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!

But that aside, do people who object to Bounty data-harvesting also avoid giving their details to Facebook, and assiduously search for the opt-out box when unavoidably giving details to online retailers and estate agents, etc?

Actually I do. Plus I give false information regularly. I also refuse to have a supermarket club card and do look at t&c with an eagle eye. I believe I should have a choice about what I participate in and what I don't as this is a fundamental freedom and a central part in equality and democracy. I am opposed to expansion of powers to restrict our civil liberties in many areas, even in the name of protecting us from terrorism as these powers are too easy to exploit for things they were never intended.

In fact, the hospital could cut out the middle-woman and just sell our names, addresses, birth dates and other non-medical data themselves. There could be an opt-out, like on websites.

This is a key point for me. Ethically there are huge reasons why sharing this kind of information isn't acceptable for the NHS to do. If they don't do it - why? The NHS could make more money from it than Bounty. Yet the NHS is actively facilitating this behaviour for its own financial gain and doing it in a covert manner, and have done a good job of exploiting women for years. The examples of ambulance chasers are the classic examples of why it shouldn't be allowed; it bypasses being sensitive and basic human respect and empathy for others.

For me its not just about the fact that babies are involved here - though I do understand why this maybe is more emotive - its part of a far larger problem and battle over privacy.

"OFGS WHY DO YOU EVEN CARE? IT'S JUST FOR ADVERTISING! IT DOESN'T MATTER!" is an incredibly naive response and shows no understanding whatsoever about how advertising changes your behaviour and can be used to exploit you financially in many different ways without you even realising.

Whilst we live in the data age, and thing its incredibly important to realise how that data is being processed and how that effects the world we live in. We do need to have limits about how far we go with some of this processing, and be wary of it. Particularly in areas of health, as it means that ill fortune is exploited rather than promoting and trying to expand social equality from birth.

In general I believe in question, question and question again - particularly with regard to motives behind actions in the flow and control of information. Bounty are not about helping women or providing women; I find the whole thing completely disingenuous - I believe that we should make informed decisions about everything in our lives rather than being deliberately misled or frankly conned. And that relies on transparency across the board where ever it occurs and paying particular attention protecting the most vulnerable in our society from this type of thing.

I guess you could say its a pretty big deal to me.

HTH.

Oh it's a huge deal to me too.

I suppose the question would be better asked the other way round: those who give their data away freely online, do you also object to Bounty collecting your data for sale without your fully informed consent?

I don't want to distract from this thread. But I did want to explore why it's so obvious that it's wrong for Bounty to use our data like this, but (possibly) less obviously wrong when things are online.

Because its about your health and because those treating you have sworn oaths to put you and your interests about others and because we have placed our trust in them for this reason.

Private companies that operate online have never pledged this and we done have this same level of expectation to uphold what is best for us above profit.

The have not got the same level of duty and responsibility.

Thats not to say they aren't important issues, but it is different because of this issue of trust and expectation.

Well done Mumsnet for doing this

Its scandalous that non CRB checked, non trained, (non hygenic?) people are allowed to wander round labour wards peddling their wares and manipulating vulnerable patients into giving out details that they then sell on for a profit.

I gave birth in 2008 and assumed the Bounty person was some kind of professional. I was not aware at all that they were a purely commercial entity and their sole purpose was to get my personal data for their own uses.

I hope the government takes immediate and determined action to remove Bounty from hospital wards forever.

I think they possibly may be CRB checked MA, but that really isn't the point - doesn't go far to reassure me - as the problem is they put sales first and new mothers second. So, should not be there.

If I am not mistaken there is a lady upthread who "trained" as a Bounty Rep who said the reference checking wasnt all that thorough - she said "references" but didnt mention CRB I think (she is supporting this campaign!)

I've emailed our HoM and included the petition asking her for a response. I'm wondering I'd this is something we should all do? or does anyone have a better target?

I take it from the last few posts that some of you have missed this article from the Telegraph from earlier this week.

Its a damning article.

Its definitely worth a read as it details how hospitals and Bounty may be in breach of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 which classifies any mother over the age of 18 who is receiving health or residential care as being at risk.

It points out that how under this Act being DBS checked (or CRB checked as it was previously known) would not be suitable for Bounty staff and not be acceptable.

"Under the current Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 such staff still do not fit the eligibility criteria for DBS checking as they do not provide health services,"
Rosie Carter, managing director of the Safe Child UK
(Charity which specialises in personnel checks)

Interesting, huh?

Thanks RedToothBrush.
Seems Bounty say their staff are CRB'd (DBS checked) ... but I think that's the general problem with DBS checks - that they can so easily offer a false sense of security. They are only a very first step .... and do not answer wider questions of the appropriateness of these people being on maternity wards and carrying out the activities they do (of often pushy/aggressive direct marketing and data collection to vulnerable people in hospital)

Also I noticed the slight anomaly of only over 18's being included - but of course that's just that over 18's are at risk as vulnerable adults (in the early hours and days after giving birth)
Under 18's are obviously no less vulnerable.

