GREATER GLASGOW NHS BOARDDEAF WATCH PROJECT

EVALUATION OF FINDINGS

AUGUST 2002

Prepared for: GREATER GLASGOW NHS BOARDPrepared by: MARKET RESEARCH UK

City Wall House, 32 Eastwood AvenueShawlands, Glasgow, G41 3NSTel: 0141 533 3350, Fax: 0141 533 3320Email: research@mruk.co.ukWebsite: www.mruk.co.uk GU1616

RESEARCH TARGET

• Two key target audiences identified for research:

– potential respondents within the deaf or hard of hearing community

– key personnel who were currently involved with the deaf community

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

• Research consisted of quantitative and qualitative approaches (ran in parallel)

Qualitative

• A total of 15 textphone interviews were conducted with deaf community (Target, 20)

• 23 on sample list who had textphone – 65% response rate

• Six depth interviews (face to face) conducted with potential influencers

Quantitative

• 29 self completion questionnaires – 52 distributed (56% response)

• Fieldwork conducted between 17th April to 17th May 2002

Observation

• Project Executive evaluated the steps taken by the Emergency Planning Press Office at GGNHSB when faced with a fictitious scenario

DEAF COMMUNITY SUMMARY (1)

• Various modes of delivery used to transmit emergency message

• Of the 29 respondents:

– Fax: 15 received - E-mail: 7 received– SMS text: 7 received - Ceefax: 6 received

• Opinion split as to whether textphones provide a sufficient system in an emergency

• Majority of respondents recalled receiving ONE message on the morning of Tuesday 16th April 2002

• Perceived fastest modes of delivery – mobile & fax

• Majority considered messages easy to understand – key content of message transmitted ‘Water Pollution’

DEAF COMMUNITY SUMMARY(2)

• Limited action provoked after message (only 6 respondents viewed Ceefax – may be due to situation not ‘real life’)

– one Ceefax recipient recalled ‘bottled water’ was being provided to those who needed special help

• Perceived barriers to system:

– limited access/ownership of technology

– cost of equipment (minority)

• General perception, system now in place is more accessible and a lot faster than previous

POTENTIAL INFLUENCERS SUMMARY

• ‘Deaf Watch’ positively received weaknesses identified but new approaches welcomed overall

• Extensive range of methods already utilised to communicate with deaf community

• Key concerns raised ~ monetary and personnel resources (from both a user and provider perspective)

• Single strategy multi-agency approach welcomed

• Media and Public Services willing to co-operate

• System desired which is PROACTIVE rather than REACTIVE

DRY RUN EXERCISE SUMMARY

• Technology successfully transmitted the emergency message

• There were a few minor technical problems– e-mail ‘firewall’

• Emergency message transmitted onto Ceefax 32 minutes after initial warning message delivered

KEY FINDINGS – DEAF COMMUNITY

FIGURE 1: EMERGENCY MESSAGE RECEIVED (SELF COMPLETION)

(Number of responses shown)Base: 29Source: Market Research UK Ltd, April 2002

(6)

(7)

(7)

(15)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Ceefax

Mobile

Email

Fax

• 22 respondents recalled receiving emergency message

EMERGENCY MESSAGE RECEIVED

• High number recalled recent emergency message (both quant and qual)– 22 respondents (self completion)

• Most respondents thought they received ONE message from GGNHSB– 17 respondents (self completion)

• Most common method of receiving emergency message amongst respondents was fax, followed by SMS text and e-mail

• Time message initially received believed to range from 08:20 to 20:22 (16/4/02)

PERCEIVED CONTENT OF MESSAGE

• 17 respondents correctly identified ‘water pollution’ as the main area of content

• Depth respondents provided further details, they spontaneously recalled:

– dirty water (majority)– burst water main (few)– more information in Ceefax (few)

PERCEIVED CONTENT OF EMERGENCY CEEFAX MESSAGE

• Most respondents did not check Ceefax, only one recipient spontaneously recalled ‘bottled water’ being made available

