Tag Archives: China

     Following is a question by the Hon Chan Hoi-yan and a written reply by the Secretary for Health, Professor Lo Chung-mau, in the Legislative Council today (June 4):

Question:

     It has been reported that the Hospital Authority (HA) will handle cases of medical incident claims by such means as compensation and mediation, including the handling of compensation matters through the medical incidents insurance scheme of HA (the scheme). Regarding the complaints and medical incident claims handled by HA, will the Government inform this Council whether it knows:

(1) the administrative expenses (including insurance and legal costs, etc.) incurred by HA in respect of the scheme in each of the past five years;

(2) the number of cases of medical incident claims received by HA in each of the past five years; the total amount of compensation paid in such cases and, among them, the respective amounts of compensation borne by insurance companies and HA;

(3) the number of cases of medical incident claims in the past five years in which HA had reached settlements with the complainants before proceeding to legal proceedings; the total amount of compensation paid in such settled cases and, among them, the highest and lowest amounts of compensation paid;

(4) the number of medical complaints or cases of medical incident claims in the past five years in which HA had taken the initiative to pay compensation without going through legal proceedings because the responsibility was clearly established; the amounts of compensation paid in such cases; and

(5) in respect of the medical service-related complaints received by HA in each of the past five years, the average time taken from the receipt of a complaint to the completion of its handling; given that according to HA’s complaint handling mechanism, the target response time for first-time complaint cases is six weeks (three months for complex cases), the number of first-time complaint cases which could not be responded to within the target time in the past five years?

Reply:

President,

     In consultation with the Hospital Authority (HA), the reply to the question raised by the Hon Chan Hoi-yan is as follows:

     Upon receipt of a case of claim arising from a medical incident, it is the usual practice of the HA to conduct an investigation, consider medical opinions and seek legal advice before responding and explaining its stance on the claim to the patient or his/her lawyer. The nature of healthcare services involves various known and unknown risks that reflect the actual situations of medical practice. Depending on the circumstances of individual cases, the HA will appoint a loss adjuster or lawyer to conduct negotiation for settlement of the case. In the event that court proceedings have been commenced, the HA will appoint a lawyer to file a defence, collect medical and factual evidence, conduct mediation and negotiate a settlement, etc in light of the circumstances and development of individual cases. For cases of claims received by the HA, some of the claimants may, after learning the explanation from the HA or considering various factors, stop pursuing their claims further.

     The HA attaches great importance to service quality and patient safety. It has put in place mechanisms and guidelines for management and monitoring of medical incidents in public hospitals. Subject to the circumstances of individual cases, the HA will appoint an expert group (such as Root Cause Analysis Panel or Clinical Co-ordinating Committee/Central Committee) as necessary to conduct detailed analysis, identify the possible causes of the incident, study and formulate improvement measures or optimise clinical practice standards and guidelines to prevent similar incidents from happening again in the future. Each year, the HA Head Office will submit to the HA Board a report of sentinel and serious untoward events, which will also be released to the public. The HA will continue to review the relevant mechanisms and arrangements from time to time and make suitable adjustments when necessary. 

     In addition, in response to systemic issues and the need for reform in the management of public hospitals, the HA set up a review committee on July 2, 2024, to conduct an in-depth review on various fronts. The scope of the review was comprehensive, covering areas of governance, appraisal, accountability, operations, risk control, and procedural compliance, etc and touching upon various levels, including the HA Head Office, hospital clusters, hospitals, service units/teams and staff. After detailed deliberations, the review committee consolidated its observations and made a total of 31 improvement recommendations in five areas, namely governance and accountability, safety culture, compliance and monitoring, incident management and enabling factors of the HA. The HA announced the review committee’s report on November 22, 2024. The HA is implementing various improvement measures in an orderly manner and monitoring the implementation progress and effectiveness on an ongoing basis, while submitting progress reports to the Health Bureau on a regular basis.

