cohealth client survey 2015 results of the 37% who had a written care plan, 97% found it helpful....

cohealth Client Survey 2015

Results

March 2016

cohealth Client Survey 2015 Results 2

Contents

Key messages........................................................................................................................... 3

Executive summary ................................................................................................................. 4

What is “client experience” and why is it important? ........................................................ 7

How was the cohealth client experience survey done? ................................................... 7

What did the survey tell us about our clients’ experiences?............................................. 9

Who participated in the survey? ......................................................................................... 21

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 29

Appendix: List of figures ........................................................................................................ 30

Report prepared by

Yvette Clarke & Catherine Joyce

Policy, Research & Service Innovation Team


They go

out of

their way

to help

you

I have nothing but

admiration and

praise for the staff

and the situations

they have to work

under

Key messages

The goal of the client survey was to improve understanding of the experiences of

clients accessing cohealth services, in order to identify any areas of service provision

that could be improved or changed.

472 clients completed the telephone-based survey in late 2015. They had attended

more than 15 different programs and services at over 15 cohealth sites. Respondents

were mainly long term cohealth clients with chronic or complex health conditions.

The findings from the survey are resoundingly positive. In all of the key

areas explored – access, continuity, care planning, communication

and information, interpersonal relations, rights, and empowerment –

experiences of cohealth services were strongly positive.

Example highlights include:

o scores of over 90% on: all measures of appropriateness; all items

of the CARE measure of respectfulness and emotional support;

and all care coordination items.

o Of the 51% who had been referred to other cohealth services,

91% had attended the referral.

o Of the 37% who had a written care plan, 97% found it helpful.

The results affirm cohealth as a provider of services that are person-centred,

accessible, integrated, coordinated and responsive.

There are no findings which indicate major areas of concern.

There are a small number of areas which may benefit from further discussion to

explore variability between programs and/or opportunities for development.

The key action arising from the survey is communication

of the positive results both internally and externally.

Any more specific actions arising are to be adopted

by relevant teams and programs as appropriate, and

incorporated into existing monitoring and reporting

mechanisms.


Executive summary

Client experience refers to the perceptions of clients about the services they receive.

There is increasing interest around the world in measuring client experience of health

services and health systems, due to growing attention to person-centred care as well as

the demonstrated links between client experience and key aspects of health systems

such as accessibility, quality improvement, and performance reporting.

The inaugural cohealth client survey was conducted in October-December 2015. Data

was collected by a specialist survey company (McNair Ingenuity Research) using a

telephone interview method. An opt-in consent process was used, with clients being

called back by McNair on the number provided by them .

A final sample size of 472 clients was achieved. This is sufficient to have confidence in the

accuracy of the results, within a margin of error of approximately 5%. The characteristics

of the sample are broadly consistent with what is known about the profile of cohealth

clients in general. However, the survey results are most useful and valid for particular

groups of clients, including: clients of the dental/oral health, GP/medical, community

mental health, and physiotherapy services; clients of the Collingwood, 2 Geelong Rd,

Niddrie, Braybrook and Kensington sites; and longer term, frequent users of services.

Key findings

Experiences of accessing services were positive, for example:

o 69% waited less than 10 minutes for their appointment on the day

o 92% found reception staff both helpful and polite.

Experiences of respectfulness and emotional support were positive, for example:

o 92% reported that staff were excellent or very good at making them feel

at ease

o 90% reported that staff were excellent or very good at letting them tell

their story.

Experiences of coordination were positive, with very low proportions reporting

being told different things by different staff; or staff not working well together.

Around half had been referred to other cohealth services (51%), and of these,

91% had attended those services.

Almost 2/3 of respondents (64%) reported being aware of the range of cohealth

services. Awareness was high among podiatry (85%) and medical (84%) clients,

and lower among dental/oral health clients (36%).

Experiences of care planning were positive, for example in relation to feeling

positive about future health and wellbeing, and being given an opportunity to


talk about what they wanted in relation to their care.

Just over one third of clients (37%) were asked whether they would like fami ly,

carer or friends to be involved in the planning of their services. This percentage

was higher for clients of community mental health services (67%) and those with

chronic conditions (43%).

