Campaign to end Bounty sales reps' access to maternity wards - please read and share

[JustineMumsnet]

Evening all,

Thanks to all of you who have taken the time to fill in our survey on Bounty and share your stories - from the initial idea onwards, this really is a campaign that has been prompted by your concerns, as posted on Mumsnet.

The survey showed that a very large majority (82%) felt it was unacceptable for Bounty sales reps to be on hospital wards, as well as highlighting a number of other concerns about Bounty reps' selling practices, so we're calling on government to end this kind of direct selling/data collecting on NHS wards. See more here.

It's clear, from the survey results, that, even after Bounty updated its code of conduct (these results only include users who gave birth from May 2012 - the full results containing prior data are here) its practices leave a lot to be desired, and that Mumsnet users feel very strongly that the maternity ward is no place for a hard sell, so we're really hoping that government will listen to us.

Here's how you can help...

Please sign the petition

If you're on Twitter please tweet your support for the campaign with the hashtag #bountymutiny and the following link:

tiny.mn/1bsnpNw

If you're on Facebook then please like campaign page our campaign page (there's a FB link to click at the top on the left).

If you're on Google+, well, you'll know what to do.

We'll, of course, keep you posted here about the campaign and any developments. Thanks to everyone for their stories, honesty and input. Here's hoping we can make a difference!

I was thinking of putting a sign up on the end of my bed, "No Bounty photo" to stop them hassling me - is that a way to take the campaign into hospitals? It would make new mums who've never heard of the problem at least aware that they have a choice.

I think to assume that Bounty are largely compliant with Data Protection law simply because they're a big company is a little bit naive. When I was pregnant with my first baby, I was given a copy of a 'current' maternity policy by my employer - a large national law firm - and it was completely out of date. Even when I told them which parts were not compliant with the current law, it still took a number of meetings and eventually a report to the head of the employment law team to get them to admit it was wrong.

I now work for a government department and am having a similar issue with them, in that they are not funding non-cash benefits that are offered on a salary sacrifice basis to me whilst I'm on maternity leave - despite the fact that this is contrary to their own published guidance! There are a lot of stupid people out there and even big organisations get it wrong.

Also to assume that Bounty are compliant with DP law assumes that every single one of their employees are following the letter of the law. Posts on this thread alone have highlighted cases where they overstep the mark. Looking at the admissions board, as mentioned above, must surely be wrong. Not least because there will always be women in danger due to DV issues for example, do Bounty employees sign any sort of confidentiality agreement before being allowed on the wards or does the NHS assume that this is all dealt with (or not) by Bounty?

The Telegraph report points out that Bounty ladies are employed on a commission-only basis.

Two thoughts: they shouldn't want to waste even ten seconds of their time on someone who is sufficiently anti to put a "no bounty" sign on the door/bedfoot/curtain; I'm not surprised some of them use desperate and illegal/immoral tactics if making a sale means that much to them.

Gerri - I'm so very sorry to read about your sister xx

My friend has a picture of her son, they lost him at 23+2 weeks gestation. The fully qualified and trained member of staff dressed and photographed him in his own clothes, with his 'my first teddy' bear, in the blanket that her mother had knitted, in the most beautiful and sensitive manner possibly imaginable in those circumstances.

And yes, because she had technically given birth, and was on the maternity ward, (although the birth was not live), Bounty still approached her. More than once as two different reps came onto the ward, one in the morning and a different one in the afternoon.

Despicable.

Why are these things able to happen? Why are there no stricter measures in place? It makes my blood boil it really does. But maybe that's due to my own and my friend's experience?

I was in our A/N unit today. They have Bounty posters on the walls saying "hey, why not join the Bounty club now?". Posters in eg ultrasound waiting room.

I have a clinic appointment on Thursday. I think I should mention it.

Part of the problem is staffing levels. When there are not enough midwives to give even basic care (anyone else read about how many women are turned away in labour because of not enough staff? Was in the papers yesterday I think), then there are not enough staff to make sure that vulnerable women are protected.

I know that most midwives would be utterly horrified at a bereaved mother being approached on the maternity ward, and yet because they are rushed off their feet, are often not around in order to stop it happening.

