Comments on: The DHBs Fold…

By: Bruce Hamilton

Bruce Hamilton — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:36:37 +0000

I’ve consistently said that the boards are culpable for this fiasco, and also that once lawyers were involved, the public are unlikely to discover the truth. Shonky at the start and downhill from there.

Labtests lawyers were clearly standing on quicksand, especially considering some rumours about quality of results, such as prostate results for female patients.

The simple reality is that the boards failed to fulfill any requirement for oversight care and due diligence, and should be sacked. Some managers probably should follow them before the door swings shut, however I suspect neither event will occur.

Awarding a service contract to an entity that did not have adequate numbers trained and skilled staff, and which apparently relied on enticing employees from the existing supplier was alway fraught, and certainly not rational business practice.

By: mawm

mawm — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 05:54:33 +0000

Mitch your facts are wrong. Strange that the particular issue over cervical smear reporting, that Bierre claimed was a problem under DML, is one of the big concerns expressed about Labtests service.

DML might not have behaved well in your eyes, but they have not been unprofessional.

By: Kate

Kate — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:41:14 +0000

If you google Bierre, Employment Court and Monaghan you’ll find the Emplyment Court Decision. If anyone is interested. It’s good Tony has a friend in you Mitch.

By: Mitch

Mitch — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:35:13 +0000

Mawm
Don’t know who has been feeding you rubbish but you are wrong. DML settled before the Employment Court because they got caught out with some documents that showed what they had been doing but that is years ago. Both the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court confirmed no insider knowledge was involved. I would rather believe the Courts than DML propaganda. Dr Bierre stood down from ADHB before the RFP process began and had no involvement in the process or decision. There is no rule about many years later competing against a former employer – it happens all the time in the real world. The specifications for the tender process were published so were known to both the parties that ended up tendering. DML thought they had the contract in the bag because they had spent so much time trying to ensure that if their position in Auckland was ever challenged they could do exactly what they have done – use the media to destroy any competition. What they have done, as others have said, is behave in a highly unprofessional and unbusiness-like manner. They should never get another contract in New Zealand.

By: mawm

mawm — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:13:29 +0000

Yeh Mitch – Bierre took DML all the way to the Supreme Court to stop them getting rid of him.

As I have said before I have no interests in either lab, but have seen the difference in the quality of the service supplied by the different labs. Medlab had the right to feel agrieved by the award of the contract to Labtests on the basis of the insider knowledge allowing Labtests to bid on a lower specification of service and that it would be acceptable to the DHB’s.