Audiology Services (Hansard, 13 January 1999)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Health (Baroness Hayman)
My Lords, the Government are committed to the provision of high-quality audiology services that minimise the risk of undiagnosed hearing problems, and in June 1997 my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health helped to launch the Royal National Institute for Deaf People's information campaign for general practitioners.
In addition, the Department of Health has recently commissioned a review to look at the acceptability, benefit and costs of early screening for hearing disability.

§ Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. What steps are being taken by the department to iron out local variations in the waiting times for both hearing tests and the fitting of hearing 183 aids, which are currently considerable? Will the primary care groups that are now being set up have a role to play?

§ Baroness Hayman
Yes, my Lords, the noble Lord rightly points to the fact that there are variations in the service throughout the country. In 1997 the National Health Service Executive set up a working group to examine hearing aid services. That has since been broadened to include audiology services, as the two services need to be looked at together, and to see what can be done in line with the new NHS programme for equity of access and high-quality services to improve and iron out unwarranted variation in service.

§ Lord Ashley of Stoke
My Lords, my noble friend's response to the Question was very helpful. Many people suffer deafness unnecessarily if it is not diagnosed or treated. Recognising, as she does, that something has to be done, does she agree that we need to improve the staffing levels in audiological services and the range of hearing aids? Does she further agree that we should also try to improve, as far as we can, all the arrangements relating to audiological services? In Britain today those services are inadequate and inconsistent. As the Minister said, they are variable—thanks to the Tory government. What do the present Government intend to do about that?

§ Baroness Hayman
My Lords, the noble Lord is right to recognise the problems in audiology services which he and many others have taken a great deal of effort to draw to the attention of government. I hope that when we see the results of both the hearing aid review and audiology services we can take action to implement higher quality services across the board. There are ways in which that could be done: for example, by using outreach sites and providing more access, and in promoting awareness among general practitioners. The primary care groups will be an important mechanism for ensuring that general practitioners provide a high quality of care in their localities for those people with hearing loss, who are the second largest group of people with disabilities in the country.
My noble friend referred to a range of hearing aids. As he is aware, a range of potential appliances is supplied by the NHS. More than half a million hearing aids per annum are used within the NHS at a cost of £16 million pounds. We must also examine continuing advances in technology.

Earl Howe
My Lords, to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is the Minister aware that waiting times for hearing tests vary around the country from a matter of days to up to 18 months, and that having a hearing aid fitted can sometimes take several months longer? Is that not a good illustration of how bare numbers on a waiting list are a poor indicator on their own of patient need? Does she agree that a much better indicator is the length of time patients have been waiting for a consultation or treatment?

§ Baroness Hayman
My Lords, these are not "either/or" issues. We have to examine the whole 184 provision of services. The noble Earl is right to point out that we must examine everything that is offered to a patient who requires care, not simply one small part of the process.
Referring to what I suspect underlies the noble Earl's question, as well having great success in reducing numbers on the waiting list, we are also, as he will be pleased to hear, having enormous success in reducing waiting times.