Not only the two female doctors from the Saint Pantelimon Hospital, accused of murder, caused the loss of Romanians’ trust in the health institution, but the refusal of the medical system to communicate transparently and honestly played an essential role, says Professor Dumitru Borțun.
Medical institutions in Romania have a tradition of lack of transparency. PHOTO: St. Pantelimon/FB
Communication specialist Dumitru Borţun, professor at the Faculty of Communication and Public Relations of SNSPA Bucharest, analyzed, for “Adevărul”, the effects of the scandal at Saint Pantelimon on the attitude of Romanians towards the medical institution – doctors reported that patients do not want to be hospitalized in the hospital – but also the mistakes made in the official communication of the institutions that represent the health system.
Plus, he explained how medical authorities should have communicated and what they needed to do to regain people’s trust.
The truth: In the context of the scandal at St. Pantelimon, the attitude expressed by the population in various circles was extremely critical towards doctors in general. Do you think it has become an exaggeration?
Dumitru Borțun: People usually exaggerate, this is their way of expressing themselves. There is also what is called in social psychology the obligation to have an opinion. Everyone feels obliged to have his own opinion, because otherwise he is not among the world. On the one hand, there is this phenomenon, but on the other hand, it seems to me that the phenomenon is wider than it appears now. My opinion is that it exists in many health facilities and that here it is only where it rumbled”
“It’s a disgusting attitude”
How do you think the institutions representing doctors communicated in this situation? There was a threat from the colleagues of the two female doctors accused of mass resignation, then the College of Doctors asked to change the law showing that forensic doctors cannot pronounce on complex issues like those related to noradrenaline; Şerban Bubenek, the head of the Romanian ATI Society, claimed that the female doctors are innocent, and the Sanitas trade union claimed that they are inviting the population not to give their opinion.
It is a model of non-communication or non-transparent communication. It is typical for many institutions here. There is a culture of non-communication and surely this matter was formulated “beautifully” (by the sanitas union): “we invite public opinion not to have an opinion”. It’s phrased like that as a pun, but it’s a sickening attitude that has nothing to do with modern society.
Many of my colleagues from the associations of communication specialists – who work in fundamental state institutions, ministries, various departments, etc. – when they went to tell the head of the institution that they had to communicate some information to the press according to Law 544, they had reactions like: “you want us both to fly out of office!” You don’t give anything!”
Why?
There is a culture of non-communication.
In the case of St. Pantelimon, we even witnessed a solidarity of colleagues, who ended up threatening to resign en masse…
Either there is an old complicity there and everyone knows it, so they did it to cover themselves. Or, they simply did not know and could not believe that such a thing was happening and thought they were doing an act of justice. The minister was interested in getting the fire out as quickly as possible and the fire as small as possible, and he managed to convince them to stay.
If he hadn’t succeeded, he probably should have resigned.
“The public image of an institution is not made by hiding the truth”
How do you think a hospital in the United States or Western Europe would have communicated in such a situation? How would it have been normal for him to react?
He would have said he was willing to make everything known, to communicate as they received information. He had to communicate immediately. It is called the initial release and is intended to protect the institution from all kinds of nonsense and speculation.
Because any assumptions appear in the public space, they must also take into account the official position of the respective institution. That’s why it’s done as quickly as possible, within a maximum of one hour after the occurrence of an event, you have to say what the official position is, but you promise to come out every hour or at certain time intervals, to make a press statement, a conference .
In the event of a crisis, communication begins with an initial communication, which you must give within a maximum of one hour and thus show from the start that you are willing to communicate, that you have nothing to hide.
The public image of an institution is not made by hiding the truth.
On the contrary, you increase your credibility and the aura of an institution with a positive function in society if you show that you want to know the truth and that if someone is wrong, pay, and you try to repair the damage.
An example of “no way” that I can give was in Moldova, around Suceava, when there was a scandal about some homosexual relationships in student dormitories. The Synod tried to cover it up. In a survey conducted after the event, the Church ended up dropping spectacularly in terms of trust, an institution in which Romanians had the greatest confidence.
People said “see, crow to crow don’t take out its eyes. These are not God’s messengers.”
That’s the big problem, knowing how to manage such a crisis so that it doesn’t turn into an image crisis.
How to rebuild trust
Now the doctors at Saint Pantelimon complain that they no longer want patients to come to them. How can this problem be solved?
Through very fair, honest, honest communication. They need to hire a communication specialist, public relations graduate.
Then, to start a communication policy, which is something permanent, proactive. It’s not reactive, denying reality when something happens.
The communication policy is a permanent activity through which an institution, in this case the St. Pantelimon hospital, transmits the values of the institution, the values shared by the doctors there, the medical staff, the mission of the institution, the organizational culture – and people start to gradually believe in the institution.
Error management – it is called in specialist terms. Several mistakes were made there, which we will find out from the investigation. The first thing you need to do is admit that you were wrong. Then it must be determined: who was wrong and how they will pay, individually.
Two, you need to communicate that you regret what happened and promise it won’t happen again and take steps to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
Three – we reduce the damage. Possibly some rewards given to those who suffered and lost loved ones.
These things are done and known in communication. There are countless examples.