(1) to (4) During the process of mediation and settlement negotiation on medical incident claims, the HA takes into account the litigation risk apart from considering whether medical error and legal liability are involved. The agreement of out-of-court settlement without adjudication by court comes as a result of settlement negotiation between two parties after weighing various considerations and negotiation. The table below sets out the statistics on claims received by the HA in respect of medical incidents from 2022 to 2024 (as at early March 2025):
 

Year in which claims were reported (Note 1)	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024
Number of claims	97	105	94	105	81
Number of claims for which compensation was paid (Note 2) (Among them, number of claims settled before commencement of court proceedings)	25 (16)	18 (15)	12 (10)	15 (15)	4 (3)
Total amount of compensation paid in respect of claims settled out of court (Note 3) (Among them, total amount of compensation for claims settled before commencement of court proceedings)	Figures in million dollars
	23.75 (7.28)	10.38 (8.22)	5.94 (4.38)	10.09 (10.09)	3.21 (0.21)

Note 1: Claims reported refer to those reported under the medical incidents insurance scheme of the HA.

Note 2: All cases were out-of-court settlement cases.

Note 3: A claim may only be received by the HA after a period of time following the medical incident. Moreover, the duration taken for reaching an out-of-court settlement depends on the nature and complexity of each claim. For example, out of the claims reported in 2024, only four claims were settled out of court as at March 6, 2025. On the other hand, according to the information available, the HA, in 2024, reached out-of-court settlements for 28 claims, covering reporting years from 2016 to 2024.

     Compensation for the above claims was paid by the HA. As the HA is required to keep the settlement details of each claim confidential, the maximum and minimum compensation amount cannot be provided. The amount of compensation for such cases ranged from a few thousand dollars to several million dollars. Apart from the premiums paid to the insurance companies, there are no other administrative expenses for the medical incidents insurance scheme of the HA. As premiums involve commercially sensitive information, they cannot be disclosed.

(5) The HA attaches great importance to the opinion and enquiries of the public and has in place a two-tier system to handle complaints from patients and the public. All the initial complaints regarding services of public hospitals (including HA’s clinics) will be referred to the relevant hospitals for follow-up and reply. The HA has set the target response time for initial complaints at six weeks, while complex cases may take up to three months. The HA is actively implementing measures, including setting up Cluster Patient Relations Offices, standardising the complaint handling workflow with a view to shortening the response time for complaints. The statistics on the handling of healthcare service complaints by the HA in the past five years are as follows.
 

Year	2019-20	2020-21	2021-22	2022-23	2023-24
Number of complaints related to healthcare services	1 133	920	968	1 242	1 135
Among them, number of complaints completed beyond target response time (Note 4)	128	92	136	51	3
Average response time of cases	60 days	56 days	64 days	38 days	31 days

Note 4: As each complaint case varies in complexity, the time required for handling individual cases will be different. For some of the complaint cases that cannot be concluded within the target response time, it may be due to the case involving several hospitals or several departments within a hospital, necessitating repeated clarification or collection of evidence during the handling process; or involving complex clinical management requiring advices from independent medical experts. In addition, with the impact of the COVID-19 epidemic from 2020 to early 2023, healthcare staff needed to focus the manpower on clinical duties and patient care; other staff including Patient Relation Officers might be temporarily deployed to support the logistic work in the fight against the epidemic; and some of the staff members who were confirmed cases were not able to return to the hospitals to work, resulting in handling of some of the healthcare service complaints not being completed within the target response time. read more

     Following is a question by Professor the Hon Chan Wing-kwong and a written reply by the Secretary for Health, Professor Lo Chung-mau, in the Legislative Council today (June 4): Question:      It has been reporte… read more

     In response to the Japanese Government’s plan to discharge nuclear-contaminated water at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Station, the Director of Food and Environmental Hygiene issued a Food Safety Order which prohibits all aquatic products, sea salt and seaweeds originating from the 10 metropolis/prefectures, namely Tokyo, Fukushima, Ibaraki, Miyagi, Chiba, Gunma, Tochigi, Niigata, Nagano and Saitama, from being imported into and supplied in Hong Kong.
 
     For other Japanese aquatic products, sea salt and seaweeds that are not prohibited from being imported into Hong Kong, the Centre for Food Safety (CFS) of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department is conducting comprehensive radiological tests to verify that the radiation levels of these products do not exceed the guideline levels before they are allowed to be supplied in the market.
 
