Improving services for people with low vision: an evaluation of the work of the Low Vision Services Committees Andrew Gibson, Research Fellow, Institute of Health, University of Warwick Professor Gillian Hundt, Institute of Health Dr Maria Stuttaford, University of St Andrews

Growing awareness of the need for change in LV Services Fragmented services Difficult to access Wide disparity in the quality and quantity of services Lack of information for those who would benefit from these services

Origins of Low Vision Service Committees ‘Consensus Conference’ held in March 1998, chaired by Lord Jenkin The Low Vision Services Consensus Group was set up Reported in Set standards and suggested LV Committees to implement them 11 in 1999, now 68 (March 2005)

Focus of the evaluation: The role and activities of the LVSC in terms of the development of new services The improvement of current services The role of service users and the development of joint working

Evaluation design An analysis of policy documents and minutes of meetings Group and individual interviews with key stakeholders A questionnaire sent out to all LVSCs The selection of three regions – West Midlands, London and the South West - to take part in a series of in-depth regional workshops

Improving service user involvement (methods used) Ensuring that information is passed on to service users in an accessible format (81%) Developing links with local service user groups (78%) Involving service users in the mapping of services (78%) Involving service users in planning local services (68%)

Barriers to service user involvement Service users do not know what they can expect from service providers They often have low expectations of services They lack the confidence to challenge service providers The term “low vision” covers a very broad range of people and problems.

Promoting multi-agency working A majority of committees are actively working with one or more of the following service providers: Social Services (92%) PCTs (70%) Hospital Services (86%) The Voluntary Sector (70%) Education Services (51%)

Barriers to promoting multi- agency working Conflicts between service users and service providers Conflicts between different service providers The important role of LVSC chairs

Improving services Improving the dissemination of information about local services to the community (70%) Developing links with optometrists based in primary care (65%) Involvement in the National Eye Care Services Steering Group Pilot Projects

Barriers to improving services 76% of LVSCs report that accessing funding has been the main difficulty they face in improving services 46% indicated that influencing the planning process is a major problem when attempting to improve services 41% reported that implementing a joint plan of action with service providers is another

Strengths of LVSCs The range of expertise brought together by the committees The networking opportunities created The ability to jointly work with service users to plan local services and meet local needs Raising the profile of low vision services generally

Challenges Accessing funding Widening the base of service user involvement Engaging key stakeholders

Conclusion There is evidence that the LVSCs have made significant progress since their inception in 1999 However, a significant commitment from local and national statutory services is also needed if this progress is to be continued

Further information Contact Mary Bairstow Low Vision Services Implementation John Bright St Birmingham B1 1BN Telephone /49