DOCSLIB.ORG

PDF Document

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PDF Document Report on selected questions from the NHS England Accessible Information Surveys: May 2014 NHS England INFORMATION READER BOX Directorate Medical Operations Patients and Information Nursing Policy Commissioning Development Finance Human Resources Publications Gateway Reference: 01907 Document Purpose Consultations Report on selected questions from the NHS England Accessible Document Name Information Surveys: May 2014 Author NHS England, Patients & Information Publication Date 21 July 2014 Target Audience CCG Accountable Officers, Care Trust CEs, Foundation Trust CEs , Medical Directors, Directors of Nursing, Directors of Adult SSs, NHS England Regional Directors, Allied Health Professionals, GPs, Communications Leads, CCG PPI Lay Members, patients, carers, the public, voluntary and community sector orgs Additional Circulation Engagement partners List Description NHS England invited views to inform the development of a new accessible information standard from November 2013 to February 2014. A range of individuals, groups and organisations were able to share their experiences and put forward suggestions for improvements with regards to accessible information and communication support. This report contains the results of selected questions from the NHS England Accessible Information Surveys, which closed in February 2014. Cross Reference 0 Superseded Docs 0 (if applicable) Action Required 0 Timing / Deadlines By 00 January 1900 (if applicable) Contact Details for Sarah Marsay further information Public Voice Team (Accessible Information) NHS England 5E01, Quarry House, Quarry Hill, Leeds LS2 7UE 0113 825 1324 www.england.nhs.uk/accessibleinfo Document Status This is a controlled document. Whilst this document may be printed, the electronic version posted on the intranet is the controlled copy. Any printed copies of this document are not controlled. As a controlled document, this document should not be saved onto local or network drives but should always be accessed from the intranet 2 Report on selected questions from the NHS England Accessible Information Surveys: May 2014 Report on selected questions from the NHS England Accessible Information Surveys: May 2014 Version number: 1 First published: July 2014 Prepared by: Mark Darley / Sarah Marsay 3 Report on selected questions from the NHS England Accessible Information Surveys: May 2014 Contents Contents ...................................................................................................................... 4 1 Summary ............................................................................................................ 12 2 Patients, carers and service users survey .......................................................... 13 2.1 Part 1 – Your experiences ........................................................................... 13 2.1.1 Question 1 ............................................................................................ 13 2.1.2 Question 2 ............................................................................................ 14 2.1.3 Question 3 ............................................................................................ 15 2.1.4 Question 4 ............................................................................................ 16 2.1.5 Question 5 ............................................................................................ 17 2.1.6 Question 6 ............................................................................................ 19 2.1.7 Question 7 ............................................................................................ 21 2.1.8 Question 8 ............................................................................................ 22 2.1.9 Question 9 ............................................................................................ 22 2.2 Part 2 – Getting the right information and the right communication support 23 2.2.1 Question 10 .......................................................................................... 23 2.2.2 Question 11 .......................................................................................... 25 2.2.3 Question 12 .......................................................................................... 26 2.2.4 Question 13 .......................................................................................... 28 2.2.5 Question 14 .......................................................................................... 28 2.3 Part 3 – Diversity monitoring questions ....................................................... 29 2.3.1 Question 15 .......................................................................................... 29 2.3.2 Question 16 .......................................................................................... 30 2.3.3 Question 17 .......................................................................................... 31 2.3.4 Question 18 .......................................................................................... 33 2.3.5 Question 19 .......................................................................................... 35 2.3.6 Question 20 .......................................................................................... 36 2.3.7 Question 21 .......................................................................................... 37 2.3.8 Question 22 .......................................................................................... 38 2.3.9 Question 23 .......................................................................................... 39 3 Health and social care professionals and organisations survey ......................... 40 3.1.1 Question 1 ............................................................................................ 40 3.1.2 Question 2 ............................................................................................ 41 3.1.3 Question 3 ............................................................................................ 43 3.1.4 Question 4 ............................................................................................ 45 3.1.5 Question 5 ............................................................................................ 46 3.1.6 Question 6 ............................................................................................ 47 3.1.7 Question 7 ............................................................................................ 48 3.1.8 Question 8 ............................................................................................ 50 3.1.9 Question 9 ............................................................................................ 51 3.1.10 Question 10 ....................................................................................... 52 3.1.11 Question 11 ....................................................................................... 53 3.1.12 Question 12 ....................................................................................... 55 3.1.13 Question 13 ....................................................................................... 55 3.1.14 Question 14 ....................................................................................... 