‘CONFLICTS OF INTEREST’ HIGHLIGHTED BY REPORT

SOME of the findings of the HSE audit raise ‘questions of possible/potential conflicts of interest’, its author says.

The report includes a definition of a conflict of interest, which it described as ‘a set of circumstances that creates a risk that an individual’s ability to apply judgment or act in one role is, or could be, impaired or influenced by a secondary interest’.

The audit cited examples of potential conflicts of interest, including ‘many blurred boundaries between the NMH and SemiPrivate Clinic’.

They described this as a ‘matter of concern and could lead to conflicts of interests or a perception of conflicts of interests and the nonoptimisation of the publicly funded hospital’s best interests’.

Some of these ‘linkages and blurred boundaries’ include:

The Master, who is also an NMH governor and a member of the NMH’s Executive Management team, is a member of the SemiPrivate Clinic’s board.

Two other NMH governors are members of the Semi-Private Clinic’s board.

NMH nurses, who are public servants, are assigned to work part-time in the Semi-Private Clinic. Pay costs are reimbursed.

NMH processes salary and nonpayments on behalf of the SemiPrivate Clinic.

A lack of NMH documentation to the Semi-Private Clinic seeking recoupment for payroll and other costs paid by NMH on its behalf.

The report discusses the ‘undocumented arrangement’ in which the HSE provides ‘financial, administrative, staffing, organisational and managerial services’ to the Semi-Private Clinic – owned, directed and managed by NMH senior staff – as ‘concerning’.

An NMH spokesman last night defended the hospital: ‘Despite over 3½ years in preparation, HSE internal audit has not identified any actual conflict of interest... There are clinical cross-directorships between entities because of clinical governance requirements and not financial considerations. This is the appropriate way to run the hospital.’