Just over one third of clients (37%) reported receiving a writ ten care plan. This

percentage was higher for clients of community mental health services (71%)

and those with chronic conditions (47%) and was low for clients of dental/oral

health services (9%).

Just over half (58%) reported being told about their rights and responsibilities.

Confidence that private information was safe was very high (90%), while knowing

how to access personal information was low (25%). The proportion reporting that

they knew how to access personal information was higher among clients of

community mental health (45%) and podiatry (45%) services; and lower among

physiotherapy (12%) and dental/oral health (10%) clients.

One third of respondents (32%) reported being aware of opportunities to be

involved in volunteering, an advisory group or as a peer worker. Awareness was

higher among community mental health clients (57%), and lower among

dental/oral health clients (9%).

Just over one in ten respondents (11%; n=51) reported feeling uncomfortable with

their health worker at some time. A total of 18 respondents (4%) indicated that

this discomfort was due to feeling judged or disrespected. A small number of

respondents (5%; n=25) reported feeling that they had been unfairly treated.

A total of 126 open-ended comments were

recorded. Almost half the comments (n=55)

were positive comments about cohealth in

general, or staff in particular.

Survey participants

There were a total of 472 respondents, who had attended more than 15 different

cohealth sites, with Collingwood, 2 Geelong Rd and Niddrie the most frequent.

It has always has been a pleasure

going to cohealth… everyone is very

helpful and friendly

It is the best medical

facility I have ever

experienced in my life.

Anyone whoever goes

there is very fortunate


Respondents had attended more than 15 different cohealth services, with

dental, medical, and community mental health the most frequent.

Respondents were mainly long term cohealth clients with chronic or complex

health conditions. For example:

o Only 14% were attending cohealth for the first time

o 71% were attending a cohealth service as part of a planned follow up

43% had been accessing cohealth services for 5 years or more

o Nearly 2/3 (61%) has attended cohealth ≥6 times in the last 12 months

o 45% self-reported that they had a long term health condition.

Just over half (57%) of respondents were born in Australia; 2.3% identified as

Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander; and 9.3% identified as an asylum seeker or

refugee.

Four out of five (80%) respondents spoke English fluently or very well. More than 56

different languages were spoken by respondents (they could report more than

one). One in ten respondents (n=48) completed the survey in a language other

than English.

Fewer than one in five respondents (18%) were employed (including 6% who

worked full time); and 37% were on a disability or other pension. Only 8% had no

concession card (Health Care Card, Pensioner Concession card).

Conclusion

The results of this survey provide a resounding affirmation of cohealth as a

provider of services that are person-centred, accessible, integrated, coordinated

and responsive.

There are no findings which indicate major areas of concern. There are a number

of areas which may benefit from further exploration or development, for example

in relation to: awareness of the range of cohealth services; rights and

responsibilities; awareness of participation opportunities; involvement of families

and carers; and use of care plans.

The key action arising from the survey is communication of the positive results

both internally and externally. Any more specific actions arising are to be

adopted by relevant teams and programs as appropriate, and incorporated into

existing monitoring and reporting mechanisms.

Both the findings and the lessons learned in implementing the survey will be used

to inform future iterations of the survey.


What is “client experience” and why is it important?

Client experience refers to the perceptions of clients about the services they receive. It

includes objective (e.g. waiting time) and subjective (e.g. being treated with respect)

elements.

It is not the same as “client satisfaction”, which focuses on people’s judgments relative to

their expectations. The concept of client experience is aligned with a person-centred

approach which is more focused on gathering the client’s point of view. It is more likely to

lead to actionable results than measures of satisfaction, as it provides a clear indication of

the sources of negative experiences.

There is increasing interest around the world in measuring client experience of health services

and health systems, in part because of growing attention to person-centred care. In

addition, client experience has been demonstrated to be related to key aspects of health

systems such as accessibility, quality improvement, and performance reporting.

For clients, measuring client experience is important because it provides them with a

personal, yet structured opportunity to give feedback on their experiences. It is an indicator

of the respect and value an organisation places on its clients – it wants to hear their

feedback.

