Deaf access accessibility report

Download (PDF 4.54MB)

Summary of report content

Healthwatch Hampshire was approached to raise the voices of the d/Deaf Community and BSL interpreters regarding their experiences of accessing various NHS services. They worked with focus groups of Deaf service users and BSL interpreters to develop key questions for two online surveys. In total, Healthwatch Hampshire spoke to over 250 people. The summary of findings were in relation to key theme around complaints, choice, training and access. The recommendations within the report inform, health and care settings should review all internal policies to ensure the Accessible Information Standard is complied with. Hospitals should review their PALS complaints procedures. Allow patients and carers flexibility when selecting NRCPD registered interpreters to meet the patient’s needs. To include preference over female/male interpreters or switching interpreters due to conflict of interest. Provide NHS frontline staff with information and access to the appropriate resources to comply with the AIS. Signpost appropriately to other sources of information in appropriate formats (if services cannot provide this directly) such as MacMillan’s BSL information about cancer or Diabetes UK BSL information.

Would you like to look at:

General details

Report title 
Deaf access accessibility report
Local Healthwatch 
Healthwatch Hampshire
Date of publication 
Tuesday, 9 October, 2018
Date evidence capture began 
Tuesday, 9 October, 2018
Date evidence capture finished 
Tuesday, 9 October, 2018
Type of report 
Key themes 
Health promotion
Information providing
Quality of regulation
Service delivery organisation and staffing
Staff training
Healthwatch reference number 

Methodology and approach

Was the work undertaken at the request of another organisation? 
What type of organisation requested the work 
If this work has been done in partnership, who is the partner? 
West Hampshire CCG, NorthEast Hampshire & Farnham CCG and Hampshire County Council Sensory Services team
Primary research method used 
How was the information collected? 
If an Enter and View methodology was applied, was the visit announced or unannounced? 

Details of health and care services included in the report

Primary care services 
GP practice
Urgent care services
Secondary care services 
Acute services with overnight beds
Acute services without overnight beds / listed acute services with or without overnight beds
Accident & emergency

Details of people who shared their views

Number of people who shared their views 
Age group 
Not known
Not known
Not known
Sexual orientation 
Not known
Does the information include public's views? 
Does the information include carer's, friend's or relative's views? 
Does the information include staff's views? 
Types of health and care professionals engaged 
Does the information include other people's views? 
What was the main sentiment of the people who shared their views? 

Outcomes and impact

Were recommendations made by local Healthwatch in the report? 
Does the information contain a response from a provider? 
Is there evidence of impact in the report? 
Is there evidence of impact external to the report? 
What type of impact was determined? 
Implied Impact

Network Impact
Relationships that exist locally, regionally, nationally have benefited from the work undertaken in the report
Implied Impact
Where it is implied that change may occur in the future as a result of Healthwatch work. This can be implied in a provider  response, press release or other source. Implied impact can become tangible impact once change has occurred.
Tangible Impact
There is evidence of change that can be directly attributed to Healthwatch work undertaken in the report.