An unusual letter from King's College Hospital

[DJKillaQueen]

Can you not see why someone receiving such a letter might feel they were being asked to give something back for their treatment? Is that conmpletely lost on you? I think it's a valid point.

Secondly someone has targetted paitents only with this mail shot.....when a patient goes to kings for treatment they do not automatically agree to let their address be used for direct mail shots.....which technically are classed as junk mail. Do uoi expect that a shop has a right to direct mail you every time you buy something from it? Again I think that is a valid point to make. Perhaps there needs to be a consent form in place for all patients...you know one of those little boxes that says you do not wish to receive mail other than that related to treatment.

Just because Kings is a hospital doesn't mean those using it shouldn't expect the same privacy afforded them by other companies in realtion to personal data (and an addrees IS personal data).

[Timster]

I am sorry but this thread is completely absurd and I can only wonder at the Director of Fundraising's patience in responding to people's so-called 'concerns'.

King's saves lives. It treats patients who are very ill. Many people on this forum will owe it a great deal. It does so on a limited budget and so it tries to raise a bit more money by asking for donations. Like every other charity in the UK. Unlike many charities, it does not ambush people on the street. Unlike BT, it doesn't phone me up at inconvenient hours to suggest I'd save money by changing my internet provider. Every extra bit of money Kings raises means it can do a better job for its patients - that's you! If some of the people on this thread can't see that then maybe they should opt out of using King's and exercise their choice to go private.

Sorry to be so impatient but I am fed up with the NHS being expected to aspire to ridiculous standards which aren't expected of anyone else just because they're funded by taxes. I'm not suggesting King's should be immune to criticism, but please try and put in perspective what you are complaining about (receiving a letter) with the job they do (I'll say it

again - they save people's lives).

(For the avoidance of doubt this isn't directed specifically at OP whose concerns I think are unfounded but not expressed unreasonably - but general tone of debate since)

[mycroft]

Hear, hear Timster!

[Keef]

What Timster said.

[intexasatthe moment]

What Mickmac and Peckham Rose said .

[pk]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> Just because Kings is a hospital doesn't mean

> those using it shouldn't expect the same privacy

> afforded them by other companies in realtion to

> personal data (and an addrees IS personal data).

but they're saying that they've consulted with the ICO and taken steps to comply

i'm with Hug, timster and the others who can't get the moaning - how bad can receiving a letter from a charity be? (even if it were to ask for a donation, which i understand it doesn't)

and as for those suggesting that people may not seek hospital care in case they get sent a letter from a reputable charity afterwards - do you really believe that?

guess you can't please all the people all of the time even when you're trying to do something positive

[dulwichmum]

Dear Jane Ferguson,

I must admit that I am reading this at the end of the day, am I understanding this correctly? Are you saying that you have been given the names and addresses of all patients who have attended Kings within the last three months?

?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.?

That quote makes my hair stand on end. Let me point out to you (just in case you don't watch Holby City)that people do not necessarily suffer ill health by choice. They may not chose to attend outpatients for a jolly, instead of going to the opera or because they like doctors. The consequences of a clinic appointment are not necessarily ?feel good?.

Have you considered the possibility that you will be contacting some people who may wish to conceal their appointment from those they live with?

How can you be sure that your contact will not cause unnecessary questions and alarm in some homes where, for example, a teenager has sought treatment for an STI and hasn?t told her family, or a battered wife who had a termination because she couldn?t face another pregnancy?

It is my experience that many of the patients who attend a hospital would indeed be termed "vulnerable."

As someone who has had a long professional association with Kings, I am horrified by this blanket approach you have taken to fundraising. I pay tax to finance the health service. I do not welcome anyone having access to my name and address or contacting me in my home, simply because I attended outpatients.

You sound jolly pleased with the response you have had so far. Give a thought for those who may not have contacted you to offer you cash, who could be suffering the consequences of your actions.

Best wishes

[Mick Mac]

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> So the hospital's Chief Executive has used the

> patients address records, in the hope of

> benefitting the charity?

I disassociate myself from some more strongly worded posts on this thread, but I would still like to think that patient address records were not being used for charitable requests, either directly by the charity (not the case) or indirectly via the Chief Exec (seems to be the case).

This is because I have been fortunate enough to have benefitted greatly from the professionalism of King's over recent years.

