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: [email protected]: 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
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: [email protected]: www.mruk.co.uk GU1616