For service providers, measuring client experience is important because it provides an

otherwise-unavailable perspective on their services. It is a crucial method of monitoring

quality and identifying areas for improvement.

For cohealth specifically, client feedback mechanisms are required under our various

accreditation obligations. cohealth articulated an explicit commitment to an annual client

survey in its inaugural (2015-2018) Strategic Plan.

The objectives of the cohealth client survey were to:

1. Provide an opportunity for service users to provide feedback that informs quality

improvement

2. Identify the extent to which cohealth’s principles and va lues are reflected in service

user experiences

3. Implement the principles of and collect evidence to track progress against the

Performance Framework and Quality and Client Experience Framework

4. Meet accreditation and funding requirements for consumer feedback mechanisms

and evaluation.

How was the cohealth client experience survey done?

The client survey was overseen by the Policy, Research and Service Innovation Team, and

supported by a Reference Group comprised of staff representatives and community

advisers.


The content of the survey was developed through a process that included:

Development of a conceptual framework identifying the key domains of interest from

a conceptual point of view, drawing on:

o models of primary health care quality and the social model of health

o cohealth’s values and priorities

o accreditation and funding agreement requirements

Review of existing tools to adopt, adapt and develop a set of questions that

measured the identified domains

Refining and piloting the questions through feedback from staff and community

advisers

Clients who attended cohealth sites or received

cohealth services between 29 October 2015

and 10 December 2015 were invited to take

part in the survey.

An opt-in consent process was used, in which

clients were invited to complete a “consent to

be contacted” form providing a contact name

and phone number to be contacted on.

The survey was conducted by a third-party

specialist research company, using a computer

assisted telephone interview (CATI) method.

Those who consented to be contacted were

called by the company approximately 2 weeks

after their visit. The company provided

interviewers in multiple community languages.

Provision was also made for people to call in if

they did not wish to provide their contact

details.

Is the sample representative of all cohealth clients?

Often, the sample size or response rate is taken as an indicator of the representativeness of a

study sample. It is not possible to calculate a response rate for the client survey because the

number of people invited to take part, and the total number of clients eligible to take part

(the “population”), are unknown.

The final sample size, of 472 clients, is sufficient to have confidence in the accuracy of the

results, within a margin of error of roughly 5%.

One of the best ways to examine the representativeness of a sample is to compare the

characteristics of the sample with the characteristics of the population, to identify any

systematic differences. Unfortunately it was not possible to make such comparisons due to

the lack of available data about the population of cohealth clients. The characteristics of

the survey sample are described in detail in the later section of this report (see page 21).


Broadly speaking, the profile of survey respondents is consistent with what is known about

cohealth clients in general. However, as the data presented below (see especially Figures 18

and 19), the distribution of respondents by program/service and location indicates some

areas where the sample includes very low numbers. Therefore, in interpreting the results of

the survey, it is important to understand that they provide valid and useful information for

some groups of clients, but less so for others:

Survey provides good information for: Survey provides limited information for:

Clients of the dental/oral health,

GP/medical, community mental

health, and physiotherapy services

Clients of the Collingwood, 2

Geelong Rd, Niddrie, Braybrook and

Kensington sites

Longer term, frequent users of

services

Clients of the Victims Assistance

Program, family services, Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander health,

occupational therapy, and AOD

services

Clients of the Essendon, Laverton,

North Melbourne and Carlton sites

First-time users

What did the survey tell us about our clients’ experiences?

Access

Experiences of accessing services were positive. Just under half (45%) of respondents waited

a week or less for their appointment (Figure 1), and 69% waited less than 10 minutes for their

appointment on the day (Figure 2).

Just over half (52%) had paid for some service at cohealth (Figure 5), with the majority of

these being co-payments for services (Figure 6). Positive responses were reported for access

to buildings and locations (Figure 7).

Experiences of appropriateness were also strongly positive (Figure 8):

90% felt that the appointment took place in a private space

91% found the waiting space safe

90% found the waiting space comfortable

92% found reception staff helpful

92% found reception staff polite

(Note that these figures include “not applicable” responses, so figures excluding the n/a are

even higher – e.g. helpfulness of reception staff is 92% of all responses but 99% of responses

excluding n/a).

