By AVA TURNQUEST

Tribune Chief Reporter

aturnquest@tribunemedia.net

MANAGEMENT at the Public Hospitals Authority claim that the forensic audit conducted on its supply of pharmaceutical drugs and supplies did not follow best practice industry standards and exposed the agency to civil litigations, according to documents obtained by The Tribune.

In a report sent to PHA Chairman Frank Smith on June 4, the group pointed out the UHY audit findings implicated at least two employees of potentially criminal offences despite its admission that there was no direct evidence of fraud or complicity.

Management said it fully supported taking action against any employee found to be culpable of an abuse of public funds or fraud; however, it found the character defamation of PHA employees without evidence to be “egregious”.

“Many of the conclusions were based on a combination of incomplete information,” the letter read, “incorrect assumptions and quantitative data used in isolation of qualitative data factual information. Further, much of the allegations and incidences could have been clarified had the auditors made more of an effort to obtain their information from direct sources; or followed best practice industry standards by conducting exit interviews, or allowing employees the ‘courtesy’ to comment on such serious conclusions.”

The UHY report covers the period of July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2013, and makes references to earlier periods.

Management said staff were afforded less than two weeks to respond with supporting documents to a forensic audit, conducted by Bahamas’ UHY managing partner John Bain, that covered a more than seven-year period.

In the letter, detailed responses were given by two principal agencies targeted by the audit: the Materials Management Directorate, with respect to medical and surgical supplies, and the Bahamas National Drug Agency, with respect to pharmaceuticals.

On the matter of procurement, Management charged that the forensic audit had “obviously been confused” in its attempt to understand or explain the PHA’s tender process.

Management took issue with the auditor’s conclusion that Managing Director Herbert Brown was the “most important and powerful person in the organisation”, with influence over the bidding process despite the formal chain of command from the Board and Ministry of Health.

It was stated that the Managing Director’s only involvement with the tendering exercise was the signing of the document to invite tenders to bid.

“There is no other involvement of the Managing Director in the process,” the letter read, “until the analysis of the Tender is brought to the Finance Committee for review and then on to the Board of Directors for a final decision.”

With respect to pharmacy inventory management, Management pointed to an “acute shortage of pharmacists” that left the coverage of the inventory control functions in each of the authority’s pharmacies under-resourced.

Management agreed that there were real procedural concerns, and a need to develop strategies to improve the management of inventory at pharmacies – specifically at the Princess Margaret Hospital.

It was further explained that inventory was not current at most locations because there was only one pharmacist assigned to inventory control in addition to other responsibilities.

The letter continued: “We have discussed this on a number of occasions, but have not been able to hire and train inventory officers due to a lack of funds being provided for new appointments over the past five years.”

Management said it was unacceptable that senior personnel refused to meet with the forensic investigator to provide answers over the difference in inventory at the Princess Margaret Hospital, adding that it would “move with haste, to deal with the officer through the disciplinary process”.

“It was indeed unfortunate, that this matter was not brought to the attention of the Hospital Administrator or the Managing Director, for immediate action,” the letter concluded.