mandatory standards is too loose a way to describe it. Then there will be things that will be, dare I say it, nice to do. In any environment, one has a floor set of standards that must simply be in place for basic safety, governance and operation of a service. That is the basis-----

Yes. They are mandatory.

Dr. Tony Holohan

One's licence is based around that. One is not in the game unless one is reaching those standards. However, that does not mean that services should fail to have a continuing aspiration towards quality improvement in order that they achieve standards that go way beyond those floor standards. Not every quality improvement standard would necessarily be seen as a mandatory standard. One would not-----

Some items would be on the "that would be nice if we had absolutely nothing else to do" list. They would be the icing on the cake. However, I am worried about the subjective standards in the middle, which someone might look at and say, "It would be nice if we could do that, but we do not have the resources at the time or the scope." If as much as possible can be made mandatory, albeit not to a frivolous extent, it drives the standards.

Dr. Tony Holohan

That is a fair point.

Regarding the hospital groups, as Dr. MacLellan said earlier, we see the licence being held at the hospital level and as close as possible to service delivery, with accountability applying at that level. As we move into hospital groups, more and more services will be organised at group level rather than hospital level, and it is a matter of trying to reflect this in the flexibility of a scheme that will have to operate not just now, but into the future. We, therefore, want hospitals to buddy up in respect of services that no one hospital provides safely on its own. For example, we should not be in a situation whereby a hospital that is too small to operate fully does not derive some benefit from the fact that it is part of a group with a larger hospital providing similar services and co-operation is not developed. The HSE's plans regarding hospital groups will take us into all that. The licensing arrangement should be supportive and reflective of that. That is the flexibility we want.

There are some other perhaps more technical points about some of what I have been saying and some of the other heads the Deputy asked about. I will ask Dr. MacLellan to pick it up from section 39Q if that is okay.

Dr. Kathleen MacLellan

I will take the question about whether a hospital can operate without a licence. This is the transitional arrangement. Our working group, which comprised HIQA, the Private Hospitals Association, the HSE and ourselves, had quite a bit of discussion about this as to whether one would turn around and say, "You cannot operate until you have a licence" or "You can operate without a licence". The reason we came down on this was that someone operating a hospital, be it private or public, must apply for a licence within three months. Once the hospital applies for a licence, it will come in under the purview of HIQA. Ms Mary Dunnion will probably speak quite well about a well-established risk assessment process as to which hospitals to go into first. We talked about the logistics of this as well in the working group. We probably have up to 60 hospitals, perhaps even more, that will need to be licensed. It is not feasible to check through all those mandatory regulations within a month, two months or three months. It is important, therefore, to create a system. Within the general scheme we have created a system whereby all these hospitals will come under the authority of HIQA as quickly as possible. They may not have their full licence but they will come under the regulatory gambit then as per the licensing Bill. This gives a much stronger case of regulation of those hospitals, if that makes sense. That was the discussion, and we debated the best way to approach that at length.

I might just-----

Is that based on there being a quick turnaround time though? I can see the issues with this because dealing with all these hospitals will be a logistical issue, but if this process were to go on for a long time, for whatever reason - it would not necessarily be anyone's fault - we could have a mythical licensing system with the bulk of the hospitals operating outside it. Was any thought given to trying to lock down this process in some way to ensure that it does not run on for years? People will not intend it to run on for years, but in real life sometimes that happens.

Dr. Kathleen MacLellan

It certainly was not the intent that this would run on for years. The intent was that licences would be processed as quickly as possible. Going back to some of the earlier heads in the Bill, the first document a hospital must put forward in order to apply for a licence is its statement of purpose, that is, to clearly outline who they are, how they operate, who the person in charge is, that they are publishing their patient safety statements and so on. A significant volume of information will be provided to HIQA. It will be up to the authority to decide how it processes the applications, but it would be expected that in those self-declarations for some hospitals, it would be clear that they can proceed quickly to licence. However, others may have to do significant work to meet the requirements for a licence. Looking across our whole system, there are different areas of risk in some hospitals, as Dr. Holohan said. The intent is not that this would go on for a long time. We cannot underestimate 60 hospitals coming forward at one time to be licensed and processed within one, two or three months. However, it is important that as they continue to operate, they come in under this stronger regulatory framework under HIQA as quickly as possible. We hope the patient safety Bill and the work up to this will allow hospitals to start preparing quickly in order that when they put in their applications, they will be as ready as possible.

