Infected Blood Inquiry: “institutional defensiveness” led to reputational manipulation
The Infected Blood Inquiry Report exposes catastrophic communication failures during the contaminated blood crisis.
The Infected Blood Inquiry Report, published this week, spotlights one of the gravest health crises in the history of the NHS. The inquiry was chaired by Sir Brian Langstaff.
It’s a tough read.
Between 1970 and 1998, thousands of patients were infected with HIV and hepatitis through contaminated blood products.
The issue was managed by the government and the NHS from a reputation management perspective. A more accurate description would be reputation manipulation.
The same fundamental flaw is common to crises, including Grenfell Tower, Hillsborough and the Post Office Horizon scandal.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak apologised for the decades-long moral failure and systemic issues that led to the infection of thousands through contaminated blood products.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office, John Glen, announced the creation of the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to administer a comprehensive compensation scheme for those infected and affected by the scandal.
Parliament passed legislation establishing the new authority on Thursday, 30 May, as part of its wrap-up before dissolution. It requires the new government to enact a compensation scheme within three months.
The Infected Blood Inquiry report outlines the catastrophic failures and critical public relations lessons.
Transparency and accountability
Transparency is the foundation of public trust. The report reveals a staggering lack of openness from health authorities, who concealed the dangers associated with blood products, delaying critical interventions.
Government and health agencies must commit to transparency and provide timely, accurate information about public health risks and decisions.
The challenge of communicating risk
Communicating risk is a delicate balancing act. The report illustrates how downplaying the risks of infected blood products led to unnecessary suffering.
Health authorities must balance avoiding panic and ensuring the public is well-informed about potential risks. Clear, honest communication allows individuals to make informed decisions about their health, fostering a more informed and resilient public.
Imperative of informed consent
A damning finding of the report is the failure to obtain informed consent from patients. Many were kept in the dark about the risks of the treatments they received.
Ethical communication is paramount in healthcare. Patients must be fully informed about the risks and benefits of their treatments.
The report states that this isn't just a legal obligation but a moral one that builds trust and respect between healthcare providers and patients.
Honesty over false reassurance
The report describes how health authorities downplayed the risks of blood products, leading to a tragic erosion of trust when the truth emerged. The instinct to reassure the public is natural, but false reassurance can be devastating.
Public communication should always be grounded in honesty and evidence.
Coordination and consistency in messaging
The fragmented and inconsistent responses from different health authorities added to the confusion and harm. Consistent messaging and coordinated efforts are vital in managing public health issues.
Developing a unified communication strategy ensures that the public receives coherent and reliable information, enhancing the effectiveness of public health campaigns.
Addressing concerns and providing support for victims
The psychological and emotional toll on those affected by the contaminated blood crisis cannot be overstated. The report highlights a significant gap in the provision of support and counselling for victims and their families.
Effective public communication strategies must include mechanisms for empathetically addressing public concerns and providing access to support services. They must recognise and respond to the human side of health crises.
Embracing a culture of criticism and learning
The defensive posture adopted by health authorities in response to criticism compounded the crisis.
Constructive engagement with public inquiries and criticism is essential. It’s about being open to scrutiny, willing to learn from past mistakes and commit to continuous improvement. This approach not only restores public confidence but also strengthens future responses.
