Open Letter to
Dr Mark Shapley
Dr Mark Shapley
Clinical Chair
North Staffordshire Clinical Commissioning Group
Morston House
The Midway
Newcastle under Lyme
Staffordshire
ST5 1QG
Dear Dr Shapley,
Open Letter to the Clinical Chair regarding
North Staffordshire Clinical Commissioning Group’s decision to withdraw provision of NHS funded hearing aids for adults with mild to moderate hearing loss
Following my attendance at N Staffs CCG Board Meeting in Public on 5th Nov 2014 I wrote to you to clarify certain points that had arisen during our chat in the comfort break. I sent that letter via email to NHS North Staffs CCG nsccg@northstaffs.nhs.uk It was not returned as undeliverable so I must assume that it was delivered. I have received neither acknowledgement nor reply. Consequently, I now intend to put that letter and this one into the public domain as open letters. (Please find original letter and docs attached to this letter for your convenience.)
I decided against spending four hours travelling to and from the March meeting where just ten minutes was to be allotted to the decision to deny people such as myself the ability to fully participate in life. However, I did read the documents presented at that meeting in full. I submit the following feedback:
1. Page 40: Strategic goals: How will denial of hearing aids achieve:
a. Reduction in inequality?
b. Improved management of those at increased risk?
c. An improvement in early detection and enhance the quality of life for those with LTCs? (Age/noise related hearing loss cannot be reversed.)
d. The right care for people in the right place?
2. Page 40: How has the feedback the CCG received through its engagement exercise last year been reflected in these plans?
a. Why has so much clear evidence that people who have hearing loss should address it sooner rather than later been ignored?
b. I was one of the 6,500 people who signed AOHL’s petition against hearing aid cuts in N Staffs. I read both their 28 page official response to you and the appeal document they compiled using anecdotes from real people about how hearing aids had transformed their lives. To dismiss these as not significant when making such a crucial decision seems appallingly arrogant in the extreme. In my opinion N Staffs CCG is treating patients with hearing loss - for whom it holds the medical care purse strings - with contempt.
c. I wonder if any of the members of the CCG have experience of hearing loss. John Barrowman, the singer and actor, spent a day last year with plugs fitted into his ears so that he could experience what it was like to live with hearing loss. He said he was exhausted by lunchtime. Perhaps a similar experience could be afforded to members of the CCG. Might that have significant influence?
3. Page 41: Risks relating to the proposals in this paper – your ONLY stated concern is Negative Publicity. This is a deplorable insult to all those patients to whom you will deny clinical help with hearing loss. I am incensed by the apparent insensitivity of Dr John Harvey and Gina Gill, authors of this report. I certainly would regard the loss of my hearing aids as presenting several risks to my quality of life and personal safety. Negative publicity would not be one of them.
4. Page 41: When will the CCG make the Equality Impact Assessment that it has said it has conducted public? Were any hearing impaired people involved in that assessment? If not, how can you possible assess the impact that denying such people the chance to participate fully in life will have?
5. Page 44: I see the CCG is still targeting people with adult onset hearing loss due to ageing or noise exposure. You told me on 5th November that the cause of hearing loss was not the issue. I repeat, “You have made it the issue.” If someone has hearing loss they need help regardless of the cause, or their age.
6. Page 44: The CCG has based its classification of hearing loss on the average of pure-tone hearing threshold levels of just five frequencies: 250, 500, 1,000, 2,000 and 4,000. It is well known that age/noise related hearing loss affects the higher frequencies, yet N Staffs CCG has included two lower frequencies and omitted two higher frequencies from its classification scoring system.
a. Using N Staffs formula for classification, my audiogram readings would score my ears as having 36dB and 38dB loss whereas my true audiogram readings (including all frequency thresholds recorded) give an average score of 45dB and 47dB. My low frequency hearing is normal but at 4,000Hz is 70dB. At 3,000Hz and 6,000Hz (conveniently omitted from your classification formula) my thresholds are 60dB and 65dB.
i. N Staffs CCG - using their formula - would deny me hearing aids.
b. Is the omission of two crucial high frequency readings an oversight or a devious attempt to save more money by categorising many people who have moderate high frequency hearing loss as having only mild hearing loss?
i. I would like clarification on this, please, as with the present figures many people who should be given a chance to score more than 24/40 on your HHIE-S will be denied it because of questionable classification. For the record I score 40/40 on your Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly. (Another insult and example of blatant age discrimination!)
ii. AOHL tells me that the HHIE-S is a research tool, not a clinical assessment tool. However, should you insist upon using it then I feel that anyone who seeks help with a hearing problem should have the opportunity to answer these questions, not only those who score 41-55dB on your questionable classification scale.
iii. I am asked to press a button when I hear a beep during my hearing tests. We do not converse in beeps. We have to make sense of speech. An audiogram is a guide but my audiologists tell me that everyone is different and, although they can explain why I can hear some speech sounds and not others, they cannot KNOW what I am actually hearing during conversation.
7. Page 47: Patients scoring 40dB or lower are to be referred back to their GPs. Why? There is much misunderstanding of hearing loss - even in the medical profession - and as a member of a PPG I find it is frequently necessary to raise awareness of the impact that it has on sufferers. Good practice has to be constantly encouraged and provision of loop systems, where appropriate, need to be requested so that people who are hard of hearing feel less disadvantaged.
a. How does the CCG propose to treat people who are referred back to their GPs and who cannot afford private hearing aids?
b. Will people who do not meet the CCG’s new criteria for hearing aid provision but who currently rely on NHS hearing aids continue to receive aftercare and have these replaced when necessary or will they then be expected to manage without? If the latter, how will the CCG suggest they are supported in this management?
Hearing Loss →Isolation →Depression →Dementia →Need for Full Time Care
is a pathway the CCG might like to consider before implementing its decision. Please be aware that isolation can mean withdrawal or exclusion from situations that include meeting with others or an inability to join in with conversation when in company. Both of these are distressing but the second is particularly so. To sit in company but to be excluded from conversation is a cruel and depressing twist of fate placing the affected person at the mercy of those who lose patience at being expected to constantly repeat what they have said before finally giving up and moving on to engage with someone lucky enough to enjoy good hearing.
Remember! That which has not been heard and understood cannot be stored in the memory and therefore cannot be retrieved from the memory at a later time. Could this be why people suffering from dementia remember old memories but not what should be newer ones?
We are constantly being told that difficult decisions have to be made. Sadly, it would seem that those who make the decisions are rarely affected by them. To condemn people (many of whom will be in their twilight years) to possible decades of vastly reduced quality of life, without apparent full consideration of evidence from the people who will be most affected by such decisions is, I feel, truly reprehensible. I am sure I am not alone in feeling decidedly outraged by the stance N Staffs CCG is taking.
Yours in dismay,
Kathleen Hill
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments Welcome