Stoke Deaf Community Report

Download (PDF 720KB)

Summary of report content

Healthwatch Stoke on Trent met with representatives of the deaf community to discuss current issues and concerns, in particular service. These comments were recorded and collated into a list of key points, nine case studies were also shared and are contained within the report. The study was carried out in mid 2015 and was revised at the request of Stoke on Trent CCG. The report identified a number of key issues in the area including: DHH patients tend not to complain, DHH patients cannot read high level english and communication needs to be plain, services don't know when a DHH patient is accessing them, accessibility of health services for deaf patients due to the reliance of telephone calls to make an appointment, lack of coordination in hospitals when arranging for communication support, no identification for patients in hospitals for deaf patients, staff training in city health providers, cuts to funding which have caused lip reading courses to be cancelled, issues of social care where a DHH patient is residing, major issues with counselling services for DHH patients. A summary of the case studies showed that: staff may be unsure of DHH patients needs, BSL interpreters incorrectly booked and staff unaware of how to do it, BSL interpreters being inflexible with their time or not booked for long enough, assumptions that family members and carers will act as interpreters, breakdowns in communication causing patients to feel isolated, intercoms are not accessible, staff choosing to communicate with family members and carers over the patient, use of technologies such as SMS or email could help, case studies suggest patients would like to have interpreters with them for more of the journey, staff misunderstanding patient as grumpy instead of deaf as hadn't read his notes, cost can be a barrier to accessing better interpreters. Seven recommendations were made in the report, 1. Engage with DHH to co-produce services. 2. Investigate the further use of technology to further support inclusion; -Alternatives to phone access for GP appointments could be investigated 3. Look again at staff training to understand the needs of DHH. 4. DHH could be more easily identifiable on wards in hospital. 5. Work could be done to understand the experiences of DHH in care homes. 6. Work could be done to understand accessibility of counselling service support for DHH in care homes. 7. Particular effort could be made to empower DHH patients to participate in their own care whilst in hospital.

Would you like to look at:

General details

Report title 
Stoke Deaf Community Report
Local Healthwatch 
Healthwatch Stoke-on-Trent
Date of publication 
Monday, 16 May, 2016
Date evidence capture began 
Saturday, 16 May, 2015
Date evidence capture finished 
Monday, 16 May, 2016
Type of report 
Report
Patient experience
Key themes 
Access
Admission
Communication between staff and patients
Continuity of care
Diagnosis
Information providing
Interpreters
Quality of appointment
Quality of care
Quality of staffing
Quality of treatment
Staff attitudes
Staff training
Support
Healthwatch reference number 
Rep-1269

Methodology and approach

Was the work undertaken at the request of another organisation? 
Not known
What type of organisation requested the work 
N/A
Primary research method used 
Unstructured Interview
How was the information collected? 
Meeting
If an Enter and View methodology was applied, was the visit announced or unannounced? 
N/A

Details of health and care services included in the report

Primary care services 
Urgent care services
Secondary care services 
Appointments
Outpatients
Accident & emergency
Urgent and emergency care services 
Accident & emergency
Urgent care services

Details about conditions and diseases

Conditions or diseases 
Ear nose and throat conditions
Types of disabilities 
Hearing
Types of long term conditions 
Deafness or severe hearing impairment
What type of pregnancy or maternity themes are included in the report 
N/A

Details of people who shared their views

Number of people who shared their views 
8
Age group 
All people 18 and over
Gender 
All
Ethnicity 
Not known
Sexual orientation 
Not known
Does the information include public's views? 
Yes
Does the information include carer's, friend's or relative's views? 
Yes
Does the information include staff's views? 
No
Types of health and care professionals engaged 
N/A
Does the information include other people's views? 
Yes
What was the main sentiment of the people who shared their views? 
Negative

Outcomes and impact

Were recommendations made by local Healthwatch in the report? 
Yes
Does the information contain a response from a provider? 
No
Is there evidence of impact in the report? 
Not known
Is there evidence of impact external to the report? 
Not known

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.