An unusual letter from King's College Hospital

[Moos]

In a perfect world, no - targeting patients may make people feel they 'ought' to donate for having used King's services.

But in the imperfect world of charity fundraising it seems acceptable to me. I've also received letters from charities in the past reading 'thanks very much for your ?15/month, do you think you could manage a bit more?' which was rather annoying.

[Ladymuck]

Moos Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> targeting patients may

> make people feel they 'ought' to donate for having

> used King's services.

Precisely, and that cannot be right (IMO). Also, if such a method of targeting patients were to become more commonplace in the future, an unintended consequence of this might be to deter a minority from using King's services.

> I've also received

> letters from charities in the past reading 'thanks

> very much for your ?15/month, do you think you

> could manage a bit more?' which was rather

> annoying.

Well if that isn't a bloomin cheek, I don't know what is! 10/10 for sheer audacity though!

[Jeremy]

I actually agree with Huguenot. It is a good cause, even if you don't agree with the means - so I'm not comfortable with the public hanging.

This isn't America, hospitals are not businesses.

[Giving to Kings]

Dear Ladymuck (apologies for the salutation ? I don?t know your real name)

As the Director of Fundraising for King's College Hospital, I hope you will allow me the opportunity to respond to your very thought-provoking commentary.

All fundraisers target their marketing at people most likely to support their cause - for example someone who goes to a music concert would be a more likely support the arts, somebody who buys pet food is more likely to support animal welfare. Patients who have had a positive experience in hospital are more likely to be interested in how that hospital's charity has made a difference to their care, and possibly in supporting it financially.

Let me put your mind absolutely at rest. We are a department within the hospital, but we will never have access to any patient data. Every hospital has a DPA Officer and Caldicott Guardian to ensure that patient data is not used inappropriately. (Some Charity supporters assume that we know their medical history, but we don't).

Our Chief Executive has indeed written to you, and to all patients who have attended the hospital in the last 3 months. It was a generic letter, signed by him: at no point did he or anybody else access the content or detail of any individual patient records. The individuals mailed this week has nothing to do with anything other than the fact that recent patients may be more interested in hearing about the Charity than those who were treated longer ago. This mailing will hopefully be repeated quarterly, if the general response is good. I can also point out that the letter is not an appeal for donations: it offers patients the opportunity to choose to receive information about the work of the charity.

If patients receiving the mailing are interested in hearing more about the charity, they can send the reply back to us, where they will be entered into our own, separate database (equally highly protected by DPA laws). I count myself as being a grateful patient of King's, after life saving care of my daughter, and my son was born here too. Many grateful patients are moved to support the charity, and this gives all patients the opportunity to choose to do that.

In answer to a specific issue on your thread, I can confirm that our Chief Executive leads by example: he gives a not inconsiderable and regular donation to the Charity, as do I.

The finances of the Charity are absolutely separate from the hospital - they are an independent organisation and answerable to the Charity Commission and not the Department of Health or Monitor. However, none of us are blind to the fact that the NHS has always been an infinite demand on a finite resource.

We are the very first NHS Trust to use this innovative approach, which is why it has taken over twelve months of consultation with lawyers, and the Information Commissioners Office (home of the Data Protection Act) to ensure that this was permissible. The initial response to our first mailing has been astonishingly positive: I really hope that all hospital patients becoming aware of the great work of their charities can become the norm: really community-based pride.

You may be interested to know that in some hospitals in the United States, fundraisers are informed with 24 hours notice of all elective patients coming into the hospital in order that they can assess who are likely donors. They then send a fundraiser to meet and greet those patients (free newspapers, flowers, bath robes etc). This is an approach that, while successful, I hope never reaches these shores!

While I cannot respond to all the opinions expressed within this thread, I would like to pick up on one in particular:

Spark67: you have suggested that we have neither given support for your fundraising, nor have acknowledged your gift, which worries me greatly. Given that we keep a close and personal dialogue with all our fundraisers, acknowledge all gifts received, and cannot find any records of your activities, I wonder where your request for help has been lost. Please contact me directly so we can resolve this for you.

