If that which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet, then ‘2gether foundation trust’ is a stinker of a name.
I noticed it this week when the Care Quality Commission announced the results of its annual ratings for healthcare organisations. It was one of the mental health trusts awarded a double excellent. But what used to be Gloucestershire Partnership NHS Trust surely gets a double poor for its bizarre naming strategy.
2gether NHS foundation trust logo
I’m all for NHS organisations becoming more responsive and accessible to their communities and the people they serve, and I’m sure that was what was in the minds of this mental health trust’s leaders. But accessibility is about the way services are shaped and where and how they are delivered. It’s not about sounding like a cheap high street mobile phone shop, or pretending to be down with the kids.
When I headed the NHS brand team at the Department of Health we knew that when trusts became foundation trusts (FTs) and were freed from direct accountability to the centre, one or two might try to assert their independence and demonstrate their aspirations to broaden their reach by throwing off their old name. Traditional trusts names are almost all geographical-based mixed with a few historical links to royals or other popular figures.
I met with Monitor (the body that approves foundation trust applications) several times and we agreed that if an organisation wanted to change its name as part of the move to become a FT, it would need to be subject to public feedback, as part of the consultation on becoming a FT, and adhere to the NHS branding guidelines, as stipulated in the contracts with the PCTs that commission services from the trust. These state that FT names must:
- be clear and descriptive – not conceptual or abstract;
- be written out in full – without the use of acronyms or abbreviations;
- contain a geographical reference where possible; and
- include the words ‘NHS Foundation Trust’ in the name.
All the evidence my team had showed that the NHS is one of the country’s most recognised, trusted and valuable brands. In fact we put a lot of time and effort into taking legal action against private companies who tried to leverage some of the value of the NHS brand by implying – falsely – that their service or product was somehow affiliated to the NHS. Almost as much time and effort as we put into trying to persuade short-sighted NHS organisations that the NHS brand was one of our most valuable assets and needed protection, not neglect.
In cases I was aware of where trusts had considered non-geographical names as part of their bid for FT status, the proposed name changes were reconsidered following public consultation. So what with that, and the legal requirement in the contracts for FTs to abide by the NHS brand guidelines, I thought it unlikely we’d see a ‘2gether foundation trust’.
Hw rong wz I?
What’s in a name?
If that which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet, then ‘2gether foundation trust’ is a stinker of a name.
I noticed it this week when the Care Quality Commission announced the results of its annual ratings for healthcare organisations. It was one of the mental health trusts awarded a double excellent. But what used to be Gloucestershire Partnership NHS Trust surely gets a double poor for its bizarre naming strategy.
2gether NHS foundation trust logo
I’m all for NHS organisations becoming more responsive and accessible to their communities and the people they serve, and I’m sure that was what was in the minds of this mental health trust’s leaders. But accessibility is about the way services are shaped and where and how they are delivered. It’s not about sounding like a cheap high street mobile phone shop, or pretending to be down with the kids.
When I headed the NHS brand team at the Department of Health we knew that when trusts became foundation trusts (FTs) and were freed from direct accountability to the centre, one or two might try to assert their independence and demonstrate their aspirations to broaden their reach by throwing off their old name. Traditional trusts names are almost all geographical-based mixed with a few historical links to royals or other popular figures.
I met with Monitor (the body that approves foundation trust applications) several times and we agreed that if an organisation wanted to change its name as part of the move to become a FT, it would need to be subject to public feedback, as part of the consultation on becoming a FT, and adhere to the NHS branding guidelines, as stipulated in the contracts with the PCTs that commission services from the trust. These state that FT names must:
All the evidence my team had showed that the NHS is one of the country’s most recognised, trusted and valuable brands. In fact we put a lot of time and effort into taking legal action against private companies who tried to leverage some of the value of the NHS brand by implying – falsely – that their service or product was somehow affiliated to the NHS. Almost as much time and effort as we put into trying to persuade short-sighted NHS organisations that the NHS brand was one of our most valuable assets and needed protection, not neglect.
In cases I was aware of where trusts had considered non-geographical names as part of their bid for FT status, the proposed name changes were reconsidered following public consultation. So what with that, and the legal requirement in the contracts for FTs to abide by the NHS brand guidelines, I thought it unlikely we’d see a ‘2gether foundation trust’.
Hw rong wz I?