     From noon on June 3 to noon today (June 4), the CFS conducted tests on the radiological levels of 193 food samples imported from Japan, which were of the “aquatic and related products, seaweeds and sea salt” category. No sample was found to have exceeded the safety limit. Details can be found on the CFS’s thematic website titled “Control Measures on Foods Imported from Japan” (www.cfs.gov.hk/english/programme/programme_rafs/programme_rafs_fc_01_30_Nuclear_Event_and_Food_Safety.html).
 
     In parallel, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) has also tested 50 samples of local catch for radiological levels. All the samples passed the tests. Details can be found on the AFCD’s website (www.afcd.gov.hk/english/fisheries/Radiological_testing/Radiological_Test.html).
 
     The Hong Kong Observatory (HKO) has also enhanced the environmental monitoring of the local waters. No anomaly has been detected so far. For details, please refer to the HKO’s website (www.hko.gov.hk/en/radiation/monitoring/seawater.html).
 
     From August 24, 2023, to noon today, the CFS and the AFCD have conducted tests on the radiological levels of 140 985 samples of food imported from Japan (including 92 799 samples of aquatic and related products, seaweeds and sea salt) and 32 338 samples of local catch respectively. All the samples passed the tests. read more

     â€‹Following is a question by Dr the Hon Starry Lee and a written reply by the Secretary for Home and Youth Affairs, Miss Alice Mak, in the Legislative Council today (June 4):
 
Question:
 
     In April this year, the Government published a consultation paper on the regulatory regime on basketball betting. There are views pointing out that while the regime aims to combat illegal gambling activities, the community is generally concerned about possible intensification of the gambling craze upon regulation of basketball betting, particularly the negative impact on youths. In addition, it has been reported that the average age of participants in basketball betting is younger than the corresponding figures in horse racing and football betting, and statistical data from gambling counselling organizations also indicate a deteriorating trend in the gambling problem among young people. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) as the aforesaid consultation paper has pointed out that the regulation of football betting since 2003 has generally been effective in channelising illegal betting demand to the legal channel, whether the Government has compiled statistics on the changes in betting turnovers of legal and illegal gambling, as well as the number of help-seeking cases from pathological gamblers and the age distribution trend of those help-seekers, since the regulation of football betting; whether it has assessed the effectiveness of the existing betting regulatory regime in reducing youth gambling participation;
 
(2) of the following information on the assistance provided by the Ping Wo Fund to help youths quit gambling in the past five years: the number of youths assisted, the expenditure on the relevant publicity and education activities and the number of people covered, and the percentage of help-seeking cases from youths involving basketball betting;
 
(3) whether it will, upon implementation of the regulatory regime on basketball betting, require basketball betting operators to submit data on young bettors on a regular basis; whether it has assessed the adequacy of the existing measures to curb underage betting, including whether it will further restrict advertising targeted at youths;
 
(4) as there are views in the community that the authorities should consider setting up a dedicated committee to monitor the impact of basketball betting on youths, and strengthening the use of the Ping Wo Fund to take forward anti-gambling education (especially publicity efforts targeting young groups), whether the authorities will study the relevant proposals; and
 
(5) whether it has studied if implementation of the regulatory regime on basketball betting will result in a lower age range of gamblers; whether it will make use of technology to enhance the monitoring of gambling activities (such as using artificial intelligence to identify abnormal betting patterns), so as to prevent youth gambling addiction?

Reply:
 
President,

     As a matter of policy, the Government does not encourage gambling. To address the possible problems brought by gambling, the Government adopts a multi-pronged strategy including law enforcement against illegal gambling activities, public education on the harms of gambling addiction, provision of counselling and support services to people in need and regulation over gambling activities through legislation.
      
     The Government’s consolidated reply to Dr the Hon Starry Lee’s question is as follows:

Combatting illegal gambling activities
 
     On law enforcement against illegal gambling activities, the existing Gambling Ordinance explicitly stipulates that all unauthorised gambling activities, apart from those situations stated in the ordinance, constitute an offence. The Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF) has put in place strategies to combat illegal gambling activities, especially those involving triad-related or organised crimes, in four aspects, namely prevention, education, intelligence gathering and law enforcement. The HKPF will continue to closely monitor the illegal gambling trend, take appropriate intelligence-led law enforcement actions and strengthen the promotion against these illegal gambling activities. It is worth noting that according to the Gambling Ordinance, participating in illegal gambling (such as betting with an illegal bookmaker) is also an offence. Upon conviction, an offender is liable to a maximum penalty of a $50,000 fine and imprisonment for nine months.
 