I hope that this addresses your concerns; if you would like to find out more, please visit our website www.givingtokings.org.uk or contact me at [email protected] with appropriate enquiries: I cannot comment on NICE guidelines, individual patient records or examples of care, procurement or remuneration.

Jane Ferguson

Director of Fundraising

King?s College Hospital

[Keef]

Well that's sorted that then.

Only just read this thread.

I have to basically agree with everything Huguenot said. Why is this even an issue for people? Get the letter, either bin it, or make a donation, no need to think there are dark forces at work.

[DJKillaQueen]

Hmmm if you recently use the NHS you might like to pay something towards it? Isn't that the philosophy behind your approach in 'informing' recent patients of Kings 'fundraising activities'? Doesn't sit right with me I'm afraid. By all means fund raise but I personally see the direct targetting of recent patients as a bit much esp. as we ALL already pay for the NHS through our taxes.

And I agree in part with you Keef except where we are talking about vulnerable patients, who may feel compelled to donate whether they can afford to or not.

[Keef]

And I agree in part with you Keef except where we are talking about vulnerable patients, who may feel compelled to donate whether they can afford to or not.

Rather than respond to that myself, I'll quote the almost always right Moos.

In a perfect world, no - targeting patients may make people feel they 'ought' to donate for having used King's services.

But in the imperfect world of charity fundraising it seems acceptable to me. I've also received letters from charities in the past reading 'thanks very much for your ?15/month, do you think you could manage a bit more?' which was rather annoying.

That basically says it all for me. It may not sit quite right, but when you're competing with thousands of other charities for people's kindness, you need to play the game, and the game isn't always pretty.

[Ladymuck]

Dear Jane Ferguson,

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to read through this...ahem...relatively long thread, and for your detailed reply.

I am pleased to say that your reply has reassured me somewhat. However, an enduring concern of mine is that a minority of patients might feel "obliged" to donate when perhaps they are not in a position to do so (or simply don't wish to). Worse, a few might be deterred from seeking assistance under KCH. You state "the letter is not an appeal for donations: it offers patients the opportunity to choose to receive information about the work of the charity", and whilst I agree that it was not a direct request for funds - ultimately, I perceived (albeit incorrectly) the letter as an appeal. Perhaps it might be an idea to change the wording/style of the letter in order that the Hospital's position and aims may be rendered less ambiguous.

As stated in my opening post, I have received nothing but excellent care under Kings and I remain grateful for this. I wish you all the best with your endeavours.

Yours sincerely,

M.

[DJKillaQueen]

and the game isn't always pretty

I accept that point but to subject some ill and recovering from recent treatment patients to that is imo unfair.

LM makes a good point (I haven't seen the letter sent out personally so refer to her description of it) that maybe the letter could be changed to make it clear it is not a request for donations, but a request for those interested in being kept informed of Kings fundraising campaigns to be added to a mailing list for that purpose.

[PeckhamRose]

I never received any such letter and I am a regular outpatient.

Maybe it's coz I am poor with an SE15 address, and whinge on about not even being able to afford all my prescriptions.

Interesting thread though and I think DJKQ's observations are spot on.

[Giving to Kings]

From the Director of Fundraising at King's

A few extra points that you are raising which I feel I need to address:

The Data Protection Act prevents anyone from processing data in an unfair way, and I agree I think it would be unfair to decide not to mail somebody by an assessment of their "vulnerability" based on their "age" or the affluence of their postcode.

The other issue that has been raised is in relation to the "work of the charity", which has been assumed by your readers to mean solely fundraising, but by which I mean majoratively the charitable grants that the Charity has given and continues to give to the Hospital. In 2009/10 the Charity made around ?3.7million of charitable grants to the hospital, including confirmed funding of a ?1m state-of-the-art CT scanner for the Emergency Department, and this year we complete a ?9m rebuild of the children's hospital, funded largely by charity donations. These examples are important for patients (and your readers) to know - we really do make the difference.

Interestingly, as a postscript, the majority of the telephone calls I have received have been to ask to whom cheques should be made payable, because the Chief Executive had forgotten to include this detail in the letter. Clearly we can't keep everyone happy!

