Transcript High Sights in Low Vision

What Vision?
Mary Bairstow
Low Vision Steering Group
July 4th 2007
•
•
•
•
What a history (a reminder)
What standards?
What’s my opinion?
So what’s the local society response ?
Low Vision Services Implementation
• Late 1990’s
• More and better
services
• Low vision report
• Sets standards and
suggests Low Vision
Services
Committees
• Nalsvi endorsed
• Late 1990’s
• More and better
services
• Low vision report
• Sets standards and
suggests lvsc’s as a
means to change
It should be easy
•
•
•
•
Get everyone around the table
Identify what needs to be done
Make plans about how to do it
Work with local commissioners
(PCTs , social care)
• Monitor
2000 - 2007
• 78 LVSCs
(Blackburn with Darwen newest)
• Emperor’s new clothes or visionary
groups ?
A question of independence (Nov 2006)
RNIB and AMD Alliance UK funded
McLaughlan, B., Lightstone, A. and Winyard, S
Q13: Impact of Low Vision Service Committee
(Base: all offering other service and excluding no replies/no committee)
0%
TOTAL
10%
20%
30%
18%
40%
50%
42%
Local Society
21%
41%
Teachers
PCTs
11%
38%
34%
29%
27%
60%
38%
32%
35%
36%
22%
43%
Very positive
80%
47%
20%
Social Services
70%
35%
Hospital
Optician/Optom
60%
Positive
32%
34%
No difference
Negative
90%
100%
Not relevant?
• The majority (91%) could see the shapes of furniture
in a room (or better)
Network 1000 2006
• 71% cent of people said they used magnifiers for
reading
Network 1000 2006
• 73% said that they used better lighting for reading
tasks
Network 1000 2006
But what vision
• 1/4 of service providers admit their
services less than satisfactory or
unsatisfactory
AMD Alliance 2006
and………
• Service users do not know what they
can expect from service providers
Low Vision Project National Evaluation Report 2005
Accountability
•
•
•
•
40% - funders no accountability
16 % require yearly audits
14 % ask for accounts
11% variety of different ways
AMD Alliance 2006
Setting Standards
Some LVSCs lack clarity about their
purpose (despite the clear remit given in
the 1999 Report)
Low Vision Project National Evaluation Report 2005
Seeking a solution?
How you would you recognise a good
service?
A consensus
• LV recommendations for future service
delivery
• Working Group
• 19 members
• 2 users
• Nalsvi representation (Ian Atrill)
• ADSS, Rehab., Vol Orgs
Status
• Voluntary sector recommendations
• Endorsements - Loads
• Foreword - Frank Dobson
1999 standards
• Who, where, what, when, continued
support and monitoring services…..
– Not clinical parameters
– Close to home
– Eye exam…. to certification … to vision
enhancement training……...
– Within 6 weeks
– Returning as required
– Monitored
Setting a new Standard
• Working party set up 2006
• 9 members
• Included one rehabilitation worker
•
•
•
•
•
4 Optometrists
1 Dispensing Optician
1 Ophthalmologist
1 Orthoptist
1 Department of Health
• Consultation 2006. Launched Jan 2007
Status
• Recommended by the DH
• Endorsed by LVSG
• May be reviewed
The standards
6 Headings
•
•
•
•
Design Principles
Referral, assessment and service
Information
Service improvement, monitoring and
evaluation of the service
• Training
• Communication
Local commissioners - ‘will wish’
• Service Improvement, monitoring and evaluation
of the service
• Modernisation techniques
• Measures
-
numbers referred/ treated
- demographics
- inter-professional communications
- evaluation data
• Service user involvement
• Annual report by commissioners - ‘working
towards’ !
Training
• Suitably trained as part of a local
protocol
• Accreditation - initial
- ongoing
- reflect lessons learnt
• Multi-disciplinary
• CRB checks noted
User led changes?
LV Consensus ‘99
• Devices should be
loaned
• Specific times (6w)
DH LV ‘07
• Loan/supply agreed
locally
• Agreed timetables
(though 10 days for
contact)
What’s new?
•
•
•
•
Emphasis on ‘booking of appointments’
Reference to service being refused
Notes on CRB checks
Single contact point (though this is
mentioned as an LVSC aim)
• Directions for commissioners
What’s been lost?
• Notion of implementation or governance
( LVSCs )
• Sense of ‘the essential’
• Some specifics - Transport
- Issues of geography
So can it work
• Huge variation in activity and outcomes
• Mary’s factors for success
– A Vision
– Self belief
–
–
–
–
–
Strong lead - good chair
The right membership
Service user strategy
Commissioning involvement
Reporting routes
Local Society support?
• Link to or attend LVSC
• Give advice - pass on expertise
• Support user involvement
• Ensure PCT approaches acknowledge
multi-agency (LVSC) model
Keeping up to date
Link into the national network
[email protected]
Thank You for Listening
You can find me at
[email protected]
Website lowvision.org.uk