I will come back to the mandatory regulations and standards because Deputy O'Reilly was a little concerned about them. We are conscious there are many technicalities within this Bill and that it is quite lengthy. Head 20 outlines the areas that will form part of mandatory regulations. They are based strongly on current standards for better healthcare. The regulations relate to:

(a) the provision of person-centred care,

(b) the provision of effective care,

(c) the provision of safe care,

(d) the promotion of better health and wellbeing,

(e) leadership, corporate and clinical governance and management,

(f) planning, organising and managing the workforce,

(g) the use of resources,

(h) the use of information,

(i) dealing with complaints ...,

(j) the management of patient safety incidents.

They are extensive in terms of clinical governance, and the requirement is for a strong clinical governance framework. There will, therefore, be a significant step forward in terms of the requirements that an organisation will have to meet and the opportunities that HIQA, as the licenser, will have to provide it to be able to go in and examine this.

Section 39Q concerns appeals to the District Court, the grading and the serious risk.

The Deputy's point is very well made. Perhaps Ms Dunnion from the Health Information and Quality Authority, HIQA, could look at how risk assessment applies and how problems are identified. HIQA do this on a day-to-day basis in that it looks across the system to see if risk assessment processes are in place. It might be worthwhile if that was taken on.

Ms Mary Dunnion

To continue on from Dr. MacLellan's point. that will be contained in the detail, in the context of the issuing of a licence. We are very familiar with the existing public hospitals as they are currently structured but it is envisaged that the licensing system will have, as was explained, mandatory notifications. While HIQA might not be on site in a hospital it will, through the mandatory notifications, have oversight of what is happening in the hospital. In tandem with that, it will use what is publicly reported in performance information incident reporting, and of course the patient safety (licensing) Bill will also mean that more information flows to HIQA. Each hospital has a profile. We will base our method of implementing this Bill on what we have learned from the regulation of social services. This job involves allocating a risk rating to a service, if that is what is required. There will be quite a significant matrix of how we do that. It allows us to respond where risk is identified and where were are notified about risk, which may be aligned to mandatory notifications. We then schedule inspections, both announced and unannounced. We are taking on a plethora of roles but everything is in the context of the structure we have and is underpinned by a robust risk management structure and analysis of risk. We can share that with the committee, if it would help, at a later stage.

I have just arrived back to the committee room and I do not want to waste people's time. I was going to ask a question on enforcement; has that issue been discussed already?

No, not necessarily.

I did not hear the statement from HIQA but I read it earlier this morning. One of the issues raised was that under the proposed Bill, HIQA will not have any enforcement powers, which would make Ireland an outlier. I would appreciate comment on that from all of the parties involved. If it has already been discussed I am happy to go back and look through the transcripts.

Dr. Tony Holohan

There are two items of legislation in question. The statement of HIQA refers to the patient safety Bill approved by Government recently. That is not the piece of legislation before us this morning. That Bill will see the extension the powers HIQA currently has to the private hospital system. It is a step along the road to licensing, but nowhere near where we want to go. It does not contain anything more than that which already exists in HIQA's existing suite of enforcement powers. However, the licensing legislation before us this morning contains a comprehensive set of enforcement powers that, when enacted, will give HIQA very significant powers of intervention, compellability, potential closure of facilities in the event of non-compliance and the ability to apply fines. Sentences are set out, which will apply whether offences are indictable or not, as part of the suite of powers.