60 3.1.15 Question 15 ....................................................................................... 60 4 Report on selected questions from the NHS England Accessible Information Surveys: May 2014 3.1.16 Question 16 ....................................................................................... 61 3.1.17 Question 17 ....................................................................................... 62 3.1.18 Question 18 ....................................................................................... 62 3.1.19 Question 19 ....................................................................................... 62 3.1.20 Question 20 ....................................................................................... 64 4 Support and supplier organisations survey ........................................................ 66 4.1.1 Question 1 ............................................................................................ 66 4.1.2 Question 2 ............................................................................................ 67 4.1.3 Question 3 ............................................................................................ 68 4.1.4 Question 4 ............................................................................................ 70 4.1.5 Question 5 ............................................................................................ 72 4.1.6 Question 6 ............................................................................................ 73 5 Appendices ........................................................................................................ 74 Appendix 1 – Patients, carers and service users survey, Q8. ............................... 74 Appendix 2 – Patients, carers and service users survey, Q9. ............................. 109 Appendix 3 – Patients, carers and service users survey, Q10. ........................... 148 Appendix 4 – Patients, carers and service users survey, Q11. ........................... 179 Appendix 5 – Patients, carers and service users survey, Q12. ........................... 191 Appendix 6 – Patients, carers and service users survey, Q13. ........................... 231 Appendix 7 – Patients, carers and service users survey, Q14. ........................... 257 Appendix
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sign Language Typology Series
    SIGN LANGUAGE TYPOLOGY SERIES The Sign Language Typology Series is dedicated to the comparative study of sign languages around the world. Individual or collective works that systematically explore typological variation across sign languages are the focus of this series, with particular emphasis on undocumented, underdescribed and endangered sign languages. The scope of the series primarily includes cross-linguistic studies of grammatical domains across a larger or smaller sample of sign languages, but also encompasses the study of individual sign languages from a typological perspective and comparison between signed and spoken languages in terms of language modality, as well as theoretical and methodological contributions to sign language typology. Interrogative and Negative Constructions in Sign Languages Edited by Ulrike Zeshan Sign Language Typology Series No. 1 / Interrogative and negative constructions in sign languages / Ulrike Zeshan (ed.) / Nijmegen: Ishara Press 2006. ISBN-10: 90-8656-001-6 ISBN-13: 978-90-8656-001-1 © Ishara Press Stichting DEF Wundtlaan 1 6525XD Nijmegen The Netherlands Fax: +31-24-3521213 email: [email protected] http://ishara.def-intl.org Cover design: Sibaji Panda Printed in the Netherlands First published 2006 Catalogue copy of this book available at Depot van Nederlandse Publicaties, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Den Haag (www.kb.nl/depot) To the deaf pioneers in developing countries who have inspired all my work Contents Preface........................................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • CENDEP WP-01-2021 Deaf Refugees Critical Review-Kate Mcauliff
    CENDEP Working Paper Series No 01-2021 Deaf Refugees: A critical review of the current literature Kate McAuliff Centre for Development and Emergency Practice Oxford Brookes University The CENDEP working paper series intends to present work in progress, preliminary research findings of research, reviews of literature and theoretical and methodological reflections relevant to the fields of development and emergency practice. The views expressed in the paper are only those of the independent author who retains the copyright. Comments on the papers are welcome and should be directed to the author. Author: Kate McAuliff Institutional address (of the Author): CENDEP, Oxford Brookes University Author’s email address: [email protected] Doi: https://doi.org/10.24384/cendep.WP-01-2021 Date of publication: April 2021 Centre for Development and Emergency Practice (CENDEP) School of Architecture Oxford Brookes University Oxford [email protected] © 2021 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-No Derivative Works (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 License. Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................ 4 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 5 2. Deaf Refugee Agency & Double Displacement .............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • What Sign Language Creation Teaches Us About Language Diane Brentari1∗ and Marie Coppola2,3
    Focus Article What sign language creation teaches us about language Diane Brentari1∗ and Marie Coppola2,3 How do languages emerge? What are the necessary ingredients and circumstances that permit new languages to form? Various researchers within the disciplines of primatology, anthropology, psychology, and linguistics have offered different answers to this question depending on their perspective. Language acquisition, language evolution, primate communication, and the study of spoken varieties of pidgin and creoles address these issues, but in this article we describe a relatively new and important area that contributes to our understanding of language creation and emergence. Three types of communication systems that use the hands and body to communicate will be the focus of this article: gesture, homesign systems, and sign languages. The focus of this article is to explain why mapping the path from gesture to homesign to sign language has become an important research topic for understanding language emergence, not only for the field of sign languages, but also for language in general. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. How to cite this article: WIREs Cogn Sci 2012. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1212 INTRODUCTION linguistic community, a language model, and a 21st century mind/brain that well-equip the child for this esearchers in a variety of disciplines offer task. When the very first languages were created different, mostly partial, answers to the question, R the social and physiological conditions were very ‘What are the stages of language creation?’ Language different. Spoken language pidgin varieties can also creation can refer to any number of phylogenic and shed some light on the question of language creation.