However, I think often people who have been treated by the NHS are potentially vulnerable to requests for funds.

If the letters are indeed being sent to former patients then some who receive the letters may read an implication between the lines: "You have received good treatment form your local hospital, would you like now to pay a bit more for that treatment and the treatment of others"

And therefore you may feel a little guilty, in not giving.

However - those receiving NHS treatment may in general be the more vulnerable in society - because those who have suffered life threatening conditions are often feeling very weak and insecure.

Those who support the sending of these letters should ask themselves whether this practice was well thought through. But whilst I agree with many that it was well intentioned, it was poorly targeted.

[SeanMacGabhann]

DM, this is arrant nonsense - you know full well that ANY institution you have interacted with has access to your name and address. Why is this even remotely controversial? Do you view any letter from companies as invading your privacy "in your own home"?

You have a real bee in your bonnet about the fact that this is undertaken by and as someone who understands how to raise money - why does the fact that they could be selling butter or the fact that people don't choose to be ill relevant? I know the answer will be something to do with understanding patient's etc but there is a bigger picture

Why would anyone receiving a letter from Kings asking for money reveal anything about an appointment? It's a letter from an institution in need of money, asking for money. Not remotely suspicious

There are many many people who aren't outpatients who could be considered vulnerable as well

What do we do about appeals for the Pakistan floods? Stop them going out on TV in case vulnerable people are watching and feel compelled to give money?

So, ok, some people object to this method of raising money. I'm guessing you aren't arguing with the need for that money? In which case how would YOU choose to raise the money, if you were in charge at Kings?

[mycroft]

Mick Mac, who would you target?

[expat]

>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.

I do not think people is nessecary aginst giving money to Kings but they have 2 questions:

1. How did Kings get the name and address if not from patient records?

2. Why were some but not all inpatients tageted?

[Mick Mac]

i think you are missing the point mycroft.

Kings should not be using patient databases for non medical purposes.

That is as far as it goes really.

My personal view on fundraising is that the NHS will never have all the money it wants. Thats a different debate.

[SeanMacGabhann]

It just never occurs to me to think that my address is the same as my ?medical records?

I pretty much figure that any time I give my address to anyone, it?s going to get used. I?d be annoyed if I was getting letters from l?Oreal saying ?following your recent attendance at Kings?. It has come to our attention that your hair is in need of??

But for a Kings representative to send a letter to me? I just don?t see that as my ?medical? records being used

yes to the first point, not so sure about the second. Surely if we were having that other debate we would be talking about many of the same points we are here?

[mycroft]

Sorry Mick Mac, I thought that your point was that it was poorly targeted, mainly because you stated in your post that it was "poorly targeted". So, how would you target it?

[Mick Mac]

Ok - I'll reword "poorly targeted" as "a poor decision to target former patients".

[mycroft]

So who would you target then?

[Keef]

Agree completely with Sean on this.

Look, we live in an age where you can go on the internet, and get the home address of anyone you want. Who fucking cares?

[Mick Mac]

Keef Wrote:

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

> Agree completely with Sean on this.

>

> Look, we live in an age where you can go on the

> internet, and get the home address of anyone you

> want. Who @#$%& cares?

Its whether its the correct policy, or not, to approach patients for cash donations.

[Keef]

It's not illegal, so it's correct enough.

[Mick Mac]

All things legal are not correct, surely Keef. Some are inappropriate.

[mycroft]

And nobedy, in this instance, has been approached for cash.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Didn?t Admin approach everyone on here a while back when the server needed upgrading or something and suggest that, should anyone care to, use the Donate link on the site

I don?t recall any hullabaloo. I don?t recall anyone saying the privacy of their inbox was invaded! I don?t recall anyone accusing admin of treating us like ?customers?. I don?t recall anyone saying ?what??? I pay my broadband, my phone line and my PC and now you want me to pay for the forum as well!!!!?

I don?t recall stories of vulnerable old people such as [snip!] who, stuck in their homes with only the forum as a lifeline to the local community being guilt-tripped into handing over money they don?t have

It?s not an ideal situation that a hospital has to hold out a bowl for extra cash, but I fail to see how it could be innapropriate

[Keef]

Word!

[Keef]

All this agreeing with Sean is making me feel a bit uncomfortable.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I did wonder....