The disability discrimination case involving the Sunshine Coast University Hospital provides a few important learning points. The hospital was found to have caused indirect discrimination to people with vision impairments. Rectifying the long list of breaches of the Disability Discrimination Act is expensive and reaches into the millions of dollars. But does compliance make for inclusion in the prescribed solutions?
The Sunshine Coast University Hospital (SSCU) was the subject of Peter Ryan’s complaint. He is legally blind and claimed disadvantage in the way access was provided for him. The main point was inadequate wayfinding.
Learning from the court case
A blog article from the Humanics Collective website discusses the issue of the Court’s demands for specific features to be rectified and/or applied. First they respectfully disagree with the Court’s interpretation of what constitutes functional accessibility. This is because hospitals are complex environments and finding your way around is an issue for many.
Wayfinding not just about signage
Meeting standards doesn’t always guarantee usability and equity isn’t always achieved through uniformity. Most followers of universal design would agree with this. The real goal is to help people find their way. So installing more of the same signage isn’t necessarily the answer.
‘One key point of contention in the ruling was the interpretation of “replace.” We argued that replacement shouldn’t mean reinstalling flawed signage in the same location, but improving usability through better placement, higher contrast, and greater visibility.’ Image from Humanics Collective
The Humanics Collective blog suggests the answer is not in more signage but in smarter support. This includes meaningful pre-visit information and training front of house staff to assist people with vision impairment. Consistency in design builds spatial memory and therefore confidence and trust.
On-site testing with user groups found that the proposed changes made the space feel easy to navigate and supportive. Users consistently said there is no single vision impairment experience. Consequently, they use different tools to get around – a cane, a guide dog, signage, and now wayfinding apps on their phone.
The title of the blog post is, What We Learned from the Court Case: The Sunshine Coast Univeristy Hospital ruling and its impact on inclusive wayfinding.
Background to the court case
The 2021 court ruling in Queensland is a reminder to designers and builders not to ignore disability access. But many do, and that is probably because they are unlikely to be called to account. Complaints under the Disability Discrimination Act that go to court are rare.
That’s because the person who experiences the discrimination has to make the complaint. And that’s tough. Court cases are very stressful for complainants who often have fewer resources to cope.
The Hospital supposedly complied with the National Construction Code and the Access to Premises Standard. However this was not the case and calls into question the issue of building certification.
This case highlights conflicts of interest could be more common than we know. Both the building certification firm and the access consultants are owned by the same group. Consequently, conflicts of interest can lead to builders ignoring disability access.
The building won numerous awards for Architecture. So this raises questions about what is judged as a good building. Time to start including accessibility for all in the judging criteria for these awards.
Unfortunately Peter Ryan passed away before the Judge handed down his decision. A Sourceable article written by Bryce Tolliday has a lot more detail. The title of the article is Non-Compliant Hospital Costs Queensland Taxpayers Millions.