Agenda item

Agenda item

Discussion with members of the deaf community

Members of the deaf community will be in attendance to share their experiences of accessing health services.

Minutes:

The task group took evidence from the members of the deaf community. They shared experiences covering primary care, routine hospital appointments, emergency care and the administrative processes related to these services. Key messages from the witnesses were:

 

·        The deaf community experienced significant delays in their medical care because of the lack of understanding about or provision of communication assistance. 

·        Deaf people were not being given the opportunity to ask for the type of communication assistance to suit their needs.

·        One change that would make a big difference to the care received would be clear notes on patients’ records denoting that they were deaf and required an interpreter and if this information was effectively passed between departments.

·        Little information was provided in letters about whether an interpreter had been booked or how this could happen. Patients had to use the Patient Advice and Liaison Service (PALS) to try and ensure an interpreter was present.  Although there was demand for interpreters, one could usually be available if booked in a timely manner.

·        The main way that patients were asked to communicate with services was by telephone; it was not always possible to text or email the surgeries or departments.

·        If a friend or family member made a call on behalf of a deaf person, there were issues related to data protection.

·        There was a lack of understanding about how deaf people communicated amongst medical and administrative staff and how to assist them when they arrived. There was a need for more training for staff to understand the policies and standards that applied.

·        It was not always possible or appropriate for pen and paper to be used and staff were not aware of British Sign Language (BSL) or how to book a BSL interpreter.  It was not widely understood that English was the second language of many deaf people.

·        There was a need for provision to be made for interim communication measures to be in place in emergency situations or while an interpreter was awaited. As well as pen and paper, technology could be used to make use of remote interpreting services or other applications. Such technology would also be useful for patients with learning or other disabilities.

·        Staff should be trained in some basic signs to assist when no interpreter was present.

·        Lack of interim communication measures had an impact on the consent required for medical procedures; deaf patients could feel pressured by the situation and give consent without fully understanding what was being asked.

·        When an interpreter was in attendance, longer appointments were needed but this was generally not accommodated.

·        There was variation in provision across health services which resulted in frustration for patients.

·        By contrast, one example of good practice was the Police Link Officer for Deaf People (PLOD) programme run by the police which assisted the deaf community.

·        The result of these issues was that deaf people felt that they lost their independence when dealing with health services and felt frustrated and marginalised.

 

The task group was concerned with the reports that had been made from the members of the deaf community and the BSL interpreters who were present.  It was clear that these issues had been long-standing and while Watford Borough Council did not commission health services; the task group was in a position to make recommendations to local health services and raise the profile of the problems experienced by residents.

 

The task group thanked everyone present for their time and input.

 

 

 

rating button