Congratulations to Brent Patient Voice in succeeding with their complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority regarding Brent Clinical Commissioning Group's poster telling residents to use A & E only for 'life threatening emergencies':
This is the full finding:
This is the full finding:
Ad
A poster and claims on the advertiser's website www.rightcare4u.org.uk, seen on 5 October 2015:
a. The poster stated "For emergency use only ... A&E is for life-threatening emergencies only ... Other NHS services are available that will help you more quickly. For more information visit: www.rightcare4u.org.uk".
B. The website stated "For emergency use only ... A&E is for life-threatening emergencies only ... If you use A&E when you could get help somewhere else, you are taking NHS staff time away from life-threatening cases. Other NHS services are available that will help you more quickly ...".
a. The poster stated "For emergency use only ... A&E is for life-threatening emergencies only ... Other NHS services are available that will help you more quickly. For more information visit: www.rightcare4u.org.uk".
B. The website stated "For emergency use only ... A&E is for life-threatening emergencies only ... If you use A&E when you could get help somewhere else, you are taking NHS staff time away from life-threatening cases. Other NHS services are available that will help you more quickly ...".
Issue
Brent
Patient Voice challenged whether the claim "A&E is for
life-threatening emergencies only" was misleading and potentially
harmful, because patients with serious medical conditions/injuries that
were not necessarily life-threatening may be wrongly discouraged from
going immediately to their nearest hospital A&E.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
Response
Department
of Health trading as Brent Clinical Commissioning Group (BCCG)
explained that the ads focused specifically on diverting unnecessary
cases away from local A&E departments to more appropriate settings,
such as Urgent Care Centres and Minor Injuries Units. They said the
primary aim of the ads was patient safety. They had based the core
message on nationally available NHS information, in particular the NHS
Choices website. They provided an extract from that website which listed
some examples of life-threatening emergencies and included loss of
consciousness, persistent severe chest pain, breathing difficulties and
severe bleeding that could not be stopped.
BCCG said that in contrast to A&E departments, Urgent Care Centres could treat sprains and strains, broken bones, wound infections, minor burns and scalds, minor head injuries, insect and animal bites, minor eye injuries and injuries to the back, shoulder and chest.
BCCG said they had received clinical approval for the campaign. They accepted that there may be a few exceptions, for example, the ones cited by Brent Patient Voice, regarding some specific situations which might require A&E treatment in non-life-threatening situations. They said that was why there were well-established protocols in place in order to safely refer all patients requiring A&E treatment who presented at Urgent Care Centres. They believed the question was one of risk and, in the case of the ad campaign, communicating clearly to a whole patient population about the appropriate use of A&E overall, given the potentially serious and significant impact on those patients who genuinely required A&E treatment by those patients who would be better off (both for themselves and others) reporting to non-A&E services. They said it was important to emphasise that it was not their intention to present misleading information. They were seeking to educate people who might consider going to A&E for situations which were non-life-threatening and who could be treated more appropriately elsewhere.
They offered to remove the word "only" from the claim, in order to provide for those few situations which might require A&E treatment for non-life-threatening emergencies in the context of the A&E service overall being for life-threatening situations, as set out on the NHS Choices website. They believed their amendment was a reasonable and proportionate response to the complaint.
BCCG said that in contrast to A&E departments, Urgent Care Centres could treat sprains and strains, broken bones, wound infections, minor burns and scalds, minor head injuries, insect and animal bites, minor eye injuries and injuries to the back, shoulder and chest.
BCCG said they had received clinical approval for the campaign. They accepted that there may be a few exceptions, for example, the ones cited by Brent Patient Voice, regarding some specific situations which might require A&E treatment in non-life-threatening situations. They said that was why there were well-established protocols in place in order to safely refer all patients requiring A&E treatment who presented at Urgent Care Centres. They believed the question was one of risk and, in the case of the ad campaign, communicating clearly to a whole patient population about the appropriate use of A&E overall, given the potentially serious and significant impact on those patients who genuinely required A&E treatment by those patients who would be better off (both for themselves and others) reporting to non-A&E services. They said it was important to emphasise that it was not their intention to present misleading information. They were seeking to educate people who might consider going to A&E for situations which were non-life-threatening and who could be treated more appropriately elsewhere.