Public education and provision of counselling and support services
 
     The Government attaches great importance to preventing gambling-related problems, particularly among youth. The Government established the Ping Wo Fund (PWF) in 2003 to finance both preventive and remedial measures to address the gambling-related problems. The Ping Wo Fund Advisory Committee (PWFAC) was also established to provide advice to the Secretary for Home and Youth Affairs on the use and application of the PWF.
      
     The PWF provides appropriate counselling, treatment and other support services to individuals affected by gambling as well as their family members. The PWF will also launch targeted public education and publicity campaigns to raise public awareness (particularly among young people) on the harms of gambling addiction, thereby mitigating its associated negative consequences.
      
     The PWF has consistently prioritised public education and awareness campaigns to raise public awareness on the harms of gambling addiction, and to increase public knowledge of the services available, enabling those in need to seek help at an early stage. These public education measures include providing financial support for non-governmental organisations and schools to organise public education programmes aimed at preventing and alleviating gambling-related problems, a publicity truck programme and other promotional efforts on traditional media and online platforms.
      
     The PWF’s funding support on public education and other publicity campaigns aimed at preventing and alleviating gambling-related problems has more than doubled over the past five years. Detailed figures are set out in the Annex.
      
     In the past five years, service-seekers aged 18 or below constituted 1-2 per cent of the total number of persons receiving counselling or treatment services from the four counselling and treatment centres funded by the PWF. These data indicate that there has been no substantial change in the prevalence of gambling among young people. Relevant data (including variation in other age groups) are set out in the Annex. Separately, according to the information from The Hong Kong Jockey Club (HKJC), the proportion of bettors in the 18-21 age group has consistently remained below 2 per cent in the past five years.
      
     We do not maintain a separate breakdown on individuals receiving counselling and treatment services due to illegal basketball betting.
      
     We will review the work of the PWF from time to time, with particular focus on young people, to enhance measures for preventing and alleviating gambling-related problems. The HKJC has also committed to donate to the PWF over a four-year period starting from 2023/24, with contributions set at $45 million per annum for the first two years and $50 million per annum for the subsequent two years.
 
Regulations
 
     The Government currently regulates the HKJC’s betting activities through the Betting and Lotteries Commission (BLC). Restricting betting activities to a limited number of authorised and regulated outlets is to address the actual and persistent public demand for certain gambling activities which is being satisfied by illegal means and the issue cannot be tackled by law enforcement alone.
      
     According to the HKJC, the amount of football betting turnover ranged from $92.5 billion to $160.3 billion in the past five years. In addition, since the legalisation of football betting in 2003, it has diverted back to the legal channel over $1,581 billion of turnover, which would have continued to flow into the unregulated and illegal gambling market without the regulation.
      
     Under the existing mechanism, the Government requires the HKJC to submit regular work reports for review by both the Government and BLC. The HKJC is also required to meet with the Government and BLC on a regularly basis to report on its progress and plans, ensuring compliance with all licensing conditions and facilitating the review of current betting-related measures. The Home and Youth Affairs Bureau will continue to work closely with BLC to ensure that authorised betting activities are properly regulated.
      
     At present, a number of conditions have been imposed under the licences of horse race betting, football betting and Mark Six Lottery issued to the HKJC to require its adoption of measures to minimise the negative impact of gambling on the public, especially on young people. These conditions include that the HKJC:
 

1. shall not accept bets from juveniles;
2. shall not accept credit betting;
3. shall display notices reminding the public of the seriousness of excessive gambling and provide information on the services available for those with gambling disorder; and
4. shall not, in conducting any promotional activities, target juveniles, etc.

 
     As stated in the consultation document on the regulatory regime on basketball betting, the above stringent legal and regulatory restraints will continue to be put in place in the proposed basketball betting regime.
      