    [Show full text]
  • Variation and Change in English Varieties of British Sign Languagei
    Variation and change in English varieties of BSL 1 Variation and change in English varieties of British Sign Languagei Adam Schembri, Rose Stamp, Jordan Fenlon and Kearsy Cormier British Sign Language (BSL) is the language used by the deaf community in the United Kingdom. In this chapter, we describe sociolinguistic variation and change in BSL varieties in England. This will show how factors that drive sociolinguistic variation and change in both spoken and signed language communities are broadly similar. Social factors include, for example, a signer’s age group, region of origin, gender, ethnicity, and socio-economic status (e.g., Lucas, Valli & Bayley 2001). Linguistic factors include assimilation and co-articulation effects (e.g., Schembri et al. 2009; Fenlon et al. 2013). It should be noted, however, some factors involved in sociolinguistic variation in sign languages are distinctive. For example, phonological variation includes features, such as whether a sign is produced with one or two hands, which have no direct parallel in spoken language phonology. In addition, deaf signing communities are invariably minority communities embedded within larger majority communities whose languages are in another entirely different modality and which may have written systems, unlike sign languages. Some of the linguistic outcomes of this contact situation (such as the use of individual signs for letters to spell out written words on the hands, known as fingerspelling) are unique to such communities (Lucas & Valli 1992). This picture is further complicated by patterns of language transmission which see many deaf individuals acquiring sign languages as first languages at a much later age than hearing individuals (e.g., Cormier et al.
    [Show full text]
  • The Challenge of Sign Language Phonology 45 • LI03CH03-Sandler ARI 7 December 2016 16:57
    ANNUAL REVIEWS Further Click here to view this article's online features: t%PXOMPBEmHVSFTBT115TMJEFT t/BWJHBUFMJOLFESFGFSFODFT t%PXOMPBEDJUBUJPOT The Challenge of Sign t&YQMPSFSFMBUFEBSUJDMFT t4FBSDILFZXPSET Language Phonology Wendy Sandler Sign Language Research Laboratory, University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Israel; email: [email protected], [email protected] Annu. Rev. Linguist. 2017. 3:43–63 Keywords First published online as a Review in Advance on sign language, phonology, simultaneity, iconicity, duality of patterning, September 21, 2016 language emergence by [email protected] on 03/18/17. For personal use only. The Annual Review of Linguistics is online at linguist.annualreviews.org Abstract Annu. Rev. Linguist. 2017.3:43-63. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org This article’s doi: Comparing phonology in spoken language and sign language reveals that 10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011516-034122 core properties, such as features, feature categories, the syllable, and con- Copyright c 2017 by Annual Reviews. ⃝ straints on form, exist in both naturally occurring language modalities. But All rights reserved apparent ubiquity can be deceptive. The features themselves are quintessen- tially different, and key properties, such as linearity and arbitrariness, al- though universal, occur in inverse proportions to their counterparts, simul- taneity and iconicity, in the two modalities. Phonology does not appear full blown in a new sign language, but it does gradually emerge, accruing lin- guistic structure over time. Sign languages suggest that the phonological component of the language faculty is a product of the ways in which the physical system, cognitive structure, and language use among people inter- act over time.
    [Show full text]
  • Variation in Mouth Actions with Manual Signs (Chapter 2)
    PDF hosted at the Radboud Repository of the Radboud University Nijmegen The following full text is a publisher's version. For additional information about this publication click this link. http://hdl.handle.net/2066/133714 Please be advised that this information was generated on 2021-10-01 and may be subject to change. The ubiquity of mouthings in NGT A corpus study Published by LOT phone: +31 30 253 6111 Trans 10 3512 JK Utrecht e-mail: [email protected] The Netherlands http://www.lotschool.nl Cover illustration: (stemmed) word cloud of this dissertation, from tagul.com. ISBN: 978-94-6093-158-1 NUR 616 Copyright © 2014: Richard Bank. All rights reserved. The ubiquity of mouthings in NGT A corpus study Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen op gezag van de rector magnificus prof. dr. Th. L. M. Engelen volgens besluit van het college van decanen in het openbaar te verdedigen op vrijdag 30 januari 2015 om 12.30 uur precies door Richard Bank Geboren op 1 augustus 1969 te Amsterdam Promotor: Prof. dr. Roeland van Hout Copromotor: Dr. Onno Crasborn Manuscriptcommissie: Prof. dr. Pieter Muysken Prof. dr. Jens Heßmann (Hochschule Magdeburg-Stendal, Duitsland) Prof. dr. Bencie Woll (DCAL, University College London, Groot-Brittannië) Table of contents Dankwoord ..................................................................................................................... ix Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................ 1 1.1 Sign languages: a general introduction ..................................................................... 2 1.1.1 A short history of sign languages...................................................................... 3 1.1.2 Research and recognition .................................................................................. 4 1.1.3 The recent history of NGT ................................................................................ 5 1.1.4 Deaf education in the Netherlands and influence of spoken language .........