That was a good answer. On the separate Bill, are there plans to bring in the enforcement powers? I am referring to the Bill that does not have them. I also wanted to ask about the available resources and the need to ensure that HIQA, the Department and the hospitals themselves, are adequately resourced. There is extra and important work to be done in that regard. If that has already been covered I am happy to read through the transcript but if not, I would love to hear whether HIQA, the Department and the HSE believe that sufficient resources will be put in place to actually make this thing a success.

We covered that topic earlier.

That is fine; I will read over the transcript later. On the enforcement issue-----

Dr. Tony Holohan

To be clear, there is no plan to do anything other than extend the powers HIQA already possesses to the private hospital system, to allow it to intervene somewhat in an area we are not able to intervene in at the moment. However, we are not stopping there. The licensing legislation will ultimately have a full set of enforcement powers that will apply equally to both public and private facilities.

Is it the case that we will have enforcement under licenses but not under patient safety? Is it the case that that is no greater power than that which HIQA already has?

Dr. Tony Holohan

The Deputy is correct.

Does HIQA have sufficient powers under patient safety at the moment?

Mr. Phelim Quinn

The powers are significantly limited. The critical issue there is that, under those powers we would have right of entry and the right to observe documentation etc, but no significant enforcement powers other than reporting. We report on the outcomes of our inspections but there are no enforcement powers to ensure that the recommendations arising from an inspection are adhered to by that provider. That does not exist currently and will not exist under that Bill.

Is there an opportunity to bring it in under this Bill?

Mr. Phelim Quinn

The only thing being proposed at present is that the powers we currently have under the 2007 Act are extended into the private healthcare sector as an interim measure. However, it will not have those enforcement measures. Subsequently, through the commencement of the patient safety (licensing) Bill, those enforcement powers would then take hold.

On that point, in a situation of chronic overcrowding such as what happens in many of our emergency departments, where it can lead to significant patient safety issues, HIQA can make recommendations on how that can be addressed, but it has no means of enforcing those recommendations. That is a big issue which exists across the country. Where there is chronic overcrowding, recommendations are made but enforcement of those recommendations is not possible. This Bill will not change that.

Mr. Phelim Quinn

That also applies to our investigative work under section 9 of the Act. In terms of our monitoring work under section 8 and the investigative work under section 9 of the current Act, there is no enforcement power in terms of the implementation of those recommendations.

I thought that Dr. Holohan was saying was that under the new Act, enforcement in respect of other activities would be granted. Perhaps an amendment Bill is required. We need to get to a point where HIQA can enforce its recommendations. There are substantial enforcement powers within this legislation. If we are going in that direction anyway - and it seems we should be - is this Bill an opportunity to bring in an amending section to give HIQA enforcement powers in these other areas?

Dr. Tony Holohan

That would be would be the patient safety Bill into which we were introducing them. I am certainly not going to sit here and rule that out. We can consider that. We are bringing forward two items of legislation in tandem. The interim measure was proposed to simply recognise the length of time it will take to enact, develop the regulations, have them properly implemented and have the licensing system operating. As the Deputy has correctly said, we are trying to go in that direction, so we are open to seeing if there is anything we can do in terms of swap over of things that are part of a common direction of travel.

It is probably worth pointing out - I concede this is not an answer to the question asked by the Deputy - that in terms of enforcement, the power of publication has proven very effective. If I listed the various different reports HIQA has carried out in the health sector space, which have been far fewer than those in the social care space, very significant system level changes have taken place on foot of the publication, including the commitment to implementation of the recommendations of those reports. The fact that formal enforcement powers do not exist does not mean that there is not a means, through the work that HIQA does and the investigative powers it has, of creating a set of recommendations that then become an imperative for Government to address and implement.

The intention is to bring in enforcement powers with patient safety but that it is just not part of the current Bill.

Dr. Tony Holohan

Yes. It is a management of the pathway, rather than any principled objection to it.