• Reason to believe that Ceefax would have been checked by most had they thought it was a ‘real’ incident

– most would take action straight away if ‘real life’

• 6 Ceefax recipients, perceptions of content included:

– ‘emergency situation’ (3)

– ‘Deaf Watch’ (2)

– ‘background to questionnaire’ (2)

• When asked what would be provided at the corner of the street, 2 respondents considered a ‘water tap’

PERCEIVED EASE OF UNDERSTANDING MESSAGES

• Majority of respondents considered the emergency message easy to understand in whichever format they received

• Depth respondents provided further comment regarding ease of understanding messages:

– clear and concise– easy to read and take on board– language easy to understand– perceived to have a good knowledge of English

• Minority of respondents felt some words were hard to understand

• Expectation that ease of understanding would be dependent upon individual circumstances and their level of reading ability

FIGURE 5: IF ‘REAL LIFE’ EMERGENCY, PERCEPTION OF TIME TAKEN TO TAKE ACTION

17% (5)

3% (1)

7% (2)

17% (5)

55% (16)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Non response

Don't know

A few days

A few hours

Straight away

(Number of responses in brackets)Base: 29Source: Market Research UK Ltd, April 2002

ATTITUDE TOWARDS OVERALL SYSTEM (1)

• Two key factors taken into consideration with regard to preferred method of communication: Accessibility and Ease of Use

• Mobile SMS text- quick and fast mode of delivery- easy to use and accessible at home and at work (portable)- viewed as a positive source of information- regarded as a step forward for the deaf community

• Fax Machine- direct and quick mode of delivery- ability to distribute information (let others know)- access limited to those respondents who own a fax - can re-read information

ATTITUDE TOWARDS OVERALL SYSTEM (2)

• E-mail- easy to use- fast- accessible at home or work- some respondents not comfortable with e-mail- access limited to those that owned or had use of PC- need to take into consideration how often respondent checks

their e-mail

• Ceefax- tried, tested and trusted source of information- direct and quick - accessible mode of delivery that provides up-to-date information- clarity of information could be improved

ATTITUDES TO TEXT PHONES

• Over half of self-completion respondents (16) had a text phone,

• In terms of text phones providing a sufficient system in case of an emergency – perception split

• 10 respondents considered text phone sufficient system, some reasons given were:– ‘most helpful’ (3)– ‘deaf people can answer phone’ (2)

• 10 respondents considered text phone insufficient, comments made were as follows:– what if ‘nobody in to answer’ (3)– ‘preference for another method’ (1)– ‘time consuming’ (1)

PERCEIVED BARRIERS TO SYSTEM

• Accessibility of the system dependent on methods used

• Time delay from when message initially sent, to when some respondents actually received message

• Concern that message maybe delayed due to:

– PC or mobile switched off– Fax machine has run out of paper

• Style of message and different reading abilities of recipients need to be be taken into account

• Minority of respondents felt the cost of equipment may act as a barrier (esp. PC)

STRATEGIES ADOPTED TO ACCESS INFORMATION WHEN AWAY FROM HOME

• Majority of depth respondents relied on SMS text messages if not at home

• Minority of respondents mentioned family/friends (aware of their whereabouts)

• Common methods adopted for text phone system if not at home:

– ‘text phone answer machine’ (5)

– ‘use mobile phone’ (3)

• Most receive news in general via newspapers (partner / individual purchases)

– followed by TV News subtitles & Ceefax

– minority mention of Internet & family / friends for news in general

SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS TO OVERALL SYSTEM OF COMMUNICATION

• Wide range of improvements were proposed by small number of respondents:

– serious/Health Issues:- Police involvement- flash information on normal television channels

– more interaction between ‘Deafclub’ and other parties involved– increase amount and clarity of information on Ceefax– visual signer message via e-mail– state time emergency started– SMS centre for Emergency Services– take into account the needs of elderly deaf people– give free mobiles– more publicity– make sure it is a ‘real’ emergency

COMPARISON OF SYSTEM – PAST & PRESENT

• Previously, family, TV & newspapers relied upon heavily for information – often struggled to get information