    [Show full text]
  • The Ubiquity of Mouthings in NGT a Corpus Study
    The ubiquity of mouthings in NGT A corpus study Published by LOT phone: +31 30 253 6111 Trans 10 3512 JK Utrecht e-mail: [email protected] The Netherlands http://www.lotschool.nl Cover illustration: (stemmed) word cloud of this dissertation, from tagul.com. ISBN: 978-94-6093-158-1 NUR 616 Copyright © 2014: Richard Bank. All rights reserved. The ubiquity of mouthings in NGT A corpus study Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen op gezag van de rector magnificus prof. dr. Th. L. M. Engelen volgens besluit van het college van decanen in het openbaar te verdedigen op vrijdag 30 januari 2015 om 12.30 uur precies door Richard Bank Geboren op 1 augustus 1969 te Amsterdam Promotor: Prof. dr. Roeland van Hout Copromotor: Dr. Onno Crasborn Manuscriptcommissie: Prof. dr. Pieter Muysken Prof. dr. Jens Heßmann (Hochschule Magdeburg-Stendal, Duitsland) Prof. dr. Bencie Woll (DCAL, University College London, Groot-Brittannië) Table of contents Dankwoord ..................................................................................................................... ix Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................ 1 1.1 Sign languages: a general introduction ..................................................................... 2 1.1.1 A short history of sign languages...................................................................... 3 1.1.2 Research and recognition .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Vrije Universiteit Brussel an Agent-Based Model of Sign
    Vrije Universiteit Brussel An agent-based model of sign language persistence informed by real-world data Mudd, Katie; de Vos, Connie; De Boer, Bart Published in: Language dynamics and change DOI: 10.1163/22105832-bja10010 Publication date: 2020 License: CC BY-NC Document Version: Final published version Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Mudd, K., de Vos, C., & De Boer, B. (2020). An agent-based model of sign language persistence informed by real-world data. Language dynamics and change, 10(2), 158–187. [2]. https://doi.org/10.1163/22105832- bja10010 General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 08. Oct. 2021 Language Dynamics and Change 10 (2020) 158–187 brill.com/ldc An agent-based model of sign language persistence informed by real-world data Katie Mudd Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium [email protected] Connie de Vos | orcid: 0000-0002-4800-4313 Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands; Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands [email protected] Bart de Boer Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium [email protected] Abstract As evidence from sign languages is increasingly used to investigate the process of lan- guage emergence and evolution, it is important to understand the conditions that allow for sign languages to persist.
    [Show full text]
  • Taiwan Sign Language Interpreting: Towards Professional Equality
    Taiwan Sign Language Interpreting: towards Professional Equality Riccardo Moratto National Taiwan Normal University (NTNU) Graduate Institute of Translation and Interpretation. GITI Supervisor: Professor Jung-hsing Chang This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Institute of Translation and Interpretation GITI National Taiwan Normal University (NTNU) December 2012 i ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………….. III List of Tables, Figures and Appendices ………………………………………… VII Abstract …………………………………………………………………………. VIII Abstract in Chinese ……………………………………………………………... 8X Statement of Candidate …………………………………………………………. XIII Acknowledgments ………………………………………………………………. XIV 14 Chapter One Introduction 1.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………. 1 1.2 Research Hypothesis ………………………………………………………... 5 1.3 Background and Rationale for the Study……………………………………. 6 1.4 General Method ……………………………………………………………... 8 1.5 The Anticipated Contribution of the Study …………………………………. 9 1.6 Organization of the Thesis ………………………………………………….. 10 Chapter Two Taiwan Sign Language 2.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………. 16 2.2 A Diachronic Analysis of Taiwan Sign Language (TSL): A Historical Excursus of TSL …………………………………………………………………. 18 2.3 Diatopic and diachronic variation …………………………………………... 22 2.4 A Historical Journey Towards Dignity ……………………………………… 29 2.4.1 Language “Evolution”: from Hands to Mouth …………………………. 29 2.5 Cued Speech ………………………………………………………………… 35 2.6 Manually Coded Language …………………………………………………. 38 2.7 Lip Reading
    [Show full text]
  • Endangerment and Revitalization of Sign Languages J
