clinical audit department devon & cornwall audit consortia physiotherapy department patient...

Clinical Audit Department

Devon & Cornwall Audit Consortia

Physiotherapy Department Patient Satisfaction

Questionnaire 2011

Vicky Woodbridge-Harris

&

Kathy Dowson



Aim of Questionnaire Annual review of patient satisfaction of the current

musculoskeletal outpatient physiotherapy service Encompassing:

– Dignity and respect– Communication– Care received– Administration and environment– Net Promoter Score (NPS)

Compare with past results Highlight Areas for development/improvement Pat on the back where deserved Ensure we maintain a high standard of care



Outline of presentation

The Questionnaire Net Promoter Score (NPS) Results Analysis/Comments Comparison with previous years Points to action Questions



The Questionnaire First year that have rolled out exactly

the same questionnaire.

100 sent out – 60 from Derriford, 10 from each periphery– Patients discharged Sept 11

Poor return so also handed out at DGH by receptionists



Net Promoter Score A management tool used to gauge customer

loyalty, with customer experience expected to be the main influencing factor

A single question is answered on a 0-10 rating– “how likely is it that you would recommend our

service to a friend or colleague?” Promoters (9-10); Passives (7-8); Detractors

(0-6) %Promoters - %Detractors =NPS 75% or above is considered high



Results

Only 26 postal returns 31 from waiting area. Results graphs done by Research and

Audit Team Graphs show results in percentage of

respondents



Dignity and Respect Q5.1 & 5.2

0 00 01.8 0

33.3

19.3

59.6

80.7

5.3 00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

5.1 I was addressed by the name of my choice 5.2 The Physiotherapist was courteous & considerate

Strongley Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree N/A




0 00 1.80 1.8

22.8

28.1

77.2

68.4

0 00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

5.3 I was given the chance to say what was on my mind 5.4 I felt involved in helping to decide my treatment plan





0 00 00 5.3

15.8

26.3

84.2

68.4

0 00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

5.5 The physiotherapist had a manner which made me feel atease

5.6 My views were taken into account





0 00 01.8 0

29.8

22.8

68.4

77.2

0 00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

5.7 I was given all the privacy possible 5.8 I was treated with diginty & respect




Communication Q 6.1to 6.3

0 0 00 0 1.83 1.8 0

36.8

31.635.1

63.266.7

63.2

0 0 00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

6.1 The physiotherapist used words Iunderstood

6.2 The physiotherapist listened to what Isaid

6.3 The results of my physicalassessment were discussed with me




Communication Q 6.4 to 6.6

0 0 01.8 1.8 1.85.3 0 5.3

31.6 29.8 28.1

54.4

68.4

49.1

7 0

15.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

6.4 The physiotherapist informed me ofwhat I could achieve

6.5 I was given the chance to askquestions

6.6 I was told how I was progressing




Communication Q 6.7 to 6.9

0 1.8 1.80 3.5 5.30 0

10.5

31.6

36.8

12.3

64.9

45.6

17.5

3.5

12.3

52.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

6.7 When given exercises to do, I wasgiven a clear explanatio of these

exercises

6.8 The overall presentation of exerciseand information leaflets was good

6.9 If I was left alone during thetreatment session, I was told how to call

for help

Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree N/A



Care Received Q7.1 & 7.2

0 00 1.81.8

14

21.124.6

75.4

50.9

1.8 8.80

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

7.1 Overall, I was very satified with my physiotherapistcare

7.2 Physiotherapy helped me to manage my condition




Administration & Environment Q 8.1 & 8.2

1.8 0

17.5

3.58.8

3.5

36.835.1

33.3

49.1

1.88.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

8.1 Prior to my physiotherapy appt I received enoughinformation about what to expect

8.2 The reception staff at Derriford were friendly &helpful





0 01.8 5.33.5 8.8

29.8

40.4

63.2

45.6

1.8 00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

8.3 There were no problems in making a furtherappointment

8.4 The non attendance/cancellation policy wasexplained in the letter or on the telephone when my

appointment was booked





0 0

7

3.5

7 7

38.6

19.3

33.3

29.8

14

40.4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

8.5 It was easy to contact the physiotherapy Dept at Derrifordby telephone

8.6 Telephone messages left for the physiotherapy dept weredealt with appropriately





0 0

10.573.5 1.8

59.6

52.6

24.6

36.8

1.8 1.80

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

8.7 The condition/comfort of the waiting room area was good 8.8 The condition/comfort of the physiotherapy treatment areawas good




Net Promoter Score (NPS)

Based on 57 returns Scores 0-6 = 2 (Detractors)

7-8 = 13 (Passives)

9-10 = 42 (Promoters) NPS = (42-2) / 57 x 100 = 70%



Comments and Analysis

Overall positive feedback to service.

NPS of 70% which is very high.



Dignity and Respect

Another successful year, better than last year all answers above 93%.

100% in 4 questions Improvement in “feeling involved in

deciding treatment plan” (Q5.4) (97% c/t 87% A/SA)– ? Due to new goal setting paperwork.



Communication

Again overall successful. Big improvement in presentation of

exercise and info leaflets.”(Q6.8 82% c/t 69%).



Care received

97% agreeing or strongly agreeing that they were satisfied with physio care.



Admin and Environment

Nice to see a positive change for reception staff.– Q8.2, “reception staff were friendly and helpful” (84% c/t

68% A/SA) Still the area with highest D/SD. Q8.1,”I received enough information about what to

expect” (70% A/SA, but 19% D/SD,slightly better than last year).

Q8.7 “condition/comfort of waiting room area” (84% c/t 71% A/SA, but 11% D/SD, and several comments made about DGH).



NPS

In industry/management world a NPS of over 75% is deemed exceptional, 70% is a very good score, it is quite easy to gain a negative score.



Questionnaire comments 4 negative comments re waiting area (all DGH)

– too small, not enough high chairs, not enough room for wheelchairs/not set up for w/chairs, ie, unreachable magazines

Small treatment area and poor privacy (Plymstock) 15 positive regarding the physio and treatment

– Adam specifically named by one 2 saying hydro was great, but very difficult to continue in local pool

– Can hydro pool be available to revisit once a month for maintenance ex 1 STOP 0845 numbers 1 long initial wait for treatment 1 very happy with short waiting time 1 more availability needed for follow up appointments 2 positve comments on timely appointments/nice to see a dept running to time 1 inappropriate initial referral and the whole thing felt like going through red tape to get

consultant referral (x1 PT appt – re-refered for consultant opinion) 2 more info prior to appt (esp clothing and what to expect) 1 good communication, same appt kept and good treatment when regular physio was off ill 1 referral card details all wrong except name 1 said three confirmation letters all arrived on same day 1st class – waste of money 1 pt unhappy with being asked “who has bought you” by reception staff just because she’s

in a wheelchair, feels most of the medical profession associate any problems with her disability rather than a new problem (eg injured as thrown from chair)



RecommendationsOne main area to address:

Improve information prior to treatment (Q8.1).

Project for band 5/6, research what the patients in hindsight would have wanted to know.

Produce appropriate document



Recommendations

Quick feedback reminders for meeting:

Raise physios awareness that patients don’t always feel they are being told how they are progressing.



Conclusion Overall a “PAT ON THE BACK”. Improvements been made in a number of

areas compared to last year. A very respectable NPS. Only one major recommendation to address. Try and run the Q next year in the same

format, making direct comparison easier. How can we get a better Q return response?

clinical audit department devon & cornwall audit consortia physiotherapy department patient...

Documents

audit team graphs

high slide

high standard of care

respect q5

respect communication

promoters nps

results graphs

past results