I apologise for not being here for the submission made by Mr. Quinn. He said this will limit the power of the regulator to assess the fitness of individual senior managers in public hospitals. That goes back to my earlier question, when I pointed out that senior management overruled the advice of medical practitioners. If this is the situation under this legislation now, where senior managers overrule medical advice, is it the case that HIQA will have no powers to deal with that?

Mr. Phelim Quinn

That refers more to the inference in the current scheme that within the HSE or services funded by the HSE, that is, section 38 services, there may be certain exclusions with regard to both the application for a licence and the granting of a licence. What we want to do is work with the Department in that instance to see that we create a space whereby we have a mandate to assess the fit and proper person both for the provision of the service and for the management of the service. That relates to the application for licensing and our granting of that licence. However, it also relates to some extent to the question the Senator asked. When it comes to a point where we wish to take enforcement action, if we have not been able to make that assessment that would limit the enforcement action we can take. We have had some advice on that and it certainly would be a concern for us.

Would the witness prefer-----

Mr. Phelim Quinn

We would prefer that the circumstances in which we engage are similar across the sector, that is, public and private.

Is there an appetite for incorporating the change HIQA is seeking?

Mr. Phelim Quinn

We certainly need to have that conversation to ensure such items are included in the Bill as it develops.

Dr. Kathleen MacLellan

I wish to add to that. The principle in discussion at our working group is that there would be equal assessment across private and public in this area. In fact, there is a technical piece in section 39F on this with regard to application of a licence. Our policy intent through the general scheme has been that we would meet a number of checks and balances around character and competence. There are a number of pieces that allow for that within section 39F, which is evidence as to the character and competence of the intended licence provider. In the HSE case it is focused on the hospital as an entity. It is also intended that the declaration by a principal officer relating to capacity as a provider applies to both public and private hospitals, bearing in mind that the HSE and a number of hospitals are corporate bodies.

Section 39F also refers to evidence as to the character and competence of the person to be designated in charge relevant to his or her management role and that is across all hospitals, public and private. For the HSE that is likely to be an assessment of the character and competence of the CEO or general manager. There is no intention regarding exclusion of HSE or voluntary hospitals from these important checks. We believe that working through the formal drafting and with the Office of the Attorney General we can encompass all of that. This is quite a technical part and we would not wish to lose anything in that translation. We are all in the same position with regard to the principle of the character and competence of those in charge of those licensed entities.

Ms Mary Dunnion

It might be helpful for clarity to explain what we mean about the fitness of the person. When we talk about the fitness of the person of charge, whoever that might be in the hospital or wherever, we talk about basic but important things to begin with. Is the person competent in safeguarding people and patients in the hospital? That involves Garda vetting. Has the person the appropriate qualifications? Those might be in the general management context. One looks at the person's regulatory history. Has this person in charge been responsive in a positive way to findings relating to adverse events or regulatory non-compliance, if that is the case? One also sees if the person took a proactive approach to the planning of the service, and if that proactive approach is cognisant of both the clinical and the corporate governance arrangements. It takes in what Senator Colm Burke was describing in the context of where there might be divergence of views. Is the person's approach proactive in that? Also, is there a good system of peer review? If one looks at that, it might be in one hospital and where the Senator referred to individual hospitals and groups, one would hope to see that the person in charge demonstrates that he or she can learn from what is happening in his or her hospital but equally, that such learning is shared across a group or through the legal entity, be it the HSE or whatever else. They are broadly the criteria one considers in the context of the fitness of the person being in charge.

It equally extends to the fitness of the persons participating in management. Unlike a designated centre where a single service is being provided, a hospital is a very complex organisation so that is where it becomes important to give consideration to the fitness of people participating in management. The heads of the Bill define certain criteria in that regard. That is a whistle-stop tour but they are the things one examines in assessing fitness.

What is the sanction if somebody is found not to be fit?

