My story raising questions about a Texas task force’s selection of Parkland Memorial Hospital and UT Southwestern Medical Center to head up a new Ebola treatment center has prompted a strange response from Parkland.
One of its senior executives accuses me in a press statement this week of bamboozling some of the most prominent health-care experts in the industry, and my news organization of trying to divide Dallas’ medical community.
First, some quick background. My Oct. 24 article featured three national experts on hospital management who in recent years have expressed concerns about Parkland’s approach to patient safety or transparency. Until late last year, Parkland and UTSW were at the center of a rare two-year federal safety intervention to try to remedy what regulators called life-threatening failures in infection control and other practices at Parkland. UTSW oversees the hospital’s clinical care.
After they were tapped as the operators of the newly created Ebola center, I naturally revisited that history in interviews with the experts. It’s my responsibility as a watchdog reporter to follow up on such issues. The professionals in turn questioned whether the task force had considered the safety record of both institutions. They also called for transparency about whether Parkland and UTSW have tackled the longstanding problems in their academic partnership.
Consultants and government officials have warned over the years that their differences - divergent missions, turf battles and clashing business interests - must be fixed to ensure effective patient care. Officials with Parkland and UTSW have not responded to our questions about those issues, highlighted in our 2013 Chronic Condition investigation.
Back to the Parkland complaint. Michael Malaise, a senior public affairs executive with Parkland, circulated an email to Dallas “opinion leaders and media” alleging that I had made false claims in my conversations with the experts intended to “coax a particular response from them.” He also accused The Dallas Morning News, whose ongoing investigation triggered the unusual federal crackdown, of being “obsessed with promoting discord” within the local medical community.
For the record, we understand the enormous task Parkland employees have confronted in overhauling their hospital’s operations over the last three years. But the public shouldn’t confuse our investigative reporting with promoting discord.
Also, the experts in my story weren’t in any way misled. To the contrary, they said they found my approach – and the story – fair and accurate.
Below, I respond further to the Parkland allegations:
Parkland assertion: “The Dallas Morning News ran a story on Friday, Oct. 24 that quoted health-care professionals who seem concerned that Parkland was not being transparent with regard to improvements in infection prevention over the past few years. Given the level of transparency Parkland established surrounding the completion of our Systems Improvement Agreement, this didn’t seem quite right.”
Facts: The three experts – Harvard researcher Dr. Ashish Jha, Vanderbilt professor Ranga Ramanujam, and former Boston hospital CEO Paul Levy – have repeatedly spoken to me and my colleagues since 2011, weighing in about Parkland safety and transparency issues, as I explained above. To find their past remarks, Malaise and other Parkland officials can perform a basic query of The Dallas Morning News‘ website archives. The experts’ concerns should not have come as a surprise.
In Malaise’s email, he credits Parkland with “a level of transparency” surrounding the completion of the “Systems Improvement Agreement.” That is the agreement Parkland struck with federal regulators in 2011 to prevent losing its federal funding after inspectors found widespread infection-control breakdowns that put patients in “immediate jeopardy.” The agreement provided for the rare installation of onsite safety monitors at the hospital.
But Parkland officials consistently withheld from the public the monitors’ actual audit reports, instead issuing “outlines” or bullet points of those documents. The News had to obtain the actual reports from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Parkland’s primary regulator. We routinely published links to the actual reports on our website so the public could see them in their entirety, and reported on details Parkland did not report.
Parkland assertion: “It seems the reporter, Miles Moffeit, did not give accurate information to the people he was asking to comment. Parkland contacted Dr. Ashish Jha of the Harvard University School of Public Health who served as a source for Mr. Moffeit’s story. Parkland confirmed that Mr. Moffeit failed to tell the doctor that he is in possession of more than a dozen CMS reports [the safety monitors' reports] outlining the progress of steps taken to improve safety and quality throughout Parkland Health & Hospital System – including infection prevention….Jha told Parkland’s CEO that he felt misled by Miles Moffeit.”
Facts: Again, I have frequently reported on those safety monitor audits as well as Parkland’s completion of the oversight program. My story clearly stated that Parkland spent $1 million on reforms, replaced its executive team and passed a final sweeping inspection last year to free itself from federal safety monitoring.
Jha says Parkland’s contention that I misled him is wrong. He said Parkland’s CEO Dr. Fred Cerise contacted him after the story appeared to discuss it. But, “I did not say I felt misled,” Jha said. “I don’t feel like I was misled.”
“It was a good story.”
Levy says: “My comment in the story had to do with the (Ebola center) selection process and the need for transparency with regard to that, especially given the clinical history of the two organizations. I stand by that. I don’t see how that can be viewed as unfair or biased or influenced by Moffeit.”
Ramanujam says: ”My quotes are very accurate and are really about the future success of the Ebola center, which is fair and reasonable.”
Parkland assertion: “Mr. Moffeit reported that Parkland is due for a surprise inspection from regulators. That is not true. Parkland has completed all surveys with state and federal regulators and currently has none outstanding.”
Facts: As The News was writing the story last Thursday for publication on the 24th, government inspectors were in the midst of completing the surprise onsite survey of Parkland, according to CMS officials.
Because the timing of the inspection had been kept secret, The News did not know about it until this week. As of today regulators are still reviewing the findings, they said.
Parkland refused to acknowledge the inspection in its statement, misleading readers.
Parkland assertion: ”Clearly any claims regarding a lack of transparency Mr. Moffeit made to these individuals were false and intended to coax a particular response from them. It was wrong for Mr. Moffeit to mislead them and it was wrong for him to mislead the public.”
Facts: The experts’ responses to Parkland’s allegations speak for themselves. Parkland has chosen to attack the messenger. The premise is that I’ve somehow manipulated three trusted authorities on hospital management into publicly maligning Parkland.
That allegation couldn’t be further from the truth.
Follow @milesmoffeit and @DMNInvestigates on Twitter. Like the DMN Investigates page on Facebook