Presentations for IHMS reveal broad concerns about both the healthcare firm’s handling of personal information and the immigration department’s ability to locate asylum seekers held in its care.
Because of the poor data management, which the slides attribute to the immigration department, this also means that IHMS is unable to accurately measure performance under its contract with the immigration department, they say.
The revelations form part of a series of investigations by Guardian Australia into the provision of medical services for asylum seekers held in Australia and on Manus Island and Nauru, and the contract that underpins them.
A series of presentations from March to August 2013 contain admissions about the accuracy of data held by both IHMS and the immigration department.
In a slide where IHMS’s performance against certain metrics is considered, it notes that the measurements “reflect a range of errors”.
This includes: “Data about clients’ locations is provided by DIAC [immigration] and can be unreliable (eg a client is on Nauru but the client’s record indicates that he is at Wickham).
“As a result, the process of attributing compliance (and non-compliance) to sites is not always accurate.”
It also notes that “records can remain ‘active’ well after clients have been discharged or repatriated … this causes the number of overdue screenings to be over-stated”.
In a slide titled “sources of inaccuracy – performance management”, the briefing says performance can be difficult to measure because IHMS does not have a standard approach to data entry, the location data provided by the immigration department is poor, and performance failures can be overstated because of inaccurate records about active care.
Other documents obtained by Guardian Australia highlight similar concerns with the handling of asylum seekers’ personal records and the accuracy of clinical files. A July 2012 internal audit conducted by consultants Protiviti of records on Christmas Island found that overall, IHMS was not meeting the performance threshold outlined under its contract with the immigration department.
It said that while IHMS did comply with some requirements, “the extent of non-compliance introduces significant risks to the department and their clients, for which it owes a duty of care.”
The review found some areas of widespread errors. Seventy per cent of records of diagnostic screenings tests did not comply. Records relating to the commencement of asylum seekers vaccination programs were 89% non-compliant.
Another audit by Protiviti in July 2013 of records from Manus Island and Nauru continued to highlight problems with IHMS’s handling of asylum seekers records.
The audit identified “high levels of average compliance” of records on Nauru, but said there were continued errors in records for Manus Island.
A subsequent audit, conducted directly by the department in October 2013, found that IHMS did not meet the 90% threshold for complete medical records, leading to a 5% financial penalty at both Manus Island and Nauru.
A spokesman for the immigration department said: “Minor data discrepancies may occasionally be observed between departmental systems and IHMS’s medical records system.
“These discrepancies are due to different data upload rates between the two systems and are quickly clarified and corrected.
“The clinical care detainees and transferees receive is not affected by these discrepancies.”
A spokeswoman for IHMS said: “IHMS is provided with daily updates on the location of all individuals held in detention both onshore and in the regional processing countries via nominal roll lists which are compiled by the service providers at each site.”
“As we receive these daily nominal roll lists, any potential issues with other location reporting data has no impact on the quality of clinical care provided.”