I volunteer on hospital wards helping new mums to breastfeed. I always check with the ward staff when I arrive to see which mums they think might benefit from some help from us - they just don't have time to spend endlessly helping a baby to latch properly, and they usually know which mums are struggling a bit. I also ask which mums have decided to bottle-feed - I'm not there to lecture them on their choices. I haven't found anyone yet who objected to our presence - the normal problem is that we run out of time on the parking meter before we've had time to see everyone who needs help!

I am highly trained, unpaid, fully CRB-checked and not trying to sell anything, but I am still conscious of the fact that new mums are vulnerable and I don't want to intrude. Our code of conduct prevents us touching either the mother or the baby - most of us aren't midwives and in any case I would never dream of picking up someone else's baby or dealing with new mums in any way that isn't respectful and polite. We never ask for details of either babies or mums and never record any identifiable information about any help we give (we are allowed to record details of our visit in the mum's maternity notes if it's relevant). We don't yank back curtains - we ask quietly if it's OK to come in. While on a hospital ward, that cubical is the personal space of the mum - they should have a perfect right to decide who comes in and out, especially non-NHS staff.

We don't wear uniforms that look remotely like NHS uniforms (just a polo shirt with the logo clearly displayed, and ID badges that also don't look like the NHS ones - we are not trying to pass ourselves off as NHS staff, because that wouldn't be ethical.

I can't understand why the NHS puts up with Bounty behaving in the way they do - they don't get an enormous amount of money for it and surely the fall-out from greedy, commission-based Bounty reps charging around wards trying to get details and flog rubbish to exhausted new mums, even when they don't behave appallingly, is unacceptable. If Bounty were simply leaving a heap of packs for people to pick up (preferably next to a big paper-recycling bin so that we can just chuck away the rubbish and hang onto the stuff we keep) that would probably be OK, as long as they weren't allowed near mothers or babies. Of course, what they really want is the valuable contact details and they can't get those, or sell photos, without hassling vulnerable mums. So, two solutions:

1. charge Bounty £5000 per mother on any wards that they visit (based on the number of mothers there, not on the number they manage to hassle). remind new mums that they have a perfect right to refuse Bounty offers, make the Bounty reps wear distinctive clothing that in no way resembles NHS uniforms, hand out a "Do Not Disturb" sign to new mums so that they don't even have to speak to a rep if they don't want to and ban photographers from the ward altogether. Deal robustly with any complaints and make it clear that the Bounty contract will be instantly revoked if the reps breach strict guidelines, or
2. Ban Bounty from interacting in any way with new mums or babies, but allow them to leave the packs (charging them a couple of hundred pounds per pack that they leave), or
3. ban them altogether.

Just ban them I reckon Paws
Simples !

(no need for all this bending over backwards to accommodate them, or even justifying why we don't want them)

I think you are just the sort of person who should be visiting the post-natal wards offering friendly support with breast-feeding to those who want it. Your attitude is a million miles away from that of the Bounty reps, and sets the bar for the sort of person who should be granted access to women on the post-natal wards in hospital.

I take it you'd just ban them, paws?

Thanks Juggling! It gives me a warm feeling inside when I actually manage to help someone and she is really grateful. I do it because I had so much help myself and wanted to give something back.

I wonder how good a feeling a Bounty rep gets after she's aggressively hounded a poor, exhausted new mother into eventually giving over personal information about her tiny newborn baby, that she knows will just result in her being spammed by post, phone and email until her child is 18. Seriously - how do they sleep at night?

Courgette - I'm not sure I would necessarily ban them altogether, having read the comments of people who actually want this stuff (although certainly new mums should be made aware that the child benefit forms are not only available from the Bounty packs, and that a microscopic tub of Sudocrem and one nappy aren't worth admitting aggressive sales reps onto wards). I also accept that the NHS does get a small amount of cash from them (although not nearly enough, given what Bounty gets in return). After all, if they can't actually see or speak to the mums or see the babies, they can't use aggressive sales tactics. However, there would have to be very strict limits - if they do anything more than drop off the packs, or attempt to enter the wards, or even speak to visiting relatives etc., they should be banned from that hospital, and Bounty should be hit with a massive fine.

