From: FOI (Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust) tsdft.foirequests@nhs.net
To: Susie Colley (chair@tqcc.co.uk)
Reference: TSD10513
Signed by: Freedom of Information Team

Dear Ms Colley,

Request for Information

We are writing to confirm that we have now completed our search for the information you requested. A copy of the information is below.

1. Formal Programme and Business Case Documentation

Under Section 22 of the Freedom of Information Act we are not obliged to provide you with information if it is our intention to publish the information within a reasonable time frame. The full business case will be published for the Trust Board, all Board papers are available on the Trust's website: https://www.torbayandsouthdevon.nhs.uk/about-us/board-meetings/

2. Explicit Plans for Service Relocation or Consolidation

Please find attached documents relating to the Peninsula Pathology Network and potential transfers of pathology activity from Torbay. Please note information included within the documentation which is not relating to the potential or planned transfer of pathology activity, laboratory designations within Devon or role of Torbay as an Essential Service Laboratory (ESL) has been redacted as beyond the scope of your request.

Further information has been redacted under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act, where disclosure would identify personal data, and section 43(2), where disclosure would be likely to prejudice commercial interests including ongoing negotiations.

We recognise the public interest in openness and accountability around the use of public funds and contractual arrangements affecting public services. Disclosure would support transparency in decision-making and help the public understand the basis on which the Trust is considering the proposed arrangements for Gadeon House.

However, there is a stronger public interest at this time in withholding the information under section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act, as the contract remains subject to ongoing negotiation. Disclosure of negotiating positions, financial assumptions, pricing information, or other commercially sensitive details would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of the Trust and/or the other parties involved by undermining the Trust's ability to secure best value and conduct negotiations fairly and effectively.

On balance, the public interest currently favours maintaining the exemption until negotiations have concluded.

3. Underlying Activity and Demand Data (Raw Where Held)

Modelling is based on the Model Hospital which is available on the following weblink: https://open.model.nhs.uk/compartments/c9fce30a-6d8a-4aa3-ad1d-fd2bad6a7cfc

4. Modelling, Assumptions, and Outputs

Modelling is based on the Model Hospital which is available on the following weblink: https://open.model.nhs.uk/compartments/c9fce30a-6d8a-4aa3-ad1d-fd2bad6a7cfc

Further information is included in the Business Case and is exempt under section 22 of the Freedom of Information Act, as it is intended for publication within a reasonable timeframe. The full business case will be published for the Trust Board, all Board papers are available on the Trust's website: https://www.torbayandsouthdevon.nhs.uk/about-us/board-meetings/

5. Clinical Risk and Impact Evidence

We are in the process of completing our clinical risk assessments for this activity.

Further information is included in the Business Case and is exempt under section 22 of the Freedom of Information Act, as it is intended for publication within a reasonable timeframe. The full business case will be published for the Trust Board, all Board papers are available on the Trust's website: https://www.torbayandsouthdevon.nhs.uk/about-us/board-meetings/

6. Carter-Based Efficiency Claims

We do not hold this information.

7. Governance, Decision-Making, and Assurance

We believe complying with this request would exceed the appropriate cost limit. Your request seeks full minutes, board papers, appendices, decision logs, highlight reports, and risk registers relating to pathology reconfiguration across multiple governance forums (including Trust Board, Finance and Investment Committee, Quality/Clinical Governance Committees, and Pathology Programme or Network Boards) over a period from 2018 to the present.

To respond in full would require the Trust to identify and review a very large volume of meetings and associated papers across multiple committees and programmes; conduct manual searches across several systems and archives spanning more than six years; and review each document to determine relevance.

We estimate that the work required to locate, retrieve, and review this volume of material would significantly exceed the £450 cost limit (equivalent to 18 hours of staff time) set out in the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004.

In accordance with section 16 of the Act, we may be able to assist you if you are willing to refine your request. For example, limiting the request to a shorter date range or specifying one committee or board rather than multiple groups.

8. External Direction, Correspondence, and Challenge

We believe complying with this request would exceed the appropriate cost limit. Your request seeks a wide range of external correspondence, directives, targets, instructions, independent reviews, gateway reviews, and external assurance reports relating to pathology consolidation and Carter implementation, involving multiple external bodies over an unspecified period.

To respond in full would require the Trust to conduct extensive searches across multiple email accounts, shared mailboxes, and document management systems to identify and review large volumes of correspondence and assurance material to determine relevance.

We estimate that the time required to locate, retrieve, review, and redact this information would significantly exceed the £450 cost limit (equivalent to 18 hours of staff time) prescribed by the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004.

In accordance with section 16 of the Act, we would be happy to assist you in refining your request so that it may fall within the cost limit. For example, you could limit the request to a specific organisation (e.g. NHS England only) or restrict the request to a defined date range.

The information supplied to you continues to be protected by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. You are free to use it for your own purposes, including any non-commercial research you are doing and for the purposes of news reporting.

