“Let’sgo ’9

into more hospitals ROSEMARY LEE, Education Officer, BBC Continuing Education,

British Broadcasting Corporation, Broadcasting House, London

Background: “Let’s Go . . .” “Let’s Go . . .” is a BBC television series for

moderately mentally handicapped adolescents and adults. ,The twenty 12-minute programmes aim to stimulde interest in such social and coping skills as going shopping, using the telephone and taking care of one’s teeth, in a way which can be followed by skills practice and further instruction. The series, presented by Brian Rix, was first transmitted between September 1978 - March 1979. It will be repeated between September - December 1980. Supporting materials include tutors’ notes, a student work pack, and sets of slides (see Croton, 1980 for an account of the production of the series). Ten new programmes will begin transmission in January 1981.

The target audience for the series was originally described as “the moderately handicapped” (IQ range 35 upwards, granting the crudity of this measurement) in ESN(M) and ESN(S) schools (for older pupils), adult training centres (ATC’s), hospitals and hostels. Mental handicap hospitals were included in the full round of research, pre-testing and promotion which was under- taken before the programmes were broadcast. Two of the consultants - Dr. Kenneth Day, Consultant Psy- chiatrist, Northgate Hospital, Morpeth, and Dr. William Fraser, Consultant Psychiatrist, Royal Edin- burgh and Gogarburn Hospitals - could be assumed to have special knowledge of hospital contexts. At the pre-test stage, pilot programmes were shown to hospital personnel as well as to parents, ATC instruc- tors and teachers, and to groups of patients (at St. Ebba’s Hospital, Epsom and Lynebank Hospital, Dunfermline), school children and ATC trainees. The reactions of the patients did not differ in any significant way from those of the other target groups (see Lee, Croton and Whelan, 1979, for an account of the pre- testing exercise).

Reactions to the series Feedback on “Let’s Go . . .” was obtained from

visits of observation made by BBC Education Officers, from letters received by Brian Rix and the production office, and from the replies to a questionnaire sent out as part of an evaluation study commissioned by the BBC from a research team in the Department of Educational Studies in the University of Hull under the leadership of Dr. Ann Clarke.

Despite a widely-expressed general enthusiasm for the series, particularly from ATC’s, some weaknesses in the programmes quickly became apparent. Most of them can be encompassed in the phrase used by one of the questionnaire respondents: “Let’s Go . . . a little more slowly”. Too many teaching points were attempted, and the pace and sequencing was not always satisfactory. However, many teachers and instructors managed to capitalise on what they saw as the pro- grammes’ strengths (particularly their motivating power) by devising reinforcement strategies.

The most (openly) critical section of the professional audience was that from ESN(M) schools. Many of

66

these teachers felt that the programmes were pitched beneath the ability of most of their students who, in any case, did not wish to identify themselves with the more severely handicapped people featured. The most favourable reactions came from ATC instructors, many of whom exploited to the full the opportunity to use teaching material they perceived as relevant by procuring recording equipment and building social education courses around the programmes. Comments like: “At first we spoke about nothing else except ‘Let’s Go . . . ’ for weeks . . .” were not uncommon.

The lack of hospital response One of the disappointing aspects of the “Let’s

Go . . .” project so far has been its poor take-up by mental handicap hospitals. BBC Education Officers have had difficulty in finding any hospital viewing- groups to visit, and insufficient questionnaire returns were received from hospitals for them to be included in the Hull team’s report. The reasons for this relative lack of interest appear to fall into two groups: prob- lems stemming from the series; and problems stem- ming from the hospital context.

In the first group, the chief problem which is cited is the irrelevance of the series for the majority of the population of most hospitals. The policy of moving patients into the community as far as possible has considerably reduced the numbers of the “Let’s G o . . .” target audience now to be found in wards. The need most commonly expressed to the BBC by hospital staff is for teaching material for the severely mentally handicapped, well below the target range of “Let’s Go . . .”. (It is proving difficult to see how nationally-transmitted television can appropriately meet this need). In hospitals where there are higher- ability residents, some staff have been reluctant to try the programmes because of the kinds of concgrn about their level and pace mentioned earlier. Moreover, the content of some of the programmes has presented hospitals with problems : some practical (“We cannot reinforce “Let’s G o . . . and Buy Clothes” in a remote, rural setting”); others normative (“It is not hospital policy for patients to learn how to dial 999”). Other programmes (“Let’s Go . . . to a Football Match”, for instance) will be of limited relevance to many residents.

But there are some patients - those who are being prepared for life in the community - for whom the usefulness of the topics covered in the series is generally agreed. They are learning the very skills shown in the programmes - shopping, cooking, using ’buses and so on. Often they live, or spend much of their time, in “half-way houses”, model flats or similar settings - very suitable for group-viewing of a tele- vision programme followed by appropriate skills practice. The reasons given for the non-usage of “Let’s Go . . .” with these people are usually con- cerned with hospital logistics. It is sometimes argued that the small numbers involved make it difficult to justify the extra effort needed. (Interestingly enough, exactly the same argument is used by ESN(M) schools

A p e x , J . Brit. Inst. Melit. Hand., Vol. 8 No. 2, 1980, 66-67

which do not show the “Let’s G o . . .” programmes to their minority less-able students). Staffing shortage is obviously a major problem; so too is the availability of equipment. The latter is particularly frustrating since (unlike ATC’s) many hospitals have video-recording equipment but are not accustomed to using it as a teaching resource with patients.