Ms Mary Dunnion

The person is deemed not fit and not compliant with the regulations. In our experience, which is based in the social services, we would take regulatory action when we saw a provider or a person not being fit, up to cancellation of the registration of a designated centre. We have learned, and I believe it will be the same in hospitals, that what determines the sustainability of the service and keeps it going well are the governance, leadership and management arrangements that are in place. They come through the person in charge.

If the person is deemed not to be fit, is it HIQA or the hospital that imposes the sanction?

Ms Mary Dunnion

Yes, it would be. One would hope, first, that the provider would do it but ultimately, the powers would be available to take those actions. In many ways it begins with the soft approach unless the risk is really high and then it can transcend into hard regulation, which goes up to cancelling a registration or the revoking of a licence in the context of healthcare.

Dr. Tony Holohan

Chairman, your question touches on something that we should clarify. This is not to obviate the need within the system for the system's own proper system of performance management. The system of regulation that is external and would be overseen by HIQA and the licensing system will not be the system of performance management and quality assurance for the delivery of healthcare. The service itself will have to take on the responsibilities for those things. That is the primary determinant of safety. This is the assurance regulatory backstop with regard to all of that.

Mr. Phelim Quinn

Critically, the application of a regulatory framework over a range of health and social care services in the first instance requires the providers of the services to be cognisant of what their responsibilities are under that framework and not to wait on us, as a regulator, to come in and tell them that. That is the most important issue.

One issue, and it refers back to an earlier question I had, is the reporting of adverse events. On whom do the witnesses depend for that report now, and on whom will they depend for such a report after the passing of this Bill or other legislation? For example, there is a freedom of information officer in virtually every public body. That person decides on the status of the information requested and so forth. I do not see anything comparable in this case, which is much more serious. For example, somebody might decide that an incident is not reportable and should not be reported. Some incidents, while small and seemingly insignificant, might well have a permanent impact on the lifestyle of a patient. I am mindful of a number of incidents which I do not propose to discuss here. There is a need for more streamlined instantaneous reporting of an incident. It is not much good reading about it in the newspapers two or three years later. One can do nothing about it then and we certainly can do nothing about the quality of attention and care available after the event. There should be a learning process after any such event whereby actions should be taken. What action can be taken in those circumstances and how does one do it?

The other question is about the fitness of somebody to practise in a particular area. HIQA does not have an input into the appointment in the first place. If it is subsequently proven that a person is unfit for fulfil a role or to practise in a certain capacity, there are two different bodies involved. One is the appointing body that fills the post and the other is when something is found out afterwards. One could look back and ask why something was not spotted earlier. There might be a situation where some unusual incident occurred but, generally, if the person is not fit to practise now he or she was not fit two years ago either.

The Deputy might bank that question.

I will bank it. I have almost covered it all anyway but how quickly does information become available and what action can be taken?

I have two quick questions. One is on the enforcement powers and the Health Information and Quality Authority, HIQA. It is a direct question to which I would appreciate a direct answer. There are people in the media and others who have commented that the powers of HIQA are weak and limited. The question is simple. If the legislators were minded to give HIQA stronger powers of enforcement, presumably with the attendant resources, would that be welcome and does HIQA think that is necessary?

My second question is on Head 20. Head 20 is extensive and it references the provision of person-centred, effective and safe care. It also references the Sláintecare report around putting in place a hospital or designated activities, the necessary clinical and corporate governance arrangements to ensure that we have the effective and safe care. My question is on the influence or otherwise of persons outside of the hospital on the clinical governance arrangements - we are all having a debate about the separation of church and State and where that might lead, so I refer specifically to the influence of a religious ethos on the provision of person-centred, effective and safe care where there may be a conflict. Does this head give HIQA the authority to override that or in any way scrutinise it or is that ethos of any given institution something that is seen to be separate? Will HIQA go in and monitor on the basis of the overarching philosophy or ethos or whatever word HIQA wants to use? It could be read a number of ways. I would read it as saying that it does give HIQA the power to take a view on that or question it if it were appropriate.

