'Care needs assessment' (support does too!), but in the hearing loss area, that isn't possible. First you have to identify those in need of care or support, and the data protection act prevents ANY deaf or HoH being assessed properly for need, indeed what the criteria actually is TO assess nobody can agree to determine. Care etc is currently determined by rote, i.e. by campaigns. E.G. deaf need interpreters, need schools to sign, not speak, to not use English but signing own grammar, but how many are deaf, and how adept deaf ARE at signing it is impossible to determine, and, it is now a 'preference' not an identified need, aka a 'choice' and a 'right'.
End of discussion! Suggesting that all with hearing loss get assessed properly and need determined as to what is best support for them was attacked quite strongly as an assault on culture etc by the deaf themselves. Two area after a fashion (!), do assess, at least in part, they are the local SS/Authorities who get approached for support, and the DWP (!), the latter decided 63% of all hard of hearing were not and cut their allowances during the PIP fiascos. The signing deaf were unchallenged. Clearly the DWP vie was if you used sign language you were in real issue. Clinical diagnosis does nothing but state how many decibels of use you have or not, that work for you, they don't suggest what you need to do, to manage it, other than a hearing aid, join a deaf club or learn to lip-read despite the options being unviable for most.
Various charities claim over a 100K deaf are signing regularly, and that just 900 interpreters exist to serve them all. Interpreters themselves said this wasn't their own experience. In reality near 3/4 of deaf never used one but relied on family to do that. The ATR blog (One despised by most UK deaf activism, and mine!), attempted to run a campaign that would effectively prevent deaf using 'choice' as regards to support, it was not a popular view. I don't apologize for that and I still campaign for it, currently loying NHS insurance companies to force the NHS to accept professional support only, after all, access to the NHS is a right for us all, but not every tom dick or gertie should be allowed to translate medical jargon, there are ethical issues too. I believe everyone deaf has a right to professional and vitally, NEUTRAL support, especially in health and legal areas etc.
Deaf charities condemned me outright, and still do, they called me names I cannot print here, banned me from near every online UK site they had, even today my blog exists only on an USA aggregate. They were exposed for direct abuse of a deaf person and endorsing the right of other deaf to refuse professional help, despite demanding more interpreters, the whole issue of support and care for this vulnerable area (Despite the shouting), is a dogma-run chaotic and biased restrictive mess. I am unsurprised the disability movement decided they are too volatile and random to be included in their campaigns.
Would proper assessment reveal their shortcomings? I believe yes it would and why they resist it. Too much money at stake and 'jobs for the deaf boys and gals', I don't think need care or support has a part in it for them. Certainly inclusion doesn't. The fact this comment would NEVER get aired on any UK deaf site is proof enough...