     We will continue to closely collaborate with the PWFAC and the BLC, observe the prevalence of gambling activities among Hong Kong people, maintain communication with relevant departments, and proactively enhance our efforts to prevent and alleviate problems relating to gambling. As mentioned above, the HKJC has committed to donate to the PWF over a four-year period from 2023/24. If it is decided to implement the proposed regulatory regime for basketball betting, the Government will request the HKJC to further increase the donation to the PWF for stepping up public education programmes, as well as enhancing counselling and support services.      read more

     Following is a question by the Hon Michael Tien and a written reply by the Secretary for Health, Professor Lo Chung-mau, in the Legislative Council today (June 4):

Question:

     It has been reported that in the middle of last year, a malfunction of the air-conditioning system in the operating theatres of the main block of St. Teresa’s Hospital (the Hospital) in Kowloon lasted approximately 45 minutes, affecting a total of 12 operations. Some doctors and patients subsequently complained with the Department of Health (DH), which concluded its investigation in March of this year. DH stated that the Hospital had not breached the requirements. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) as it has been reported that a doctor indicated that at the time of the incident, he felt that airflow in the operating theatre had stopped, that condensation water had caused the operating lamp to drip, and that the endoscope lens and connecting components were suspected to be dampened. The Hospital once denied that the situation aforesaid had occurred in its operating theatres, but after the media reported the aforesaid incident, the Hospital changed its version of the incident several times. During the investigation conducted at the Hospital by DH, whether DH inspected the operating theatres in question (e.g. by conducting environmental simulations or taking samples in the operating theatres) and found out why the Hospital had changed its statement several times; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(2) as DH has indicated that air-conditioning interruption is not a reportable event of private hospitals and there was no breach of the requirements of the Private Healthcare Facilities Ordinance (Cap. 633) (the Ordinance) and the Code of Practice for Private Hospitals (the CoP) was found by the investigation, whether DH will review the Ordinance and the CoP in due course, following the occurrence of the aforesaid incident, to safeguard the level of medical safety in private healthcare facilities and enhance transparency in incident handling; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(3) as it has been reported that the patient concerned has indicated that the Hospital has not yet explained the aforesaid incident to her, whether the authorities have put in place a mechanism to require private hospitals to follow up with patients concerned and find out more about their situation; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

Reply:

President,

     In consultation with the Department of Health (DH), the reply to the various parts of the question raised by the Hon Michael Tien is as follows:

(1) and (2) The DH currently regulates private hospitals in accordance with the Private Healthcare Facilities Ordinance (Cap. 633) (Ordinance). The primary objective is to ensure that premises providing medical services can meet the stipulated facility and safety standards. In accordance with the Ordinance, the Government established the Advisory Committee for Regulatory Standards for Private Healthcare Facilities (Advisory Committee), which comprises representatives from the Hong Kong Academy of Medicine and its constituent colleges, the Hospital Authority, the academia, as well as associations of private hospitals, medical practitioners and dentists. The terms of reference of the Advisory Committee include devising, reviewing and updating the standards of regulation for private healthcare facilities (PHFs), as well as making recommendations on the codes of practice for PHFs issued by the Director of Health (DoH).

     The Code of Practice for Private Hospitals (CoP), which is issued by the DoH in accordance with the Ordinance and updated from time to time, sets out the licensing and operating standards for private hospitals, including related requirements for hospital facilities and equipment. The current CoP stipulates that fittings and equipment of hospitals must be maintained in good operational order, and requires hospitals to have contingency plans for emergencies (e.g. fire outbreak, cessation of water and electricity supply). It also stipulates that healthcare engineering systems (i.e. electrical installations, specialised ventilation systems and medical gas supplies) must be properly maintained to meet service needs and ensure patient safety. Reportable events for private hospitals are also set out therein.

     Regarding the incident in Member’s question, the DH was notified by a doctor on September 2, 2024, about an air-conditioning interruption which happened in the operating theatres on the second floor of St. Teresa’s Hospital in the evening of July 31, 2024.

     Although air-conditioning interruption is not a reportable event for private hospitals under the current CoP, the DH considered that the incident might involve potential patient safety concerns and therefore promptly initiated an investigation on the same day the notification was received (September 2, 2024). This included sending staff to conduct an inspection at the hospital concerned, checking relevant documents of the hospital, evaluating the effectiveness of its contingency measures, assessing the environmental condition of the operating theatres during the air-conditioning interruption and following up on the remedial actions.