    Endangerment and revitalization of sign languages J. Albert Bickford and Melanie McKay-Cody Abstract To date, relatively little effort has been expended on revitalizing sign languages. To understand the current vitality of sign languages, it is important to distinguish two sociolinguistic types of sign languages. The better- known type can be termed Deaf communities, typically urban and national in character. Alongside these are shared- signing communities, typically in rural areas with a high incidence of hereditary deafness, in which many hearing people actively use the sign language in addition to deaf people. These two types differ in patterns of intergenerational transmission and language loss. Although we can be cautiously optimistic about the future of Deaf community languages, shared-signing communities are facing massive erosion already. To date, most attempts to strengthen sign languages have focused on supporting continued use of Deaf community languages; efforts to support and even revitalize dying shared signing communities have only just begun. To appear (planned 2018) in: Leanne Hinton, Leena Huss, and Gerald Roche (eds). Routledge Handbook of Language Revitalization. New York: Routledge. Endangerment and revitalization of sign languages1 J. Albert Bickford and Melanie McKay-Cody There has been little attention so far to revitalizing sign languages. For example, the UNESCO Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger (2010) doesn’t list any. In this chapter, we establish a framework for approaching this topic. We start by discussing two types of sign language communities, with differing patterns of attrition, then review the current vitality of the world’s sign languages and summarize efforts that have been made to strengthen them, concluding with a few suggestions for planning revitalization programs.
    [Show full text]
  • One Student, Two Languages: Print Literacy in Deaf Students
    ONE STUDENT, TWO LANGUAGES: PRINT LITERACY IN DEAF STUDENTS ELIZABETH BROWN Linguistics Thesis* Spring 2009 This thesis explores what constitutes bilingualism between signed and oral languages, specifically between American Sign Language (ASL) and Eng- lish. We consider the challenges deaf students face in acquiring print literacy and in doing so, evaluate what strategies are most effective in overcoming these barriers. We isolate aspects of linguistic awareness that are meaningful for acquiring bimodal bilingualism and present suggestions on how teachers can best impart the necessary knowledge to young deaf learners, determining effective ways to help deaf students achieve bilingualism through print liter- acy. The focus is on elementary-school-aged children. 1. INTRODUCTION. Bilingualism is the best language option for most deaf people living in hearing society, but it is no easy task. Print literacy is the primary meas- ure of fluency for deaf learners (Moores 2006: 50), and so acquiring reading proficiency in printed English is often the focus of deaf education. Deaf children struggle with read- ing, and the average deaf student graduating from high school has a fourth grade reading level (Hanson 1989: 71-2) or lower (Wilbur 2008: 123). A weak linguistic background in the first language and a limited access to pho- nology are common culprits in negatively affecting deaf students’ reading abilities. Lan- guage deprivation is more common among deaf children entering school than it is among hearing children (Yang 2000), and the first step in planning for print literacy is to make sure that young deaf children acquire a signed language at an early age—in the United States, this often comes in the form of ASL.
    [Show full text]
  • Emerging Sign Languages
    Emerging Sign Languages Emerging Sign Languages Irit Meir Department of Hebrew Language And Department of Communication Disorders The University of Haifa 31905 Haifa, Israel Wendy Sandler Department of English Language and Literature The University of Haifa 31905 Haifa, Israel Carol Padden Department of Communication University of California, San Diego La Jolla, CA 92093-0503 Mark Aronoff Department of Linguistics SUNY Stony Brook Stony Brook, NY 11794-4376 Corresponding author: Irit Meir [email protected] * Our work is supported by grants from the National Institute on Deafness and other Communication Disorders (R01 DC 6473) and the Israel Science Foundation (#553/04). 1 Emerging Sign Languages Emerging Sign Languages Irit Meir, Wendy Sandler, Carol Padden and Mark Aronoff <1>Introduction Herodotus tells the story of the Egyptian king Psammetichos’s effort to answer the question, Who were the first people in the world? He placed newborn twins in the custody of a shepherd on an uninhabited island, with instructions not to speak to them. After two years, he returned to learn that the children’s first recognizable word was ‘bekos,' the Phrygian word for bread, and so concluded that the Phrygians were the first. The tale of Psammetichos has long been one of the best remembered of Herodotus’s stories because it strikes a nerve. Language is the most human of all behaviors and it is natural to want to know how it all started. But we cannot go back in time and there is little if any evidence in the fossil record that can tell us about the origin of language.
    [Show full text]