When Montreal’s new $1.3-billion super-hospital opened late last month, it successfully carried out what was said to be the largest move of patients in Canada’s history, with 154 patients from the Royal Victoria Hospital transported to the new McGill University Health Centre (MUHC) without a hitch.
It was a rare public relations victory for an institution that was plagued by allegations of corruption during the construction bidding process involving its ex-president Arthur Porter (now in jail in Panama) and the former chief executive of engineering giant SNC-Lavalin. Last year, Quebec’s Health Minister also ordered the hospital to cancel a $600,000 contract to PR firm Jonathan Goldbloom, saying it was a waste of money given the MUHC has a 12-person PR department.
However, the good news story of the move was overshadowed by the hospital’s decision to expel two Montreal Gazette journalists from the public lobby on its first full day of operations. The journalists were seeking people’s impressions of the new facility.
Richard Fahey, director of public affairs at the MUHC, defended his move, saying it was meant to ensure patient confidentiality and security, and that the journalists had not sought permission before conducting interviews.
Normand Rinfret, the MUHC’s president and executive director, says the hospital has to achieve a balance between providing information and protecting its patients and staff. He says several hospitals have similar policies requiring advance notice and permission before any interviews are conducted at their facilities.
But Quebec’s professional federation of journalists denounced the hospital on freedom of expression grounds, saying it was up to patients and visitors to decide whether or not they wanted to speak to journalists
Marketing asked three leading PR professionals to weigh in on the hospital’s move to ban journalists and to offer some PR advice.
Daniel Tisch, president and CEO, Argyle Communications
This is a classic clash of two legitimate values: privacy and transparency. The hospital CEO was correct to say, “It’s a fine balance.” The challenge is his public relations team seems to have come down too aggressively on one side – at the wrong time.
In reputational terms, the hospital’s legal rights are irrelevant; authority doesn’t automatically bring legitimacy. When assessing risk, context matters: When your reputation has sustained recent damage, the risk of being seen as fearful of media attention is high. That means being heavy-handed with journalists should be the last resort, not the first. Did the hospital try to negotiate a reasonable “win-win” solution with the journalists when they arrived? If so, it’s in their interests to say so now. The irony is the hospital was in the midst of a big success, which will be diminished in the public mind by this incident.
Across the Canadian public sector, organizations and leaders need to be less fearful and more open to scrutiny – even when it’s challenging or unwelcome – because the news media are instruments of public accountability. You can’t have accountability on your terms alone. Treat the media as partners, and you’re more likely to earn the reputation you want. Either way, you’ll likely get the reputation you deserve.
Stephen Murdoch, vice-president, public relations, Enterprise Canada
Does personal privacy trump the media? Or, do the media trump one’s personal privacy? While I believe in freedom of speech, a hospital’s first priority is ensuring patient confidentiality and continuity of care. However, the move to remove journalists from the new super hospital is not an ‘us versus them’ issue. Clearly, there is a bigger issue. The issue being the relationship between the Montreal Gazette and the communications team from the hospital.
Establishing good relationships with the local media is the first step to a successful media relations strategy. I would venture to guess there is a strained relationship between the hospital’s communications team and select journalists in Montreal. Much like children in a sandbox, the communications team and the journalists covering the super hospital need to learn to play together.
An integral part of the hospital’s communications team mandate is to share information with the community they call home. If the hospital’s communications team is to reach their mandate, they will need to establish stronger relationships with the Montreal Gazette and other media outlets. Given the recent actions of the hospital expelling two Montreal Gazette journalists, this will not be an easy task.
Members of the media are interested in getting out fair and unbiased information about what’s going on in the hospitals in their community. Recognizing that common ground is a big step towards the hospital’s communications team developing strong relationships with the journalists from the Montreal Gazette.
If I was the head of communications for the McGill University Health Centre, I would reach out to the editor-in-chief and have a sit down. In that meeting, the head of communications needs to stress the fact that patient confidentiality trumps all. From there, ongoing dialogue between the hospital’s communications team and the Montreal Gazette needs to be emphasized.
If possible, the communication’s team can hold weekly in-person or calls with Montreal Gazette journalists to keep them abreast as to newsworthy items. Being polite, cooperative and factual in your dealings with journalists, will serve you well.
Will it take time for the communications team from the hospital to reestablish strong relations with the Montreal Gazette? Yes, it will. But for the betterment of Montrealers who care about their health care, both parties must communicate openly and honestly.
Martin Waxman, president, Martin Waxman Communications
This is a complex situation because the hospital already has a damaged reputation and their response simply fans the flames of mistrust. Compound that with the issues surrounding patient safety and privacy and I don’t think you can come up with one right answer as to whether or not the journalists should have been removed without more information from both sides.
The question for me is more about the hospital’s relationship with media and why they’d adopt such an aggressive stance on what seems to be a good news story. Maybe the PR team felt stressed and overworked, maybe they were simply following protocols. Or maybe, they should have tried harder to help the journalists out. That’s what I would have wanted them to do.
Every organization has its own policies and they also have a responsibility to communicate them clearly to media and other stakeholders.
If I were advising the hospital, I’d counsel them to start rebuilding the relationships they have with media by being transparent and more open. They need to show they’re truthful, flexible, helpful and trustworthy, even if it’s a bad news scenario.
This takes leadership, a commitment to honest, two-way communications and time.