• A few considered source of information to be dependent upon seriousness of issue

• Other methods adopted:– Deaf Club meetings– letter

• All perceived system now - better than it used to be:– more accessible– faster

• Recognised as vitally important to be kept informed (esp. if health related)

KEY FINDINGS – POTENTIAL INFLUENCERS

STAKEHOLDERS CURRENT SITUATION

• Respondents’ roles varied

– Journalist (x3)– Senior Public Service Policy Officer (x2)– Public Service Officer (x1)

• Area of Responsibility included

– National / Regional Emergency Co-ordinators for ‘Front Line’ Public Service

– Senior Journalists within national media company, communicating news via:

• Ceefax• Online

COMMUNICATION WITH DEAF COMMUNITY

• Majority did not communicate specifically with the deaf community – Inclusive policy caters for general public as a whole

• Systems in place to react & communicate with all sections of the population in an emergency via various mediums:– Media (i.e. TV, radio, website,newspaper)– Emergency Services– Local Authorities– Translation Organisations

• No set method in place, systems used dependent on the emergency situation that has arisen

• Continuous review & revision of systems adopted

• Systems adaptable and flexible to– “new thinking”– targeting specific minorities

INITIAL REACTIONS TO ‘DEAF WATCH’ PILOT

• All respondents positively perceived concept, but foresaw practical strengths and weaknesses:

Strengths

• direct and immediate communication confidence message received • immediate communication able to respond if confusion / not received• encompasses all visual communication methods

Weaknesses

• accessibility (limited access to technology / ownership)• financial cost to deaf community and organisations• alerting attention to any sent messages

INVOLVEMENT IN ‘DEAF WATCH’

• Frontline Emergency Organisation: – currently has own national internal systems in place, therefore, has

to adhere to these national guidelines

– interested in being updated on development and progress of scheme

• National Media Company:– interested in facilitating such a system via media medium

accessibility

– keen to be associated with such a scheme and would be willing to provide ‘technical expertise’ resources

• Sub-group also exists representing hard of hearing (Strathclyde Emergency Co-ordination Group)

RESOURCES REQUIREMENTS FOR ‘DEAF WATCH’ SYSTEM

• Frontline Emergency Organisation:

– increased Government Funding– increased Human Resource– training– relevant Technical Resources

• National Media Company:

– increased funding– time capacity– human resource capacity

PERCEIVED PROCESS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ‘DEAF WATCH’ SYSTEM

• Initial process should target strategy makers i.e key policy makers / CEO

• Multi-agency approach with one strategy desired

• If accepted at strategy level perceived would filter through to tactical frontline level via internal processes:

– Policy discussions– Committees

SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS TO DEAF WATCH SYSTEM

• Need to raise awareness – regional infrastructure for multi-agency co-operation is already in place to help develop ‘Deaf Watch’

• Weakness of current procedures is that organisations are REACTIVE need to be PROCATIVE

• Need for multi-agency knowledge sharing – problems currently exist due to Data Protection Act

• Involve members of the deaf community in the decision process

• Need to accurately assess size of deaf community

• Learn best practice from corporate sector:– e.g. Utilities – already have well developed systems in place to

cater for hard of hearing customers

• Take into account accessibility and financial constraints of users of the systems

• Greater involvement of members of the deaf community in the decision-making process

• Evaluate other corporate sectors systems

• Mode of delivery maybe dependent on seriousness of issue

• Content of message must be addressed– readability– visual message– important details (time of incident)

RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS

GREATER GLASGOW NHS BOARDDEAF WATCH PROJECT

EVALUATION OF FINDINGS

AUGUST 2002

Prepared for: GREATER GLASGOW NHS BOARDPrepared by: MARKET RESEARCH UK

City Wall House, 32 Eastwood AvenueShawlands, Glasgow, G41 3NSTel: 0141 533 3350, Fax: 0141 533 3320Email: research@mruk.co.ukWebsite: www.mruk.co.uk GU1616