Two people who received such letters have complained about their adequacy to the Otago Daily Times.
Both were concerned their specific issues were not addressed and one described the correspondence as insulting.
The letter, sent out under Mr Rousseau's name, said the board would try to address the caller's concerns "where possible, through the ODHB process and ensure these are placed before the audit team".
It went on to explain the board's criteria for colonoscopy were based on resources which were insufficient to meet the needs of the population, and this meant some patients who would receive colonoscopies in some other areas could not receive a publicly-funded one in Otago.
It suggested there was the opportunity to have a private colonoscophy and advised anyone with ongoing concerns to revisit the issue with their doctor.
Mr Rousseau, in an email response on concerns by a woman cancer patient who wanted to be included in the audit, said the generic letter was developed to deal with a large number of inquiries.
While people did not specifically ask for the colonoscopy criteria, it was provided to inform people and give them a context for why they might have been refused.
Asked what the term "ODHB process" meant to anybody not familiar with it, Mr Rousseau said that in future correspondence, the board would either clearly explain the term in detail or that it was its internal mechanisms for addressing their concerns.
The woman who complained to the newspaper about the letter said it did not say whether she was included in the audit.
She was also confused about a December letter from emergency, medicine and surgery services head Dr Colleen Coop advising her she was on the colonoscopy surveillance recall list.
This referred to her having a discussion with oncologist Dr Shaun Costello which the patient said had not taken place.
Mr Rousseau said, in hindsight, the letter could have been worded differently to reflect the internal process undertaken in dealing with people's inquiries.
Asked if it was good enough to have correspondence where people did not feel their specific questions were answered, Mr Rousseau said there was an appeal process for complaints not adequately addressed.
In less formal inquiries, the board relied on open channels of communication with patients so when their questions or concerns were not addressed "we can try to rectify this with them".
He said he was not able to comment on the specific case, regarding its inclusion in the audit or otherwise, pointing out that the clinicians made a judgement on who was for inclusion in the audit as a cut-off point needed to be made.
Details of each person's call to his office were taken and given to the audit team to review, he said.
The woman whose concerns the newspaper raised with Mr Rousseau said his response did not explain why she was not in the audit.
She dismissed the suggestion she could go through the complaints process - she had been through that before and regarded it as "ineffectual time-wasting".
Hospital advisory committee chairman Richard Thomson said he was not prepared to comment on the specific situation, but said generally getting the right tone in a response letter was not always as straightforward as it might seem.
People who had concerns were often distressed and dealing with scary situations, but tended to be incredibly tolerant and understanding if they felt the board genuinely cared about their concerns.
"Sometimes we get it wrong and sometimes we get it right."
On those occasions when it did not work, people could feel alienated.