I have a question of my own before we begin to wind up. How will licensing be decided on with regard to high risk clinical activity? What criteria will be used to designate high risk clinical activity? For instance, how will private radiology services be decided because we have specifically been discussing chiropractors in relation to providing X-ray services so would that fall under the licensing process?

Dr. Tony Holohan

If I may come to the Chair's question first on radiology. That is a good example. If we had this licensing arrangement in place it is the kind of mechanism we might be using in the context of the issue to do with the basic safety standards because we could identify the use of ionising radiation as a designated activity and therefore the subject of a requirement for a licence and so on if we had that arrangement in place. In time, when we come to designate that list I expect to see ionising radiation, the use of general anaesthesia and other such criteria on that list. We have not developed all of the criteria as yet, but it will essentially be that set of high-risk activities which represent potential risks to individuals if things go wrong in the context of an individual case. There is work done in other jurisdictions that are a little ahead of us in terms of some of this. The UK in particular has very detailed regulations on the identified designated activities that it schedules as part of its requirements. That is what we will be looking at to give us guidance on all of this.

Dr. MacLellan might come back to Head 20 in relation to Deputy Louise O'Reilly's question or did I overlook the Chair's first question?

No that was it, how it is decided what high-risk activity is and if it would involve private X-ray facilities.

Dr. Tony Holohan

Once radiation becomes a designated activity the requirement for a licence will apply regardless of whether it is public or private.

Dr. Kathleen MacLellan

I refer to Head 20 on person-centred care. We expect this Head to be aligned with the standards of person-centred care as outlined within HIQA's national standards on the delivery of services. I cannot fully answer Deputy Louise O'Reilly's question but I expect that HIQA would have the powers to look at all issues that would impact on person-centred care and support as is outlined within the standards here which are quite extensive on that.

Dr. Tony Holohan

I was going to address the question Deputy Louise O'Reilly was asking on the ethos and questions around that. I am not in any sense trying to put words in her mouth. In respect of services where it might be expected to play out, for example the existing 2013 legislation that applies to abortion, places a duty on hospitals, whereby an individual can conscientiously object but an institution may not and that is a situation we expect to replicate in the course of the legislation we are working on now on future services.

Ms Mary Dunnion

In the end it is in the assessment that is taken of an organisation or service. One of the key principles of regulation is that it is consistent in its approach. As a consequence that means that it is irrelevant what the culture or ethos of an organisation is because the same standard is being assessed everywhere. A good example of that is our challenge in addressing, reporting and trying to change institutionalised care practices that are currently there that are legacy issues as opposed to ethos. We have quite a strong evidence trail of how we take that consistent approach across the services we inspect and monitor and I have no hesitation in assuring that same standard will be applied across the acute services irrespective of what their governance or legacy issues are.

Mr. Phelim Quinn

I refer to Deputy Louise O'Reilly's question requiring a quick response. On enforcement powers we are absolutely supportive of the licensing Bill and the powers it provides to HIQA because as an organisation, having reviewed our peer organisations internationally, we believe that we are behind the curve in that regard and it is required here in the Irish context.

Mr. Quinn says we are behind but even if we pass in the morning would we not still be behind?

Mr. Phelim Quinn

No.

Maybe we would not be as far behind.

Mr. Phelim Quinn

No, this Bill is simply to address the issue around the powers available to HIQA both in terms of its approach to hospitals and other designated activities and also the enforcement powers it can take in that regard.

Has Deputy Durkan had his questions answered yet?

Mr. Phelim Quinn

There was one about the appointment of a fit person. I appreciate what Deputy Durkan said at the end about the involvement or non-involvement of an organisation like HIQA in the appointment of a fit person. I go back to the description of a regulatory framework and the provider organisation's adherence to the provisions within that framework. They should know from that framework who it is and the profile and competence of the people they need to appoint. To involve a regulator in that appointments process would create a conflict but what we would be doing in the promotion of the Bill with stakeholders is clearly articulating what their responsibilities are both in terms of the fitness of the provider and also the fitness of the people involved in the management of those services.

