GREATER GLASGOW NHS BOARD DEAF WATCH PROJECT EVALUATION OF FINDINGS AUGUST 2002

1. GREATER GLASGOW NHS BOARDDEAF WATCH PROJECTEVALUATION OF FINDINGSAUGUST 2002 Prepared for: GREATER GLASGOW NHS BOARD Prepared by: MARKET RESEARCH UK City Wall House, 32 Eastwood Avenue Shawlands, Glasgow, G41 3NS Tel: 0141 533 3350, Fax: 0141 533 3320 Email: research@mruk.co.uk Website: www.mruk.co.uk GU1616

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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’

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. KEY FINDINGS – DEAF COMMUNITY

9. FIGURE 1: EMERGENCY MESSAGE RECEIVED (SELF COMPLETION) • 22 respondents recalled receiving emergency message (Number of responses shown) Base: 29 Source: Market Research UK Ltd, April 2002

10. 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)

11. 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)

12. 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’

13. 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

14. FIGURE 5: IF ‘REAL LIFE’ EMERGENCY, PERCEPTION OF TIME TAKEN TO TAKE ACTION (Number of responses in brackets) Base: 29 Source: Market Research UK Ltd, April 2002

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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)

18. 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)

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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)

22. KEY FINDINGS – POTENTIAL INFLUENCERS

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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)

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS • 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)

31. GREATER GLASGOW NHS BOARDDEAF WATCH PROJECTEVALUATION OF FINDINGSAUGUST 2002 Prepared for: GREATER GLASGOW NHS BOARD Prepared by: MARKET RESEARCH UK City Wall House, 32 Eastwood Avenue Shawlands, Glasgow, G41 3NS Tel: 0141 533 3350, Fax: 0141 533 3320 Email: research@mruk.co.uk Website: www.mruk.co.uk GU1616