Respectfulness & emotional support

Respectfulness and emotional support were measured with the CARE measure. Experiences

of respectfulness and emotional support w ere strongly positive (see Figure 9), with all items on

this measure scoring less than 5% ‘fair’ or ‘poor’ responses. Examples of items include:

92% reported that staff were excellent or very good at making them feel at ease

90% reported that staff were excellent or very good at letting them tell their story.


Coordination

Experiences of coordination were positive (see Figure 10), for example:

95% reported that they were never or rarely told different things by different staff

94% reported that staff never or rarely did not work well together.

Around half had been referred to other cohealth services (51%), and of these, 91% had

attended those services (Figures 11&12).

Almost 2/3 of respondents (64%) reported being aware of the range of cohealth services.

Awareness was high among podiatry (85%) and medical (84%) clients and lower among

dental/oral health clients (36%).

Care planning

Experiences of care planning were largely positive (see Figure 13), for example 86% agreed

that the health work helped them to feel positive about future health and wellbeing, and 85%

reported that the health worker checked that they understood what was being planned.

(Note that these figures include “not applicable” responses, so figures excluding the n/a are

even higher).

Just over one third of clients (37%) were asked whether they would like family, carer or friends

to be involved in the planning of their services (Figure 14). This percentage was higher for

clients of community mental health services (67%) and those with chronic conditions (43%).

Just over one third of clients (37%) reported receiving a written care plan (Figure 15). This

percentage was higher for clients of community mental health services (71%) and those with

chronic conditions (47%) and was low for clients of dental/oral health services (9%).

Of those who had a written care plan, 97% found it helpful (Figure 16).

Rights and responsibilities

Just over half (58%) reported being told about their rights and responsibilities (Figure 17).

Responses to different aspects were variable, with confidence that private information was

safe very high (90%), while knowing how to access personal information was low (25%).

Participation and engagement

A total of 44 respondents (9%) reported having been involved with cohealth as a volunteer,

advisory group member, peer worker or similar role.

One third of respondents (32%) reported being aware of opportunities to be involved in

volunteering, an advisory group or as a peer worker. Awareness was higher among

community mental health clients (57%), and lower among dental/oral health clients (9%).

Stigma and discrimination

Experiences of stigma and discrimination were explored through asking respondents if they

had ever felt uncomfortable with their health worker at cohealth, and analysing whether this

was due to feeling disrespected or judged, or for other reasons. While just over one in ten


respondents (11%; n=51) reported feeling uncomfortable with their health worker at some

time, a total of 18 respondents (4%) indicated that this discomfort was due to feeling judged

or disrespected. Other reasons for feeling uncomfortable with their health worker included

feeling that the health worker was inexperienced (n=11; 2%) and that there were trust issues

or the client didn’t feel listened to (n=11; 2%).

Respondents were also asked if they ever felt that they had been treated unfairly at

cohealth. Twenty five respondents felt they had (5%). When asked “why do you think you

were treated unfairly?”, the most common response was that staff were incompetent or

unprofessional (n=8). Six people attributed their unfair treatment to either their medical

or health condition (n=3), or their ethnicity or national origin (n=3).

Open-ended comments

Respondents were invited to make open-ended comments at the conclusion of the

survey. A total of 126 comments were recorded. As indicated in the table below, almost

half the comments (n=55) were positive comments about cohealth in general, or staff in

particular.

Theme Number of

comments

General positive comments 35

Staff attitudes and behaviours – positive comments 20

Waiting times and availability of appointments 16

Staff attitudes and behaviours – negative comments 15

Facilities (waiting areas, parking, etc) 9

Management of appointments 8

Communication and information sharing 4

Service availability or quality 4

Other comments – negative 8

Other comments 7

Comments about waiting times and availability of appointments generally related to waiting

times for appointments being too long. Negative comments about staff attitudes and

behaviours related to lack of compassion o being treated “like a number”. Negative

comments about facilities included complaints about parking at Moonee Ponds, and poor

quality waiting areas. Comments about appointments described experiences of

appointments being rescheduled multiple times or otherwise mismanaged.