The question also relates to the speed with which it can be determined that an incident or a near miss has taken place. I would have thought that the simplest thing in the world would be to have a nationwide system whereby if an incident occurs, which is life threatening or has an impact on the quality of life of a patient for the rest of their lives and it has happened in many cases, that there should be an alarm system which immediately goes to all institutions all over the country.

It would say that there had been a near miss this morning or whenever and outline the circumstances in which it occurred. That is without prejudice to anybody. It is not admitting anything but is the corrective action that needs to be taken. I am sure the Chairman and every member of the committee have had cases reported to them where it was very obvious that something should have been done immediately to prevent a recurrence. There could be two or three similar cases within a short space of time, but nobody admits to anything and it drags on forever. Nobody gets any benefit from the experience. It is an unfortunate and sometimes tragic experience. Would it not be a good idea, in the context of either this legislation or other legislation, to have an officer appointed in each institution who could report, without prejudice, to a central authority which in turn can take action?

Dr. Kathleen MacLellan

There are probably a few pieces to this. First, I concur with the Deputy. The first patient safety principle is that if something has happened we secure the safety of the individual patient, then we secure the safety of the patients around that patient and then we secure the safety of the patients across the system. In terms of management at local level, a new incident management framework was launched in January last across the Health Service Executive which provides significant guidance around the management of incidents. We have our national incident management system and all incidents, regardless of level of risk, should be reported to that system. An earlier question from the Deputy was about how close to the site that happens. It happens at the level of each organisation. Just as the Deputy talks about a freedom of information officer there should be a risk management officer, a patient safety and quality officer or a clinical effectiveness officer there.

That all fits very well into what we are proposing within the Patient Safety (Licensing) Bill, which is strong structures and enforcement powers around clinical governance. Clinical governance is the patient safety culture management system across a hospital that allows patient safety incidents, patient safety issues, clinical audit and all those good pieces to happen in a timely way. That requires that every organisation should have a patient safety and quality operating framework. We strongly believe that is part of clinical governance mechanisms. Part of HIQA's role will be to be assured that there are such clinical governance mechanisms in place in a standard way across the country so every organisation has the requirements in place to meet those standards be they, depending on the size of the hospital, level of risk managers, patient safety and quality officers and so forth, so those people are on-site training, supporting and ensuring that the reporting of incidents is happening.

I should also say that we commissioned both HIQA and the Mental Health Commission to develop standards for the conduct of reviews. That refers back to some of the previous questions about the time it takes for reviews and the reporting of incidents. They are published and are now being implemented across the system. These are the types of standards that we would like to see monitored by HIQA across the system. It is already monitoring them. There are processes in place.

The other piece is that the quality assurance and verification division is in the process of developing a patient safety alert system across the system. It is very similar to what the Deputy described. An alert can go out very quickly to the system if an incident occurs that requires information to go across the system and should happen very quickly. All those pieces should fit within a strong, structured, legislated for clinical governance framework, which was a key element of the Sláintecare report as well. We would very much support that. With regard to clinical governance, it is not the single issues or actions that make the difference but the combination of all the actions. We see clinical governance as encompassing education, continuing professional development, clinical audit, clinical guidelines, clinical effectiveness, risk management, openness, patient engagement and so forth. All of those would be key components of the mandatory regulations and they would be regulated. There are significant powers and opportunities being proposed and outlined within this Bill. There will then be significant enforcement powers through HIQA's work in providing licences to organisations.

On behalf of the committee I thank the witnesses for taking the time to attend the meeting this morning. I apologise for keeping them waiting for an hour or so.

The joint committee adjourned at 12.05 p.m. until 9 a.m. on Wednesday, 27 June 2018.
Top
Share