They offered to remove the word "only" from the claim, in order to provide for those few situations which might require A&E treatment for non-life-threatening emergencies in the context of the A&E service overall being for life-threatening situations, as set out on the NHS Choices website. They believed their amendment was a reasonable and proportionate response to the complaint.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA understood from Brent Patient Voice and BCCG that there were certain medical conditions and injuries that were not life-threatening but nevertheless required treatment in A&E, for example, some broken bones (e.g. ankle), facial injury requiring maxilla-facial surgery, saddle paraesthesia and serious eye injuries. We understood that those conditions and injuries could not be treated in Urgent Care Centres or Minor Injuries Units. We acknowledged that the intention behind the ad campaign was to encourage the appropriate use of A&E services, so as to ensure the proper allocation of NHS resources and patient safety, and was not to deter individuals from accessing A&E services if they genuinely required them. However, we noted that the claim "A&E is for life-threatening emergencies only" was an absolute claim, even though there were exceptions, and we were concerned that individuals presenting with the conditions listed above might be deterred from seeking urgent treatment at A&E as a result of seeing the ads. We considered that the amended claim, which omitted the word "only", did not resolve the complaint because there were certain conditions and injuries that were not life-threatening but which nevertheless required treatment in A&E. For those reasons, we concluded that the claim "A&E is for life-threatening emergencies only" was misleading and potentially harmful.
The ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Social responsibility), 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising).
The ASA understood from Brent Patient Voice and BCCG that there were certain medical conditions and injuries that were not life-threatening but nevertheless required treatment in A&E, for example, some broken bones (e.g. ankle), facial injury requiring maxilla-facial surgery, saddle paraesthesia and serious eye injuries. We understood that those conditions and injuries could not be treated in Urgent Care Centres or Minor Injuries Units. We acknowledged that the intention behind the ad campaign was to encourage the appropriate use of A&E services, so as to ensure the proper allocation of NHS resources and patient safety, and was not to deter individuals from accessing A&E services if they genuinely required them. However, we noted that the claim "A&E is for life-threatening emergencies only" was an absolute claim, even though there were exceptions, and we were concerned that individuals presenting with the conditions listed above might be deterred from seeking urgent treatment at A&E as a result of seeing the ads. We considered that the amended claim, which omitted the word "only", did not resolve the complaint because there were certain conditions and injuries that were not life-threatening but which nevertheless required treatment in A&E. For those reasons, we concluded that the claim "A&E is for life-threatening emergencies only" was misleading and potentially harmful.
The ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Social responsibility), 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising).
Action
The
ads must not appear again in their current form. We told Brent Clinical
Commissioning Group to take care not to inadvertently make misleading
and potentially harmful claims about the scope of A&E services in
future.
Data analysis has shown time and time again that the vast majority of people do not use A & E inappropriately.
ReplyDeleteYou have to ask what business the deficit-bound Brent CCG therefore had in spending our money on an ad 'campaign' to discourage this mythical, inappropriate use.
You have to wonder how much the ad 'campaign' cost.
You can only surmise that one set of misspenders of public money will inevitably be supported by another set of misspenders. I refer of course to the fact that Brent Council kindly lent its logo to the advertising poster.
Nan Tewari
Brent Patient Voice Steering Group
There was a Brent Council logo on the poster so they must have signed it off at some point. Who's responsible?
ReplyDeleteppl that speak english as a second language
DeleteDon't bother submitting a Freedom of Information Act request to Brent, asking who signed off the use of Brent's logo (and funding?) for the poster advert.
DeleteIn September 2014, I asked (as part of an FoI request) who had written and who had authorised the Brent Council "tweet" inviting local people to 'ask for a five-min slot (a deputation) @ full council.' Martin Francis made a request to present a deputation to the Full Council meeting, in response to that tweet and within the time shown by it, but his request was refused on the grounds that he was too late, and that the tweet was 'in error'.
I was told that Brent was not allowed to provide the information I had requested under FoI, because it could identify a specific employee or employees. I was also told that Brent had no formal procedures governing who could post "tweets" on Brent Council's Twitter account, so that it might be impossible to identify the person(s) anyway. So much for accountability!
Philip.