For me, I refused to give my details to the pushy rep, despite her insistence that I had to give them over to her in order to get the pack, told her I was on Telephone Preferences and Mail Preferences and would report any future contact from them or their affiliates to Ofcom (just in case she got the details from the staff or snooped at my notes when I wasn't looking), and asked her to leave. Then I took out the CB form, Sudocrem pot and the nappy and just chucked the rest away. However, I think she got the details of everyone else on the ward, except one mum who was near me, heard what I said and repeated it to the rep herself!
I still use the tiny Sudocrem pot as it fits into a pocket (I top it up from the big pots). I'm certain it was not worth the hassle I had to go through from the extremely pushy, aggressive Bounty woman, and if they come anywhere near me when I'm on the ward with my next birth, I may be inclined to tell them exactly where they can put their bag of junk, loudly! Last time, my husband wanted to lodge an official complaint with the ward and Bounty, but I asked him not to as I thought it might reflect badly on the NHS staff, who were excellent.

I think I would go for option 2 - get as much money from them as possible without allowing them anywhere near mums and babies. Or ban them altogether. I'd be happy with either to be honest!

I suspect that one of the reasons Bounty are allowed to act in the way they do is that when you've just had a baby, the last thing you can usually gather the health and strength (and time) to do is raise a complaint about being pestered on the post natal ward. I had some dreadful (and also some wonderful) treatment on my hospital maternity ward with DD1 and I would have liked to raise a complaint about the crap aspects but I was too tired, in pain from surgery and had other more pressing things on my mind. Bounty surely take advantage of this - they know if they're a bit rude, a bit pushy, a bit nosey etc that the likelihood of a complaint must be low simply because it won't be a priority for a new parent.

I think it would be wonderful to have more friendly volunteer support on the post-natal wards.
I was desperate to talk with someone for 5 minutes about having a new little life to look after, how the birth had gone (OK, I was probably feeling a bit proud !), how the night had been (not so great !), and how soon we'd be able to go home.
But there wasn't anyone to talk to

forms in the reception should be enough. not in clinic, not in the ward, says far away from nhs staff as possible. give them to the welcome desk if you're worried anyone might oddly want one.

on the BMJ article a GP thought it was the hearing test!!! if a GP is fooled and gave over details what chance do the rest of its have?

Not Bounty though of course - just in case anyone could possibly get the wrong idea !

Apologies if these links have been posted already - I've looked back through the last few pages and didn't see them.

Bounty whistleblower claims superior showed her how to steal patient details
www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10134213/NHS-cash-for-access-Bounty-whistleblower-claims-superior-showed-her-how-to-steal-patient-details.html

Allowing Bounty salespeople onto maternity wards could breach UK laws
www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10127037/NHS-cash-for-access-allowing-Bounty-salespeople-onto-maternity-wards-could-breach-UK-laws.html

The petition is at almost 19,000 signatures now.
www.change.org/bountymutiny

CQC Essential Standards of Quality and Safety

From page 92

Safeguarding service users from abuse
11.?(1) The registered person must make suitable arrangements to ensure that service users are safeguarded against the risk of abuse by means of?
(a) taking reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent it before it occurs; and
(b) responding appropriately to any allegation of abuse.
(2) Where any form of control or restraint is used in the carrying on of the regulated activity, the registered person must have suitable arrangements in place to protect service users against the risk of such control or restraint being?
(a) unlawful; or (b) otherwise excessive.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1), ?abuse?, in relation to a service user, means?
(a) sexual abuse;
(b) physical or psychological ill-treatment;
(c) theft, misuse or misappropriation of money or property; or
(d) neglect and acts of omission which cause harm or place at risk of harm.
Regulation 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010

If I'm reading this correctly, that seems to say that Maternity Wards have to safeguard against the risk (so you don't have to prove that something has happened, only that it is a risk).

They have a duty to take steps to identify the possibility of abuse and to prevent it before it occurs. Again nothing needs to have actually happened for them to have to legally take action.

They need to respond to any allegation of abuse appropriately.

Abuse includes psychological ill-treatment, which might cover some of the most appalling examples that have been on MN. But the key one is the misuse or misappropriation of money or property - essentially financial abuse - which would be covered if aggressive sales tactics are being used...

So my friends, do we think that the official responses we've had from the NHS are sufficient? Do we think that the statement from the DoH is cutting the mustard?

Or do we think, that if they don't pull their finger out their backside, and start taking responsibility for the actions of Bounty on their wards, and taking steps to actually safeguard against this potential risk then they might well be in breach of this regulation if they don't act on the concerns of this Mumsnet campaign?

MUMSNET TOWERS - please remember that all the work you are doing - writing to PM, petition to NHS England health secretary will not get to the other countries relevant folk who are able to make changes. The NHS is devolved.

No change will happen in Scotland, NI or Wales if their health secretaries are not made aware of public opinion on this.

Please, please expand the petition to ensure that the relevant folk get copies.

Hold the above Regulation in mind whilst considering that concerns about the practises of Bounty have been in the public domain since at least 1984 as it was covered in an article written for the BMJ called 'Mutiny over the Bounty' and more recently the NCT tried to start a campaign (which was well publicised in the press and led to Bounty making an official statement about it) and MN has previously tried to tackle Bounty over its sales practises...

