Decision
Ms X and Beaumont Hospital
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-153305-Z5P8G9
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-153305-Z5P8G9
Published on
Whether the Hospital was justified in refusing access, under 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, to certain records relating to an article published in the Clinical Radiology Journal in 2015, on the basis that the records sought do not exist or cannot be found
14 October 2025
In a request dated 6 February 2024, the applicant sought access to records relating to an article published in a journal titled ‘Clinical Radiology’ in 2015, concerning a study of clinical treatment undertaken at the Hospital between the years 2010 to 2013. She sought the following:
1. the governance policy referenced in the article under the heading “Materials and Methods”,
2. all records relating to the preparation of that governance policy,
3. the records “in which the institutional ethics committee considered the study a service evaluation exercise and formal approval was therefore waived”, and
4. all records submitted to the institutional ethics committee which led to the committee considering the study a service evaluation exercise.
In its decision dated 20 March 2024, the Hospital identified one record as coming within the scope of part 1 of the request. It granted partial access to the record with certain information redacted under section 37(1) of the FOI Act. In the accompanying Schedule, it described the record as “Guidelines for the management of patients with acute ischaemic stroke requiring inter-hospital transfer for intra-arterial therapy”. It refused parts 2 to 4 of the request under section 15(1)(a) of the Act on the ground that no relevant records could be found.
On 12 April 2024, the applicant sought an internal review of the Hospital’s decision. She said that the record released in part was not the record sought. She said the released record post-dates the study undertaken. With regard to parts 2 to 4 of her request, she said it would not have been possible for the authors of the article to compose the article without perusal of the records she had sought. In its internal review decision of 9 May 2024, the Hospital varied its original decision and refused the request in full under section 15(1)(a) of the Act, on the basis that the records sought cannot be found or do not exist. On 31 October 2024, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the Hospital’s decision, wherein she included a detailed explanation as to why she believes the records sought must exist.
During the course of the review, the Hospital identified a record entitled “Stroke Thrombolysis Protocol” that it deemed relevant and released it in full to the applicant. The Hospital also provided submissions to this Office outlining the details of the searches conducted for relevant records and its reasons for concluding that the records cannot be found or do not exist. The applicant was provided with details of those submissions and invited to make further submissions. Apart from confirming that the record the Hospital identified in its original decision could be removed from the scope of the review, she made no substantive submissions in response to the Hospital’s submissions.
I have now completed my review in accordance with section 22(2) of the FOI Act. In carrying out my review, I have had regard to the communications between this Office and both the applicant and the Hospital on the matter. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
This review is concerned solely with whether the Hospital was justified in refusing access, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, to certain records relating to a specified article published in the journal titled ‘Clinical Radiology’ in 2015 on the ground that they do not exist or cannot be found.
Section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act provides for the refusal of a request where the records sought do not exist or cannot be found after all reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts have been taken. Our role in a case such as this is to review the decision of the FOI body and to decide whether that decision was justified. This means that I must have regard to the evidence available to the decision-maker and the reasoning used by the decision-maker in arriving at their decision and also, I must assess the adequacy of the searches conducted by the FOI body in looking for relevant records. The evidence in “search” cases generally consists of the steps actually taken to search for the records along with miscellaneous and other information about the record-management practices of the FOI body, insofar as those practices relate to the records in question.
In its submissions to this Office, the Hospital said its position is that no governance policy for the study itself, as sought at part 1 of the request, is in existence. Noting that the article in question outlines that a prospective review was undertaken between June 2010 and June 2013, it said no records from that period were located. It said the document entitled “Guidelines for the management of patients with acute ischaemic stroke requiring inter-hospital transfer for intra-arterial therapy” (approved 13 May 2013) was uncovered during the original search and it was decided to release that document as it was in existence during some of the time period for the request and is a policy for the management of stroke patients.