Jane Ferguson

Director of Fundraising

[expat]

>Our Chief Executive has indeed written to you, and to all patients who have attended the hospital in the last 3 months.

Well I have and have gotten no letter...

>Let me put your mind absolutely at rest. We are a department within the hospital, but we will never have access to any patient >data.

So where do they get the address of recent patient from?

[Moos]

In my opinion the letter made it perfectly clear that it was a request for interest and not a request for donations. If I get a chance I'll scan my letter and stick it on here so you can all judge for yourselves.

It's always good to see people discussing issues directly on the forum, so I was glad to read Jane Ferguson's response, and found it well expressed. Expat, I read her note as meaning that all recent patients were equally targeted, ie their names and addresses were provided to the charity, but not treatment information so that for example there was no attempt to match cancer sufferers with cancer projects or pregnant women with neo-natal care etc. Thank goodness.

Moos (also SE15 by the way, PR)

P.S. "almost always"!?

[Keef]

You may have disagreed with me once or twice, so obviously you were completely wrong on those occasions.

No one's perfect ;-)

[mycroft]

I have just read this thread and can't really understand what the issue is...Here is a charity which has invested millions of pounds in seeking to improve upon the basic service provided by the NHS in our community...Surely they ought to be encouraged and supported by those who will profit by improved medical services...i.e. our community.

[PeckhamRose]

The outstanding question then is how do they get our addresses when they are separate from our medical records and thus should not be accessed?

And why didn't I get one?!

[mycroft]

I though that the question regarding the way the data was used was covered by the lady from Kings quite well...Seemingly no DPA issues.

PR I'm sure they would be quite happy to send you one of their letters if you maybe asked them.

[DJKillaQueen]

What PR is asking is that if the letter was sent to recent patients how do the charity obtain a list of who those recent patients are? Logically the only departments that would have such a list would be those administering or administrating treatment....so whilst no details of individual treatment are accessed, a list of those treated is...and such a list must be linked to treatment (because that's the only way someone would end up on that mailshot).

Also no-one is suggesting that Kings should not raise money. What is being questioned is the process of mail-shotting recent patients (in whatever context) to inform them that Kings carries out fundraising. To the average person that suggests a connection between receiving treatment and an expectation to support Kings fund raising. Suggesting that those in receipt of treatment are more likely to be receptive to direct marketting without assessing why that might be is a flawed argument.

After all, Kings could mail-shot from the elctoral register....but instead, in this case, it has chosen to target (and it IS targetting) those recently having received treatment.

[Giving to Kings]

From the Director of Fundraising at King's

Let me make the position absolutely clear one more time. Neither the Charity nor the fundraising department has written to patients - we DO NOT and WILL NOT ever have access to patient records or addresses, without exception.

The Hospital's Chief Executive has written a letter which has been sent to the hospital's patients.

Contained within the body of the letter, is an invitation to respond (FREEPOST) separately to the Charity, "opting-in" to receive further information about it's work - grants, plans, fundraising etc.

There is no expectation to respond to the letter or to donate. Actually I can think of a number of supporters and volunteers who have never made a personal gift, but who have maintained an interest in the Charity for many years.

I've always considered myself a grateful patient of King's as much as a professional fundraiser, so please forgive my rather evangelical enthusiasm!

Jane Ferguson

Director of Fundraising

[Mick Mac]

So the hospital's Chief Executive has used the patients address records, in the hope of benefitting the charity?

[mycroft]

Which in turn will benefit those within the community using the services of the hospital.

[Mick Mac]

But some people don't want to receive such correspondence and have asked how it came about. That's what the discussion is about now.

[mycroft]

I thought that the lady from Kings had covered that now.

If you don't want the letter put it in the bin.

[Huguenot]

Come on kids, back down a bit.

No harm intended, no real harm done. Plenty of ambition, and a predictable amount of frustration from someone who works hard to support healthcare.

No rules broken etc.

Please support our supporters.

[mycroft]

A voice of reason.

If half the combined energy that people are putting into generating negative energy on this stream was focused on supporting this charity, which has spent millions supporting our community, then maybe they wouldn't need to send the letter in the first place.