Yours sincerely,

Freedom of Information Team
Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust

From: Susie Colley (chair@tqcc.co.uk)
To: FOI Team, Torbay and South Devon NHS FT
Reference: TSD10513

Good evening, Freedom of Information Team,

Thank you for your response to my request under reference TSD10513.

I am writing to request an internal review of several aspects of the Trust's handling of this request and the application of exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Application of Section 22 - Information Intended for Future Publication

The Trust has relied upon section 22 to withhold the Full Business Case and related information. However, the response does not specify the anticipated publication date or the Board meeting at which the Full Business Case is expected to be published. Indeed a search has been made of the Board Meetings and the Business case could not be located in the event that the relevant document has been published, please attach the relevant document in your response.

Please clarify:

• The date on which publication is anticipated.
• The specific Board meeting at which the Full Business Case is expected to be presented.
• Whether the intention to publish existed at the time my request was received.

In addition, section 22 appears to have been applied not only to the Business Case itself but also to underlying information including modelling assumptions, financial models, sensitivity analyses, impact assessments and risk-related material.

I request that the Trust reconsider whether these underlying documents are themselves intended for publication, as information used to inform a future publication is not automatically exempt under section 22 merely because it contributes to a document that will be published at a later date.

Clinical Risk Assessments and Supporting Documentation

In response to Question 5, the Trust states that clinical risk assessments are currently being completed.

If risk assessment work is already underway, I would be grateful if the Trust could clarify whether any of the following are currently held:

• Draft clinical risk assessments.
• Preliminary risk registers.
• Workshop outputs.
• Hazard logs.
• Quality Impact Assessment drafts.
• Equality Impact Assessment drafts.
• Any interim risk documentation relating to pathology reconfiguration.

If such documents are held, I request that the Trust reconsider whether they can be disclosed, subject to any necessary redactions.

Application of Section 43(2) - Commercial Interests

I would ask that the Trust reviews the application of section 43(2).

The refusal notice refers generally to commercial prejudice arising from disclosure but does not clearly identify:

• The specific commercial interests that would be prejudiced.
• Which parties' commercial interests are affected.
• How disclosure of the redacted information would create the claimed prejudice.
• Why that prejudice is considered likely.

I also note that the public interest test refers to "proposed arrangements for Gadeon House". As my request concerns pathology reconfiguration, this reference appears unrelated to the subject matter of the request.

I would be grateful if the Trust could confirm whether the public interest assessment was specifically undertaken for the pathology information withheld under this request and whether the reference to Gadeon House was included in error.

Response to Question 3 - Activity and Demand Data

My request sought the underlying datasets used in planning and modelling, including test volumes, workload classifications, demand patterns and referral flows.

The response instead directs me to Model Hospital benchmarking information.

While Model Hospital may have informed the analysis, it does not answer whether local operational datasets were also used.

Please clarify:

• Whether local Torbay pathology activity datasets were used in developing the business case.
• Whether local workload, referral, transport, demand or utilisation datasets are held.
• If held, whether these datasets can be disclosed in whole or in part.

Application of Section 12 - Governance Records

The Trust has refused Question 7 on the basis that compliance would exceed the appropriate cost limit.

However, the response does not explain the estimate relied upon in reaching that conclusion.

I would therefore request that the Trust provide:

• The estimated number of records considered.
• The estimated hours attributed to locating, retrieving and extracting the information.
• The basis on which the section 12 estimate was calculated.

In addition, Trust Board papers are routinely published and indexed. It is therefore unclear why identifying pathology-related Board papers would necessarily exceed the cost limit.

I would ask the Trust to consider whether partial disclosure or a narrower search could reasonably have been undertaken.

Application of Section 12 - External Correspondence

Similarly, Question 8 was refused under section 12.

I would ask the Trust to reconsider whether a more targeted search could be conducted, particularly given that pathology reconfiguration is a defined programme of work.

Section 16 Duty to Provide Advice and Assistance

Finally, I ask that the review consider whether the Trust has fully complied with its duty under section 16 of the Act.

Whilst the response suggests narrowing the scope of Questions 7 and 8, the advice provided is relatively general and does not identify what information may be available within the cost limit.

I would welcome more specific guidance as to how the requests could be refined so that meaningful information can be disclosed.

Given the significant public interest in pathology reconfiguration, including potential impacts on emergency care, critical care, maternity services, surgery, workforce arrangements and public expenditure, I believe there is a strong case for maximum transparency regarding the evidence base informing these proposals.

Clearly these requests will form the basis if this matter later proceeds to the Information Commissioner's Office.

I look forward to the outcome of the internal review.