This also comes back to data protection. A bounty rep should not be able to wander around unsupervised, or look at info boards. They should be provided with a list of women who have AGREED to have a rep visit them. Perhaps it could be part of the green notes where a tick box is filled (or not) and then forms part of the care plan for that woman. In the event of a still birth then the woman would immediately deemed as not agreeing.

Bogey - one of my friends who has a 6 day old DS (he's uber cute!!) was told "NOT TO COME IN BECAUSE THEY WERE TOOOOOOOOO BUSY!!!"

She'd already waited until the contractions were 2/3 mins apart because she KNEW the drill and that they'd say that!!

She went in and said - deliver this baby here or find me a bed, he's on his way!

Apart from data protection, is there not an issue of informed consent to what is happening to women while the responsibility of the NHS?

If I'm trapped in a hospital bed via drip and catheter, and someone who has been let in starts asking questions in order to carry out a procedure (whether stitching, offering meds, or in order to give me bumf and sell the answers to those questions), does the hospital not have a duty to ensure informed consent?

Given all the extra guidelines for 'vulnerable populations' when it comes to seeking informed consent to participate in research trials (anyone who may have perceived pressure upon them is deemed vulnerable, most notably prisoners, so I'd expect hospitalised mothers to count too), data miners ought to meet similar criteria when seeking consent.

Back to data protection: data holders are only allowed to store data 'for the purpose for which it has been collected'. If they are telling women that they are providing details in order to access a pack and CB form, then they shouldn't be able to sell it on at all. So I wonder what the forms say on them - presumably 'tick here if you don't want to receive offers from carefully-selected [sic] companies', but as the women in my bay seemed to be having theirs filled in for them, that sounds dodgy too.

Finally, the dinky pots of Sudocrem can be acquired in packs of 5 for about £3 on Ebay. :)

Marketing at Raigmore Hospital: reply from NHS Highland

Thank you for writing to NHS Highland about the Bounty service that has been operating in Raigmore Hospital for some years now. I understand from the Maternity Unit that most mothers appreciate the service, which is offered in other hospitals in Scotland besides Raigmore. The staff who come into the hospital to take the photographs do so under strict protocols so that they should not be causing the mothers any problems, so I am sorry to hear that your contact was distressed by her experience. I have raised this with the Maternity Unit staff who are looking into their arrangements with the staff to ensure that the points you raise are appropriately covered in the contract with the service.

I have also asked for a review of the contract as a whole, in view of NHS Highland?s commitment to the UNICEF standards for the Baby Friendly Initiative. I will write to you again when that review is complete with the outcome.

Yours sincerely

Dr Margaret Somerville
Director of Public Health and Health Policy

That last bit is good. Most hospitals/maternity units are very concerned about their baby friendly status.

This line is interesting

I understand from the Maternity Unit that most mothers appreciate the service

I wonder what precisely this means..? They have carried out a comprehensive survey or they just asked the midwife on duty one evening?

ooh sorry italics fail...

I understand from the Maternity Unit that most mothers appreciate the service

I understand from the Maternity Unit that most mothers appreciate the service

So what about the 17000 signatories to the petition to change.org or the responses to the MN survey? Do they count for nothing? Why are they not questioning their methodology behind this?

The funny thing is, that in the FOI requests I made a couple of the hospitals said similar things. However it was clear that at least one of them, got this information not from the Maternity unit - but from Bounty themselves!

In answer to:
^26) If so, how does the Trust ensure that the best interests of
patients are not being compromised?^

Central Manchester University Hospital responded with:

Please see responses to previous questions. Our customers have informed us that Bounty provides us with a service they welcome.

I find this utterly utterly appalling and wanted to repeat it for anyone who didn't see it first time round. This is an OFFICIAL response from the hospital remember.

I really hope this gets picked up by the media, just to show up how bad the relationship and how blurred the boundaries between the NHS and Bounty are. Its a totally unacceptable response

(If I get a minute over the next week or so, after MN starting a proper complaint about this, I will try and follow up my FOI stuff with a letter. I simply haven't had time since this the campaign started)

Plus, lets be honest about all this. The midwives are supposed to pass on complaints, but given the nature of the situation is this being done?

