An unusual letter from King's College Hospital

[Mick Mac]

Its not a hullabaloo - its just a thread.

I don't think its appropriate to approach recent patients. Obvioulsy most people seem to think that this is ok. I'm happy to accept I'm in the minority on that.

Keef - its not so much to do with patient confidential address records, just the policy of approaching former patients that I see as wrong.

On the funding point - I think the Government is best placed to decide how much money the NHS needs and what we should pay for it. We fund it through taxes. I appreciate this is not voluntary.

People may want to give more money to the NHS. The existence of the charity is well known, and I think it should be marketed openly, rather than being specifically directed to former patients (although I'm sure this is only one of many methods).

[SeanMacGabhann]

if not a hullabaloo then enough "went down" for you to want to disassociate yourself from it Mick

As for the Govt being best placed - I'm not in anyway criticising this government's commitment to cutting the deficit to suggest that it is ideologically against the idea of the NHS and will be doing much to dismantle it in the coming years

[Mick Mac]

Oh - yes - forgot about that one - thought that post was a bit strong!

For me its just a bit on idle banter, if I'm honest.

[Ladymuck]

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> I don't think its appropriate to approach recent

> patients. Obvioulsy most people seem to think that

> this is ok.

I am not so sure that they do "think that this is OK" Mick Mac. Given the way the thread has escalated (I never saw that coming:-S), they might be hesitant about voicing their opinion. Certainly, several neighbours have expressed their disatisfaction to me about this point, whilst also stating that they have no intention of publicising that disatisfaction.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Interesting point about your neighbours LM ? I don?t doubt there is mutterings but sometimes, amidst a consensus of mutterings and negativity, people would do well to step back and ask what exactly is it they are unhappy about. It?s really easy to find yourself getting drawn into and agreeing with a bunch of people giving out about something/anything

[Keef]

Why are they hesitant about voicing an opinion?

Why is this such a big deal?

I just don't get it. I'm not thick, and I do get people's points on here, but I just really don't see why they care. It seems to be just creating things to worry about, imagining some poor little old lady, or an abused wife. If these people exist, and received this letter, they probably chucked it in the bin and didn't give it a second thought. O4r maybe they thought "what a cheek", but really, what harm is done?

There is enough to worry about in this world without getting wound up over nothing. Lets all have a drink and forget.

[Keef]

Cross posted with Sean.

[Ladymuck]

Well, to be honest Sean, when I started this thread I was unsure about my own reaction to the letter and so I did what I so often do when I am unsure about something - I seek the opinion of others. In this instance, the views of other forumites.

Well...

[Ladymuck]

X-posted with Keef.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Back at the start of the thread it did seem unusual enough for people to want to know more ? absolutely fair enough. And being unsure of one?s own reaction is pretty healthy

It?s when it became more apparent what it actually was that some people seemed to lose perspective

[Ladymuck]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> Back at the start of the thread it did seem

> unusual enough for people to want to know more...

Surely you meant "usual"?

[SeanMacGabhann]

Nope ? the way you descibed the letter it sounded unusual.. unusual enough to solicit further opinion anyway

[Ladymuck]

Oh I see - yes, yes, sorry...I got wrong end of stick...(as usual)

[DJKillaQueen]

How can it possibly be appropriate to target recent patients with any kind of correspondance other than that which relates to either their treatment or their experiences of that treatment? Most service providers ask for consent before sending non-associated mail (the little box you either tick or untick). Whomever deemed fit to use patient data to then mail-shot them in this way is wrong imo. And just because a few people on a forum seem to not be bothered by that doesn't mean that it isn't innapropriate.

It is also not true that any name and address can be sourced on the internet. Many people for example choose to have their details ommitted from the public copy of the electoral register, to have their phone numbers ommitted from published directories and use the TPS service.

As for legality...the ONLY way Kings can draw up a list of recent patients is from patient data. Could my GP draw up a list of patients she saw in the past week and then send them all letters about a fund-raising charity working on behalf of her practise? I think most people would find that very innapropriate.

[DJKillaQueen]

I just found this....

UK General Medical Council guidance

The UK's General Medical Council (GMC) produced guidance on Confidentiality: Protecting and Providing Information in September 2000.7 The guidance requires doctors to obtain patients' consent to disclose medical information except in exceptional circumstances, for example where the law requires disclosure. In the case of disclosure of information for the purposes of epidemiology, public health safety, education, medical audit and health service administration, the guidance states that doctors should still obtain the individuals' consent to use identifiable data (including the provision of patient lists of names and addresses with no other medical details) or arrange for members of the health care team to fully anonymize the data.

I'm struggling to understand how it is OK for the CEO (I think an earlier post said it was the CEO) to take patients names and addresses and mail-shot them about fund raising when it's not deemed by the GMC as acceptable to pass on information within the realms of so many more appropriate uses of that information, without a patient's consent.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I'm failing to see the "passing on" bit

[DJKillaQueen]

Well all of the guidance for use of patient data (and a name and address alone is still classed as patient data) clearly seems to show that data can only be used within the realms of research and/or medical treatment or admin - and that in most cases consent is required by the patient for the use of that data in those ways.