The Hospital said its electronic record-management system, ‘Q-Pulse’ contains all approved hospital policies and procedures, including existing and archived records. It said Q-Pulse has three search capabilities: ‘name’, ‘owner’ and ‘type’ and that the following keywords were entered for records relevant to the request, using the search capabilities: ‘carotid stenting’, ‘governance’, ‘governance policy’, ‘intervention neuroradiology’, ‘mechanical thrombectomy’, ‘stroke’, ‘stroke governance policy’, ‘stroke governance’, ‘stroke policy’, ‘thrombectomy’, along with title of the journal article and the names of the author and the co-authors. The Hospital said no relevant records were located as part of its search of the Q-Pulse system.
The Hospital said it contacted the Business Manager and the Deputy Business Manager of the Imaging and Interventional Radiology Directorate (‘the Directorate’) in relation to the request, as it had determined that the Business Manager and the Deputy Business Manager may hold records relevant to parts 1 and 2 of the request. It said it requested the Business Manager and Deputy Business Manager to carry out searches for relevant records and that an in-person meeting was held between the FOI Manager and the Business Manager to discuss the records sought and to establish if the Directorate may hold records. It said no records were found by the Business Manager or the Deputy Business Manager as part of their searches.
The Hospital said a meeting was held with the FOI Manager and the Directorate’s Lead Clinician (‘Staff Member A’), a co-author of the article, to outline the details of the request. It said staff Member A had no recollection of the records sought at part 1 of the request. It said Staff Member A and his colleagues in the Directorate searched their emails, electronic files, and hardcopy files for records relating to parts 3 and 4 of the request and that no relevant records were found. It said the Manager of the Clinical Audit and Clinical Governance Department was contacted regarding parts 1 and 2 of the request and that a search was carried out of the Clinical Audit and Clinical Governance Department Database by entering relevant keywords, the title of the article, the names of the author and the co-authors’ names. It said no records were located in the searches undertaken.
The Hospital added that the Co-ordinator of Beaumont Research Ethics Committee and the Chair of the Committee were contacted in relation to the request and that a discussion was had between the FOI Manager and the Co-ordinator in relation to parts 3 and 4 of the request. It said a search was carried out for records on the Research Ethics Committee Database using relevant keywords, the title of the article, the names of the author and the co-authors and that no relevant records were found as part of those searches.
The applicant’s position is that the article in question references a governance policy and as such, it must exist. In relation to part 2, she said the records sought must exist as the governance policy could not have been drafted in their absence. In relation to parts 3 and 4, she said the article indicates that as the study undertaken was conducted to measure outcomes of current practice at the time, the institutional ethics committee considered it a service-evaluation exercise, and formal approval was therefore waived. She said the authors of the article must have been in possession of correspondence in which the position of the institutional ethics committee with respect to the study was advanced.
It is important to note that the Act does not require absolute certainty as to the existence or location of records, as situations arise where records are lost or simply cannot be found. Furthermore, this Office may find that an FOI body has satisfied the requirements of section 15(1)(a), even where records that an applicant believes ought to exist have not been located. It is not a matter for me to make a definitive finding as to whether or not the records sought ever existed. Rather, the question that I must consider is whether the Hospital has, at this stage, taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the whereabouts of records falling within the scope of the applicant’s request. Having considered the Hospital’s submissions, and in the absence of evidence to suggest that further steps should have been taken, I am satisfied that it has. Accordingly, I find that the Hospital was justified in its decision to refuse, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, the applicant’s request for certain records relating to a specified article published in the journal titled ‘Clinical Radiology’ in 2015 on the ground that they do not exist or cannot be found.
Having carried out a review under section 22(21) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm the decision of the Hospital to refuse access, under section 15(1)(a) of the 2024 Act, to refuse, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, the applicant’s request for certain records relating to a specified article published in the journal titled ‘Clinical Radiology’ in 2015 on the ground that they do not exist or cannot be found after all reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts have been taken.
Section 24 of the FOI Act sets out detailed provisions for an appeal to the High Court by a party to a review, or any other person affected by the decision. In summary, such an appeal, normally on a point of law, must be initiated not later than four weeks after notice of the decision was given to the person bringing the appeal.
Stephen Rafferty
Senior Investigator