We have to remember the massive conflict of interest going on here:
University Hospital of South Manchester replied to the same question posed to CMUH with:
26) If so, how does the Trust ensure that the best interests of patients are not being compromised?
The payments are used to support the patient stay.
That doesn't really answer the question, and really avoids a massive part of the debate - is it fine to compromise the best interests of patients if you are getting money for other aspects of their care?

It ignores whether women make a complaint in the first place; because they have other things to worry about or don't think they have a valid complaint, or because its only in hindsight when they are for want of a better phrase 'a little bit more with it' (many woman have said that they only thought about it after being discharged from hospital on these threads), or because woman feel somehow pressured to say they like Bounty - maybe because they just want rid of them or don't want to discuss the reasons why they disliked them so much at that moment in time.

Or because if they make a complaint informally its not being passed on. Maybe the midwife can't be arsed to pass it on either because she doesn't want to or is overstretched (how much extra work is there in passing on an informal complaint?). Lets reflect back to the midwife who laughed at a request to stop Bounty visting or the midwife doing a guilt trip over how the hospital get a £1 for every pack...

So whose side are the midwives and the hospitals really on here? The patients or Bounty's?

I really shouldn't even need to ask this question, but I have to, and the fact I do says a lot in itself.

In the end from the evidence posted, I see little to persuade me, that its about the patients.

Well quite.

A bit like an ice cream van parking on school grounds on a hot day. The fact that several people are glad doesn't mean it isn't highly inappropriate.

I'm sure a few people in A&E would be interested in coupons off taxi fares, free Mars bars, and leaflets about physios and personal injury lawyers, but nobody would let Bounty prowl round there with a targetted pack.

OMG - central Manchester referred to 'its customers'

Did they mean to say 'patients' or was that line taken straight from the bounty marketing brochure...?

tbh I don't care if 99% of women in an enormous survey did welcome the service. Its inappropriate, probably breaches confidentiality and sometimes is deeply upsetting for women who are vulnerable or even bereaved.

This 'service' is unprecedented in the NHS. Where else would people stand for it?

Horry bounty wouldn't dare wander round A&E. People are not usually as alone and vulnerable and generally can walk away.

Many women don't have that option in an antenatal ward.

Did they mean to say 'patients' or was that line taken straight from the bounty marketing brochure...?

Does it matter which? The point remains the same.

Does it matter which?

Only in the sense that do CM really view the women on their wards as customers now - and treat them as such. Or did they just copy and paste from Bounty?

I don't know which I find most tasteless.

Further to the Burton Mail article, there was another article a couple of days later that said that the birthing pool was funded by a special NHS grant. So which is it?

Seems to me like they just trotted out the "it paid for the new facility" line when they were caught on the spot.

I used to work in a business connected to direct marketing and had access to all the lists available for sale in the UK and some from abroad, that are bought by companies. Bounty was one of the most popular, they currently charge £100 per 1000 names and addresses with a minimum order of 5000. Imagine how much they are generating with your information.

Bogeyface, that ties with a comment I saw on one of the telegraph articles (might of been posted by yourself). I've not posted it here because I wasn't sure of the reliability and source of the comment.

They linked to a website which gave details of the information they sold and how much for. When I clicked the link it didn't work and said the page did not exist. The poster who put the link commented again, about how quickly the page had been removed.

I've just clicked on the link again. Its now working! And I think I'm right in saying you can't edit your comments once they are posted on the telegraph site.

So I think this is rather interesting indeed... especially since the information the poster claimed the link showed, is different to what it now shows. Why did the link stop working? Did they have something to hide - like this poster suggested?

Anyway, the link is this one:
www.listbroker.com/datacards/datacard.asp?listnum=10442

Now it says quite clearly that 95% of all births are covered. This is a figure that troubles me. For other data collection for marketing purposes in other situations what is the take up rate? From what I know about marketing, this figure of 95% is staggeringly high. So high in fact that it should raise alarm bells.

To me it does straight away beg the question about what Bounty are doing; other companies should be biting Bounty's arm off for the secret of this figure in order to apply it to their business model.

That 95% is even scarier when you consider that Bounty only have access to hospital births, and home births run at around 2.5%...