The earlier post said that it was the CEO who has sent out the fund raising info letter. To do that, he would have had to access patient records to obtain a list of recent patients or such a list would have been passed on to whichever administrator actually sent the letters out. That was done without patient consent to use that information for those purposes.

I'm guessing that the fund raising department think that because the letter has come from 'within' the hospital that their is no issue with using patient names and addresses in this way (i.e. for unsolicited and targeted mail)(without consent). But from everything I can find, that appears to not be the case.

Interestingly in America and Canada there are laws that do allow hospitals to contact former patients for fundraising related purposes, however all patients are given the option to opt out before receiving any such correspondance. The Law in Canada was only passed earlier this year following problems with data protection conflicts and targeted fundraising funnily enough.

[SeanMacGabhann]

damned if they do and damned if they don't

"what do we want?" - "more joined up thinking and a reduction in beaurocracy!!"

"when do we want it?" - "errr.. does it affect me ?"

There is room for interpretation there DJKQ - and I@m still struggling why one would want to find the EXACT phrase that prevents what is essentially a boss saying to an underling "tell everyone we know we could use some cash if they have any spare"

In other words, it's all a bit of a hullabaloo

Let's say you had the time an inclination to follow this to the courts AND they found in your favour AND Kings could no longer repeat this excercise

How would this affect anyone in the slightest, other than Kings having less money to do some of the things we supposedly want them to do?

This is posturing on a high-horse for no benefit.

[DJKillaQueen]

But he hasn't told everyone...he's targeted recent patients. And I'm sorry but I care how my patient information...including my name and address is used. The law does too for very good reasons. It's the principle that matters here.

I personally get very frustrated with anyone that says let's only enforce some rules and laws and ignore others. Why would anyone feel they ever had to abide by any rule in a world like that!

There are plenty of other less intrusive ways that Kings can and do fund-raise. Breaking data protection laws should never be one of them, and nor should it be condoned if it happens.

[Keef]

And equally DJ, just cos a few people on a forum find it inappropriate, doesn't mean it is. Works both ways.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Well, since you ask, many societies are able to live with more flexible interpretations of the law than you - I would hate to be in a pub and offered a lock in with you. Next you?ll be saying home-taping is killing music

You are also definitely accusing them of breaking the data-protection law which I haven?t seen at all ? best you have found was a document headed ?guidance?. So I don?t see anyone condoning the breaking of any laws as yet

?It's the principle that matters here?

And just as soon as we establish what that principle REALLY is we might be able to agree. At the moment it?s stuck very much in underwear-slightly-creased stage

[mycroft]

Also DJ i think that they King's person did say in their rewssponse that they had worked with the ICO and Lawyers to ensure that this could be undertaken legitinmately...As Keef says, just because you may not like it, although I understand that you have not actually received one of these letters or read one, it doesn't make it wrong. there is obvioulsy a need for funding and the people employed to raise that have approached those with most reason to give and they have done their research to ensure that no DPA laws have been broken. all seems fairly reasonable and sensible to me.

[Giving to Kings]

From the Director of Fundraising at King's

Before this gets any further out of hand: King's is not breaking Data Protection Laws. As well as having "Fundraising" included on our DPA register of purposes, I have confirmed and written authorisation from the Information Commissioner's Office that there are no areas for concern in terms of compliance with the DPA with this letter. This has been upheld by advice from our lawyers.

Jane Ferguson

Director of Fundraising

[RosieH]

Jane, thanks for that. I appreciate you must be pretty frustrated by now.

I've steered away from commenting on this thread as there's nothing really I can add, except to say that I am firmly in the camp that says this approach is fine, I have no problem with it whatsoever, and in fact, as I'm not a recent patient of Kings, and therefore haven't received a letter, I shall contact them directly to find out more about their fundraising and see how I might be able to contribute..

[Timster]

I still think this is absurd.

1. The GMC guidelines relate to medical information (not names and addresses) and whether it should be passed on to third parties. I assume you wouldn't object if the hospital used your name and address to write to tell you'd dropped your credit card in an outpatient's waiting room. Nobody is passing the details of STD sufferers to condom manufacturers so they can include them in a direct marketing campaign.

2. The issue in this case is covered by Data Protection which again relates to passing on of information - not using YOUR name and address to write to YOU. I appreciate there may be a grey area here in that the charity is distinct from the trust but that strikes me as technicality.

3. No names and addresses are being passed on - the letters are being sent to people who already know they visited hospital. DulwichMum's point is only relevant (and I assume the letters only go to people 18 and over) if someone else opens your mail and I am afraid a hospital shouldn't have to factor in an adult's inability to protect his or hers own privacy. The battered mother who'd had a termination she hadn't told her partner about would be written to anyway by the hospital for medical reasons.

4. Nobody needs permission to write to you and that is why we all receive junk mail every day. If an organisation with your details writes to you and you don't want them to again, then you can request that they take your name off their mailing list. The same would apply to Kings.

5. So what if someone gives some money because they feel guilty. That's why I give money to charity. That's how charities survive. Do you honestly believe vulnerable people's livelihoods are threatened every time they receive a request for a charitable donation?

Sorry for the bullet points.

PS I am surprised no one has objected to the plan to put mugshots up in the A&E waiting room of every recent patient that has refused to make a donation.