They are very nice

and make you feel

special and not a

trouble to them


Access

Figure 1: How long was the wait between making this appointment & your visit Figure 2: How long did you wait for your appointment?

Figure 3: Do you require an interpreter when accessing services at cohealth? Figure 4: If you required an interpreter, was one organized?

9.1% 8.6%

3.8%

23.1%

26.3%

12.9%

5.9%

10.2%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

39.6%

29.5%

14.6%

6.8%5.1% 4.5%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

Less than 5

minutes

5 to 10

minutes

11 to 20

minutes

21 to 30

minutes

More than

30 minutes

Cant

remember

8.3% 91.7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Yes No

87.2% 12.8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Yes No


Figure 5: Have you ever paid for any services at cohealth?

Figure 6: What were those payments for?

51.7% 48.3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Yes No

47.0%

6.1%1.9% 2.6%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Co-payment /

contribution for

services

Medication Equipment / aids Other


Figure 7: Thinking about your appointment at cohealth, how easy was it to:

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

a. Get through to someone on the phone

b. Make the appointment

c. Find the location of the service

d. Get to the location of the service

7a. Enter the building

Very easy Fairly easy Not very easy Not at all easy N/A


Figure 8: Thinking about when you arrived at cohealth on that day, do you feel that:

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

b. Reception staff were polite

c. Reception staff were helpful

d. You had a comfortable space to wait

e. You had a safe space to wait

f. Your appointment took place in privatespace

Yes, definitely Yes, to some extent No, not really No, not at all N/A


Respectfulness & emotional support (CARE Measure)

Figure 9: Thinking about the health worker(s) you saw during your visit on that day, how good were they at:*

*excludes m issing & N/A

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Making you feel at ease

Letting you tell your "story"?

Really listening?

Being interested in you as a whole person?

Fully understanding your concerns?

Showing care and compassion?

Being positive?

Explaining things clearly?

Helping you to take control?

Making a plan of action with you?

Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor


Coordination

Figure 10: Thinking about all your experiences with cohealth over the past 12 months:

Figure 11: Have you ever been referred to other services at cohealth Figure 12: Did you attend those services?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

a. Told different things health or wellbeing

b. Staff did not seem to work well together

c. Worker did not know personal history

d. Worker did not have access to tests results or case notes

e. You had to repeat information

Never Rarely Some-times Often All the time

51.1% 48.9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Referred Not referred

90.9% 9.1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Attended referral Did not attend referral


Care Planning

Figure 13: Thinking about when decisions were being made about what services you would receive or what you wanted to achieve…

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

a. Were you given an opportunity to talk about what you wanted to achieve

b. When there were different choices, were you asked what you preferred?

c. Did the health worker listen to your ideas about what you wanted?

d. Did you feel like you were able to make decisions together with the health worker?

e. Did the health worker check that you understood what was being planned?

f. Did the health worker help you feel positive about your future health and wellbeing?

Yes, definitely Yes, to some extent No, not really No, not at all N/A


Figure 14: Asked whether they would like family, carer or friends to be involved in the planning of their services

Figure 15: Has a written Care Plan Figure 16: Found Written Care Plan Helpful (of those who had one)

36.7% 63.4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Yes No

96.6% 3.40%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Yes No

36.65% 63.35%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Asked Not Asked


Rights and responsibilities

Figure 17: Proportion of clients who reported that they were:

58.3%

52.3%

63.8%

59.8%

25.4%

61.4%

90.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

b. Told about rghts &

responsibilities

c. Told why cohealth

collects private info

d. Told how cohealth

keeps info private

e. Asked consent to

share info

f. Know how to access

personal info

g. Know how to provide

feedback

h. Confident private

info is safe


Who participated in the survey?

As noted above, a total of 472 people responded to the survey. Responses were received

from people who had attended more than 15 different cohealth sites, with Collingwood, 2

Geelong Rd and Niddrie the most frequent (Figure 18).

Respondents had attended more than 15 different cohealth services, with dental, medical,

and community mental health the most frequent (Figure 19).

Most people (86%) responded to the survey in relation to an appointment for their own health

needs (Figure 20).