With that in mind, I went back to those awful FOI responses... I picked the same two questions from each FOI to highlight things but I easily have used others clearly backup the same message:

West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust
9) Has a formal assessment been carried out to assess whether patients' rights are being properly protected in the presence of a commercial party?
No

16. Are any hospital staff on the ward trained to identify aggressive or misleading sales practices to ensure the protection of patients? Sale practice is not aggressive.

Question: How can the hospital say that the sales practice is not aggressive if they have never done a formal assessment?

University of South Manchester
9) Has a formal assessment been carried out to assess whether patients' rights are being properly protected in the presence of a commercial party?
Patients? rights are constantly under review in line with best practice.

16. Are any hospital staff on the ward trained to identify aggressive or misleading sales practices to ensure the protection of patients? All staff attend Conflict Resolution training.

Question: How can patients' rights be constantly reviewed and in line with the law when the hospital hasn't even got a clue what an aggressive sales practice is and answers with an answer which completely misunderstands the question!

Western Sussex Hospital NHS Trust
9) Has a formal assessment been carried out to assess whether patients' rights are being properly protected in the presence of a commercial party?
No known formal assessment has been undertaken but have experienced mothers asking for their free Bounty packs.

16.    Are any hospital staff on the ward trained to identify aggressive or misleading sales practices to ensure the protection of patients?
    

Staff are always observant and are trained to listen to the concerns expressed by the women/relatives.

Question: Can anyone explain to me the relevance to protecting and assessing patient rights that mothers asking for packs actually has? Is it true that because they have experienced women asking for packs that there is no issue here and that this means they should not still be carrying out an assessment? Is it sufficient to rely on staff to be observant if they have not been trained in what to be observant for?

Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
9) Has a formal assessment been carried out to assess whether patients' rights are being properly protected in the presence of a
commercial party?
The trusts tender evaluation process gave due consideration to this aspect of the provision of the service.

16.    Are any hospital staff on the ward trained to identify aggressive or misleading sales practices to ensure the protection of patients?
    

No, although they are skilled in providing appropriate safeguards to patients.

Question: How can the tender process have given due consideration when it has failed to train staff to identify problematic sales practices. I note this is the hospital that refers to patients as 'customers' - are they more concerned about the interests of patients or finances? Can they be trusted to have properly assessed the potential problem

Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Trust (who don't have a photographic contract with Bounty - they only allow them to distribute packs)
9) Has a formal assessment been carried out to assess whether patients' rights are being properly protected in the presence of a commercial party?
Patient views are always taken into consideration when planning services and patients can choose to decline to see the Bounty representative or provide them with any details.

A survey was carried out in 2012 confirming this was a service that women asked to have on the ward. The response from women indicated that 100% of women valued this service and it should continue.

16. Are any hospital staff on the ward trained to identify aggressive or misleading sales practices to ensure the protection of patients? Not applicable, no sales practices take place.

Question: So this survey... what did you actually ask? And how many people did it ask? Because this information is about as useful to me as a chocolate teapot. They could have asked 5 women if they thought it was good to get free samples. What they actually asked is very important

I also have to also include their answer to Q12 here as its bloody scary.

12. How is this ensured in a hospital setting with patients who are a captive audience and who may also be within 24 hours of a general anaesthetic (and therefore unable to give informed legal consent), still under the influence of drugs, be in a heightened emotional state, recovering from a traumatic operation, suffering from a lack of sleep following a lengthy labour or otherwise more vulnerable than normal?

With particular reference to Misleading actions
"A misleading omission can also occur where a trader fails to identify the commercial intent of a practice, if it is not already apparent from the context."
Not applicable ? no sales practices take place.

Question: If the hospital is themselves receiving payment for access to patients and the collection of personal data, are they themselves, with that answer failing to identify the commercial intent of a practice? How can they have possibly identified the potential risk of financial abuse if they fail to even recognise that a commercial practice is taking place on their premises?

I am definitely feeling some letter writing coming on...

red you are a powerhouse of awesomeness.

Also you made me realise that I had the sale of pictures pushed on me within 12 hours of having had a general anaesthetic.

In fact the more I think on it the more annoyed I am.

I was only about 7 hour out of surgery involving a general anaesthetic, sore in so many place covered in blood and knackered from 24 hours of labour, patchy epidurals and a failed spinal tap. And I was alone, because my DH wan't allowed in till visitors hours started.

And the bounty woman turns up and has me struggling out of bed to 'tidy baby up' and 'don't you have any nicer clothes/blanket for her?' under threat of her doing it herself (sorry but I wasn't quite ready for some random woman to start dressing the baby I hadn't gotten the hang of dressing myself yet).

There is something very wrong with this picture.