     According to the investigation, the incident involved a malfunction of the air-conditioning system used to regulate room temperature which lasted about one hour. During the time, a total of 10 surgeries were being performed in various operating theatres. The hospital explained to the DH that dehumidifiers were immediately deployed in the operating theatres where higher risk surgeries were being performed, including the one where the doctor was performing an operation. Upon the DH’s enquiry, hospital staff and the nurses on site stated that the severity of condensation in the operating theatres did not result in water dripping onto the surgical site of patients. The hospital did not change its statement to the DH during the course of investigation. As for media reports suggesting that “the hospital had changed its statement several times”, the DH will not offer any comment. 

     The DH also examined the hospital’s records and noted that the ventilation system used for infection control in the operating theatres (including air filtration equipment, hourly air change rate and a positive pressure environment) was operating normally during the incident, and all surgeries had been completed according to the original schedule. After the incident, the hospital made a prompt follow-up by conducting air sampling of the operating theatres and surveillance on conditions of patients who underwent surgeries during the affected period for infection. No abnormality was detected.

     Based on the available relevant evidence gathered on the incident, the DH considered that the hospital had taken appropriate contingency measures in response to the emergencies, and there was insufficient evidence to show that the hospital had contravened the requirements of the Ordinance or the CoP. Nevertheless, the DH will continue to closely monitor the licensed hospital. If there is new and concrete evidence, the DH will take appropriate follow-up actions as necessary. At the same time, the DH will continue to regularly evaluate and update the regulatory standards for PHFs with the experts of the Advisory Committee, and review the CoP in accordance with the established mechanism so as to better protect public interests.

(3) The Ordinance established a two-tier complaints management system for handling public complaints against PHFs. Regarding the first tier, the Ordinance states that the licensee of a PHF must put in place a complaints handling procedure for receiving, managing and responding to public complaints against the PHF in the capacity of a service provider.

     Under the Ordinance, the licensee must ensure the complaints handling procedure is made known in an appropriate way to the patients or persons acting on their behalf. Upon receiving a complaint, the licensee must ensure that (a) an investigation of the complaint is conducted and findings are made; (b) if the case requires, an improvement measure is implemented; and (c) the complainant is informed of the findings of the investigation and any improvement measure and, if the case requires, of any follow-up action taken/to be taken.

     As for the second tier of the system, the Government established the Committee on Complaints Against Private Healthcare Facilities (Complaints Committee) under the Ordinance in 2020, with the DH serving as the Secretariat. Apart from registered medical practitioners/dentists, its current members also include persons of varied backgrounds such as representatives from other healthcare professions, patients’ groups, the legal sector, the engineering sector and the consumer-interest body. Complainants who are not satisfied with the handling or reply of the PHF concerned may lodge a further complaint with the Complaints Committee.

     The Complaints Committee has put in place a statutory mechanism to receive and handle complaints against licensed PHFs from the public, and will consider whether the PHFs have complied with the Ordinance and the relevant codes of practice. Pursuant to the Ordinance, the Complaints Committee may make recommendations on the issue of complaint (e.g. whether any regulatory action against the PHF concerned should be taken) to the DoH or improvement measures to the PHF concerned. In addition, the Complaints Committee shall inform the complainant in writing of its decision and any action taken/to be taken in relation to the PHF according to the recommendations approved by the Complaints Committee.

     As for the complaint status of the patient concerned, it is observed that the allegation of the patient received no response despite having made four complaint calls to the DH as suggested by media reports does not actually align with the DH’s records. Existing records reveal that the Complaints Committee received a call on September 12, 2024, from a member of the public, who enquired about the procedure for lodging a complaint against a PHF and mentioned having encountered a malfunction of the air-conditioning system of St. Teresa’s Hospital in the course of surgery. The Secretariat of the Complaints Committee has already explained to the enquirer the function of the Complaints Committee immediately, as well as the statutory procedures for lodging a complaint to the Complaints Committee. In addition, at the request of the enquirer, the Secretariat sent information on the complaint procedures, the complaint form and the statutory declaration form to the email address provided by the enquirer on the following day (September 13, 2024), with the enquirer confirmed receipt of the materials by email on the same day. After that, the Complaints Committee did not receive any complaint from the enquirer in relation to the incident.

     The Complaints Committee will continue to handle every complaint in a professional and impartial manner, endeavouring to bring forth service improvement of PHFs and safeguard patient safety. read more