Respondents were mainly long term cohealth clients with chronic or complex health

conditions. For example:

Only 14% were attending cohealth for the first time (Figure 21)

71% were attending a cohealth service as part of a planned follow up (Figure 22)

43% had been accessing cohealth services for 5 years or more (Figure 23)

61% has attended cohealth 6 or more times in the last 12 months (Figure 24)

45% self-reported that they had a long term health condition (Figure 26).

The most common chronic conditions that respondents reported being diagnosed with were

depression or anxiety (37%); high blood pressure of hypertension (33%) and

arthritis/rheumatoid arthritis (32%; Figure 27).

With regard to cultural and linguistic diversity:

57% of respondents were born in Australia (Figure 28)

2.3% identified as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander (Figure 30)

9.3% identified as an asylum seeker or refugee (Figure 29)

Four out of five (80%) respondents spoke English fluently or very well (Figure 31). More than 56

different languages were spoken by respondents (they could report more than one). The

most common languages spoken were: Vietnamese (n=32); Italian (26); Arabic (22); Maltese

(10); Mandarin (8); Filipino/Tagalog (7); French (7); Hindi (7); and Cantonese (6).

One in ten respondents (n=48; 10.2%) completed the survey in a language other than English.

Half of these (n=25) were in Vietnamese. The remaining 23 were conducted in Arabic (n=7),

Italian (6), Farsi/Persian (4), Mandarin (4) and Cantonese (2).

Just over half the respondents identified their gender as female (56%; Figure 32); and 78%

identified as heterosexual (Figure 33).

Over one third of respondents (36%) lived in their own home, while 31% were renting, and 15%

were in social/public housing (Figure 34). Fewer than one in five respondents (18%) were

employed (including 6% who worked full time); and 37% were on a disability or other pension

(Figure 35). The vast majority of respondents had a concession card, with only 8% hav ing no

concession card (Figure 37). Respondents lived across a wide range of locations, with the

most common local government areas Maribyrnong (23%), Yarra (19%) and Moonee Valley

(18%; Figure 38).


Figure 18: Respondents by Site/Location

1

2

2

3

4

8

9

11

18

21

22

25

34

45

50

61

63

93

0.2%

0.4%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.7%

1.9%

2.3%

3.8%

4.4%

4.7%

5.3%

7.2%

9.5%

10.6%

12.9%

13.3%

19.7%

Essendon

Laverton

Other

North Melbourne

Carlton

Central City

Joslin

Not at a cohealth site

Fitzroy

Moonee Ponds

Hoppers Crossing/Werribee

Nicholson St/Healthworks

72 Paisley Street

Kensington

Braybrook

Niddrie

2 Geelong Road

Collingwood


Figure 19: Respondents by Service/Program

1

1

2

3

6

6

13

15

16

33

37

44

49

114

132

0.2%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

1.3%

1.3%

2.8%

3.2%

3.4%

7.0%

7.8%

9.3%

10.4%

24.2%

28.0%

Victims Assistance Program

Family Services

ATSI health

Occupational Therapy

Alcohol and Other Drugs Services

Dietetics/Dietitian

Case work/Counselling

Other/Not specified

Youth and Child Services

Podiatry

Nursing*

Physiotherapy

Community Mental Health

GP/Doctor

Dental

* Nursing includes:- Diabetes Nurse Educator- Mental health nurse

- Refugee health nurse- Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health nurse- Women’s health nurse- Nursing clinic

- Other nurses


Figure 20: Who was the appointment for?

Figure 21: Was this the first time you accessed services at cohealth? Figure 22: Was the appointment part of a planned follow up or monitoring?

Figure 23: How long have you been accessing services at cohealth? Figure 24: How many times have you accessed cohealth over the past year?