One problem which seems to fall between the two groups is the difficulty of finding a contact-point on educational matters within hospitals. This has meant that BBC publicity has not always been addressed cor- rectly and interested members of staff have not known about the series. To an outsider, this difficulty seems to reflect a lack of certainty within many hospitals about the status of education and about the level of authority at which educational decisions should be made.

Langdon Hospital Despite the formidable problems listed above, some

hospitals have found “Let’s Go . . .” a useful and practicable educational resource. A brief account of the way in which its use has been organised at one of them, Langdon Hospital, Dawlish, may prove instruc- tive.

Langdon is one of the two main hospitals in the Royal Western Counties Group which have shared a Tutor Organiser, appointed by Devon Education Authority, since 1973. It now has a well-established Adult Education Service with a panel of experienced part-time tutors and continuing liaison with key nurs- ing staff (and parents in the case of hostel residents). The Service has a budget from the hospitals for training materials.

When the “Let’s Go . . .” series was announced, it was recognised as relevant to the agreed and assessed needs of six young residents of a hostel, located near the hospital within the Devon Area Health Authority Mental Handicap Sector. (The Tutor Organiser’s pre- vious experience of developing courses in conjunction with broadcasts may have predisposed him in favour of using this resource). Details of all BBC “Let’s Go . . .” materials were circulated to all the staff involved; three teachers welcomed the opportunity to attend one of the BBC workshops in preparation for the programmes, and they were instructed by the technician in the hospital psychology department in the use of video playback equipment. (The equipment had to be collected weekly from the other main hospital nearby and returned - not everything was trouble-free !).

The Tutor Organiser feels that one of the most important features of the social education course devised for the hostel residents was that it was sited outside the hospital (but within walking distance), in a building which was being developed as a community centre, next to a corner shop. This setting gave the “Let’s Go . . .” programmes an immediate relevance and afforded opportunities for realistic practice of independent living skills. Although the teachers found that the content of some of the programmes was too much for their students, their overall reactions were favourable. In their own words, “Television seems to loom large in the patients’ lives and so it is marvellous to be able to use it as a teaching aid. Patients need facts re-introduced time and again before they stick and the programmes can vary the methods and use the visual impact.”

It is planned to continue to use selected parts of “Let’s Go . . .” (in recorded form) with the same group. At the same time, new opportunities for train-

ing and rehabilitation programmes have been made possible by the opening of “Training Flats” at the hospital, at present attended by three residents on a day basis. Plans to use “Let’s Go . . .” materials - particularly the slides - in these programmes are already under way.

Some questions From the outside, what is untypical about the work

at Langdon is not so much the resources available as the co-ordinated commitment to social education which made such careful organisation possible. The example raises some interesting questions. Is it easier for a hospital to make this kind of use of educational broadcasting if it has strong links with local authority adult education provision? And if so, what is the crucial factor? A shift in ethos, the availability of professional teachers, or merely the presence of extra personnel and, sometimes, resources? Does the siting of classes outside the hospital make a difference to the perceived relevance of programmes? These features recur in the situation at Bromham Hospital, Bedford- shire where a group of patients see the “Let’s Go . . .” programmes at the local Community College with an adult education tutor. (After seeing “Let’s G o . . . on a ’Bus” three patients, who had missed their hospital transport, found their way to the college via two public ’buses - although they did arrive an hour after the end of the class). It would be interesting to hear from other hospitals operating, or planning to operate, on different patterns, especially from any which make use of nurses in tutorial roles with “Let’s Go . . .”

A second go The new “Let’s Go . . .” programmes which begin

transmission in January, 1981 may well have more to offer hospitals than the first series had. There will be a continuing emphasis on interpersonal relationships - ranging from simple conventions of greeting in the first programme L‘Let’s Go . . . and Meet People”, to more complex ideas of co-operation in “Let’s Go . . . to the Hostel”. Other programmes will deal with road safety, safety in the home, visiting the doctor, garden- ing and asking for help. Production team members hope that they have interpreted the feedback from the first series correctly and they plan that the new pro- grammes will indeed “go a little more slowly”. Can these facts, coupled with the knowledge that the series has proved useful as an educational resource with patients, persuade other hospitals to take a second look at “Let’s Go . . .?” Without wishing in any way to underestimate the problems, it still seems a pity that in an area so short of teaching materials, a relatively inexpensive resource should be largely neglected. Any help that BBC Education Officers can provide will certainly be forthcoming.

References Croton, G. Let’s Go . . . A n Account of the BBC’s Mental

Handicap Project 1976-79. London : BBC, 1980. Lee, R., Croton, G., Whelan, E. The pre-testing of “Let’s

Go . . .” - a BBC television series for the mentally handi- capped. In Bates, T., Gallagher, M. (Eds.). Formative Evalu- ation of Educational Television Programmes. Seminar and Conference Report 3. London : Council for Educational Technology, 1978.

Further information about “Let’s Go . . .” and about points raised in this article mav be obtained from Rosemarv Lee. Education Officer, BBC, 4Broadcasting House, London; W1 A 1AA. Telephone : 01-580 4468, Ext. 2361 /3132.

67