Kim Hodgson Interview panels and reports (FOI)
Kim Hodgson Interview panels and reports (FOI)Produced by the Freedom of Information office
Authored by Government of Jersey and published on 08 July 2022.
Prepared internally, no external costs.
FoI response from 27 Aug 2021 confirmed that Ms Kim Hodgson and her Performance Improvement consultancy was contracted by Health Department and received in total £446.111 for her services up until 27 Aug 2021. Bailiwick Express (January 2020) raised concerns that there had been no records of the process used originally to engage Ms Kim Hodgson; it mentioned her as top five most expensive suppliers for the government of Jersey. The Chief Minister explained that Ms Hodgson was appointed by the Health and Social Services Department via an established interim contract agency, they acknowledged that the procurement process had not followed procedure: "the nature of the work and the variations to the requirements were not documented, as would have been expected." Senator John Le Fondré concluded that "Current services of Kim Hodgson are due to cease at the end of Quarter 1 (March 2020) and it is not anticipated that further work or requirement of the consultants' services will be required moving forward as a result of implementation of the Health and Community Services target operating model and final appointments to vacancies."
The FoI response from 27 Aug 2021 listed several deliverables by Ms Hodgson including:
'Hematology and Oncology Review' tb completed by Sept 2021, 'Dermatology/ Dr Kukula Review','Obstetrics and Gynecology Review', 'Mental Health Review', 'Cancer Review'.
Ms Hodgson was also listed as an 'Independent' member of the interview panels for several key roles in Health:
Ms Caroline Landon
Prof Ashok Handa
Mr James Mason
Dr Cheryl Power
The recruitment process for the positions raised separate FoI questions.
Was Ms Kim Hodgson contracted for any type of work in Health/ other departments after 27 Aug 2021? Has she been paid any additional fees or expenses on top of the £446.111 mentioned in the Aug 27th 2021 FoI response?
Was Ms Kim Hodgson involved in any other interview panels for the roles in Health?
Which ones, on what dates?
What is the governmental policy regulating selection of interview panel members for senior roles? Can an external consultant paid close to £0.5 million by Health leaders be considered a truly independent member of the interview panel shared with the same leaders whom she had interviewed in the first place and who subsequently were deciding on the extension of her services and hundreds of thousands pound worth payments to her?
Given the important public interest please provide the final, approved reports for the following specialties as presented to the Health management together with the dates they were presented:
'Hematology and Oncology Review'
'Dermatology/ Dr Kukula Review'
'Obstetrics and Gynecology Review'
'Mental Health Review'
A contract was put in place for the period of October 2021 until March 2022, on a draw-down basis limited to a maximum of six days per month.
All the interview panels that have included Kim Hodgson are in the public domain, but for clarity:
Isobel Watson - Chief Social Worker
Professor Ashok Handa – Our Hospital Clinical Lead
Professor John McInerney – Group Medical Director
Dr. Cheryl Power - Associate Chief for Allied Health
James Mason – General Manager (Medical Services Care Group)
Caroline Landon – Director General of Health and Community Services
The policy for recruitment at senior roles requires a qualified person with relevant experience as an independent member of the recruitment panel. This is overseen by the Jersey Appointments Commission. An independent member is a person not employed by the States Employment Board.
Please see the following reports:
Haematology and Oncology Review Cancer Review - July 2021.pdf
Dermatology Service and Organisational Development review - May 2021.pdf
Mental Health and Adult Social Care Group Workforce Plan - November 2020.pdf
Redactions have been applied to the documents. Please see the key to the exemptions applied on the documents, which have been colour-coded for ease of reference:
Article 25 – Personal Information
Information has been redacted in order to protect the privacy of individuals
Article 33 - Commercial Interests
Information has been redacted as to disclose is likely to prejudice the commercial interests of Health and Community Services or others
Article 26 – Information Supplied in Confidence
Information has been redacted as to disclose the information would constitute a breach of confidence actionable by that or any other person.
Article 25 - Personal information
(1) Information is absolutely exempt information if it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005.
(2) Information is absolutely exempt information if –
(a) it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is not the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005; and
(b) its supply to a member of the public would contravene any of the data protection principles, as defined in that Law.
Article 26 - Information supplied in confidence
Information is absolutely exempt information if –
(a) it was obtained by the scheduled public authority from another person (including another public authority); and
(b) the disclosure of the information to the public by the scheduled public authority holding it would constitute a breach of confidence actionable by that or any other person.
Public Interest Test
Disclosing information that employees have provided in confidence and for the purpose of a service review, is likely to have a detrimental impact on Health and Community Service's ability to review services in the future. In having reviewed the application of this exemption, HCS has determined that whilst it is in the public interest to disclose the information, this public interest is outweighed by HCS' need to ensure open communication channels for its employees.
Article 33 - Commercial interests
Information is qualified exempt information if –
(a) it constitutes a trade secret; or
(b) its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of a person (including the scheduled public authority holding the information).
Public Interest Test
Disclosing information relating to the management of private patients is likely to prejudice the commercial interests of HCS and others. When considering the application of this exemption, HCS has determined that whilst it is in the public interest to disclose information, this is outweighed by the necessity to limit any impact on its commercial interests and as such Article 33 has been applied.