{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018255578093306288, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006896551724137931, 'mean_word_length': 5.593582887700535, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
G96(P) A qualitative study of professionals’ understanding of the vulnerabilities of deaf children to maltreatment

Background There are over 45 000 deaf children living in the UK, of whom 90% are born to hearing parents with little or no experience of deafness or knowledge of how to communicate with a D/deaf person. Deaf children are 2.3 times more likely to suffer maltreatment versus their hearing peers. Current research equates their vulnerability to disabled children generally, lacking regard for the specificities of deafness. Aims With the current focus in safeguarding on the voice of the child, this research aims to understand why professionals think deaf children are more vulnerable to maltreatment and how these attitudes affect their safeguarding approach. Methods Front-line professionals involved in safeguarding including doctors, social workers and teachers of the Deaf were identified via snowball sampling. Qualitative questionnaires and semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 front-line professionals with varied experience and specialism with deaf children. Participant’s transcripts were analysed by thematic analysis as categorised by Braun and Clarke, 2006 using the NVivo computer programme. Results This research found that although professionals understood child and family factors underpinning the vulnerability of deaf children, generalists lacked knowledge of Deaf culture which specialists emphasised as being fundamental in influencing vulnerability. This lack of knowledge adversely affected the safeguarding of deaf children. Professionals recognised deaf children were more vulnerable. However, communication barriers and lack of understanding of the holistic impact of deafness with the nuances of British Sign Language limited their safeguarding activities and ability to understand the deaf child’s perspective. Conclusion As expected, specialists understood the nuances of vulnerability suggesting they have expertise which could benefit all front-line professionals. Our next step is to develop a training package to give safeguarding professionals knowledge of the Deaf culture to enhance deaf children’s voices. Terminology used D/deaf describes a person with any magnitude of hearing loss. Those who are ‘Deaf’ view their deafness as their cultural identity, whereas ‘deaf’ people view it as a condition in need of treatment. Children are yet to define their cultural identity so are referred to as ‘deaf’.