Yours sincerely,

Ms Colley

Kindest regards

Susie Colley
Chair of the Torquay Chamber of Commerce and the Heart Campaign

To: Joe Teape (Trust CEO), Chris (Chair), Martin, Phil Keeling, Torre, Nicole, Sally, Mark
Subject: Freedom of Information Act 2000 Request - Pathology Reconfiguration - Torbay and South Devon (Forensic Request)
Date: 27 April 2026, 21:37

Good evening

I am writing to request detailed information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 regarding any actual or proposed reconfiguration of pathology services affecting Torbay Hospital and the wider Torbay and South Devon system.

This request specifically seeks recorded information, underlying datasets, modelling outputs, and formal governance materials, not summaries.

1. Formal Programme and Business Case Documentation

Please provide:

• a) Any Strategic Outline Case (SOC), Outline Business Case (OBC), or Full Business Case (FBC) relating to pathology service reconfiguration, consolidation, or networking involving Torbay.
• b) Any programme documentation produced under or aligned with the One Devon Programme that references pathology services.
• c) Any options appraisal documents (including longlists/shortlists), including scoring matrices, weighting criteria, and ranking outputs.

2. Explicit Plans for Service Relocation or Consolidation

Please provide all recorded information that confirms, discusses, or models:

• The potential or planned transfer of pathology activity from Torbay to:
  • University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust (Derriford)
  • Royal Devon University Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (Exeter)
  • Any "hub" laboratory designation(s) within Devon
• The proposed or assumed role of Torbay as an Essential Service Laboratory (ESL) or otherwise

This should include scenario modelling where Torbay activity is split across more than one receiving site.

3. Underlying Activity and Demand Data (Raw Where Held)

Please provide the actual datasets (not summaries) used in planning and modelling, including:

• Test volumes by discipline (biochemistry, haematology, microbiology, histopathology, etc.)
• Classification of workload into "hot" (urgent) vs "cold" (routine) activity
• Time-stamped demand data sufficient to understand diurnal variation and peak demand
• Referral patterns and inter-site sample flows

If full datasets cannot be disclosed due to size, please provide extracts sufficient to demonstrate structure and analytical use.

4. Modelling, Assumptions, and Outputs

Please provide:

• a) All financial models (including spreadsheets) used to estimate:
  • Cost per test before and after reconfiguration
  • Workforce changes and skill-mix assumptions
  • Capital investment requirements (automation, estate, logistics)
  • Net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR), or equivalent metrics
• b) All operational models, including:
  • Turnaround time modelling (baseline vs proposed)
  • Sample transport/logistics modelling (including assumed transit times and failure rates)
  • Capacity modelling for any proposed hub site(s)
• c) The explicit assumptions underpinning these models (e.g. % automation, staffing ratios, courier frequency, failure tolerances).
• d) Sensitivity analyses, scenario testing, or downside risk modelling.

5. Clinical Risk and Impact Evidence

Please provide:

• Clinical risk assessments relating to loss or reduction of on-site services at Torbay
• Impact assessments for A&E, ICU, maternity, and surgical pathways
• Any modelling of delayed turnaround times and associated clinical risk
• Equality Impact Assessments (EqIA) and Quality Impact Assessments (QIA)

6. Carter-Based Efficiency Claims

In relation to the Carter recommendations and the "hub and spoke" model:

• All local analyses estimating efficiency savings attributable to pathology networking
• Any post-implementation reviews, benefits realisation reports, or variance analyses
• Evidence demonstrating whether projected savings have been achieved, are on track, or have not materialised

7. Governance, Decision-Making, and Assurance

Please provide full minutes, board papers, and appendices (not summaries) from:

• Trust Board meetings
• Finance and Investment Committees
• Quality / Clinical Governance Committees
• Any Pathology Programme Boards or Network Boards

where pathology reconfiguration has been discussed (from 2018 to present).

Please include:

• Decision logs
• Highlight reports
• Risk registers (including programme risks relating to pathology reconfiguration)

8. External Direction, Correspondence, and Challenge

Please provide:

• Correspondence with NHS England and NHS Devon Integrated Care Board relating to pathology consolidation
• Any instructions, targets, or directives tied to Carter implementation
• Any independent reviews, gateway reviews, or external assurance reports

9. Commercial Sensitivity and Public Interest

If you consider any information exempt under Section 43 (commercial interests) or Section 36 (prejudice to effective conduct), please:

• Apply exemptions narrowly to specific redacted elements rather than whole documents
• Provide the remainder of the material
• Include the full public interest test justification

Given the significant implications for patient safety, access to urgent diagnostics, and public expenditure, there is a strong public interest in disclosure of the underlying evidence base.

10. Format of Response

I request that:

• Data and models are provided in their original electronic formats (e.g. Excel rather than PDF where held)
• Documents include appendices and embedded data where available

If any part of this request is held by another organisation, please transfer it as appropriate under Section 44 or advise accordingly.

Thank you please respond within 7 working days.

regards

Susie Colley
Chair of the Torquay Chamber of Commerce and the Heart Campaign
(Declined) Governor of Torbay Hospital