2.1%

11.7%

86.2%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

Someone else

Dependent child

Self

14.2% 85.8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Yes No

70.6% 29.4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Yes No

23.2%

34.3%

17.0%

25.4%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Less than a year 1-4 years 5-10 years More than 10

years

4.2%

34.3%

17.0%

44.4%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Only this visit 2-5 times 6-10 times More than 10

times


Figure 25: Health Status Figure 26: Long term physical or mental health condition, impairment or disability

Figure 27: Chronic health conditions

15.3%

24.8%

28.4%

20.3%

11.2%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor

45.3%

53.4%

1.3%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Yes No Prefer not to say

36.9%32.8% 31.8%

18.6%16.3% 14.6%

10.0%6.4% 4.7%

2.5% 1.5%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

Depression or

anxiety

High blood

pressure or

hypertension

Arthritis or

rheumatoid

arthritis

Diabetes Heart disease Other mental

health

condition

Other chronic

health

problems

Chronic pain Asthma /

Respiratory

problems

Prefer not to

say

Cancer


Figure 28: Born in Australia Figure 29: Asylum Seeker or Refugee

Figure 30: Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Figure 31: English Fluency

57.0%

43.0%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Yes No

9.3%

32.2%

58.5%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Yes No Prefer not to

say/Missing

2.3%

97.3%

0.4%0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Aboriginal and/or

Torres Strait Islander

Neither Prefer not to say

67.4%

12.5% 10.6%6.6%

3.0%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Fluent Very well Well Not very well Not at all


Figure 32: Gender Identity Figure 33: Sexual Identity

Figure 34: Housing status Figure 35: Employment status

56.4%

43.4%

0.2%0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Female Male Something else

78.0%

1.5% 1.3%8.5%

0.2%10.6%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

36.2%

30.9%

2.5%

14.6%

0.8%4.2%

10.6%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

6.1% 8.3%3.4% 3.6%

28.2%

37.5%

2.3%

10.6%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%


Figure 36: Age Figure 37: Concession cards

Figure 38: LGAs (from postcode)

9.8%

0.9%2.5%

10.6%12.5%

14.8%17.2% 17.8%

14.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

< 12 12-17 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75 +

36.40%

52.50%

8.47%

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

Health Care Card Pensioner Concession

Card

No concession card

22.9%

18.9% 17.8%

10.0%

5.3% 5.1% 4.9%3.4% 3.0%

1.1% 1.9%

5.7%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

Maribyrnong Yarra Moonee

Valley

Brimbank Hobsons Bay Wyndham Melbourne Hume Darebin Whittlesea Moreland Other


Conclusion

The findings of this survey provide a resounding affirmation of cohealth as a provider of

services that are person-centred, accessible, integrated, coordinated and responsive.

There are no findings which indicate major areas of concern. There are a number of areas

which may benefit from further exploration or development, for example:

Relatively low awareness of the range of services offered by cohealth, and

considerable variability between programs in this regard

Relatively low rates of being advised of rights and responsibilities, particular ly in relation

to how to access personal information, and again with considerable variability

between programs

Relatively low awareness of opportunities for engagement/ involvement with cohealth

other than as a service user (volunteer, community adviser etc)

Whether increases are warranted in rates of asking clients about involvement of

families or carers in their care

Whether increases are warranted in proportions of clients who have a written care

plan

The key action arising from the survey is communication of the positive results both internally

and externally. Any more specific actions arising, as identified through discussion of the results

with staff and community, will be adopted by relevant teams and programs as appropriate.

These will be incorporated into existing monitoring and reporting mechanisms, such as the

Quality Work Plan, as well as internal operational plans.

The results provide an important baseline for ongoing monitoring of cohealth quality and

performance. The results, as well as the learnings from the implementation of the 2015 survey,

will be used to inform future surveys.


Appendix: List of figures

Figure 1: How long was the wait between making this appointment & your visit ..................... 12

Figure 2: How long did you wait for your appointment? .......................................................... 12

Figure 3: Do you require an interpreter when accessing services at cohealth? ....................... 12

Figure 4: If you required an interpreter, was one organized? ................................................... 12

Figure 5: Have you ever paid for any services at cohealth?..................................................... 13

Figure 6: What were those payments for? ................................................................................. 13

Figure 7: Thinking about your appointment at cohealth, how easy was it to: [access]............ 14

Figure 8: Thinking about when you arrived at cohealth on that day, do you feel that:

[privacy, safety and com fort] .................................................................................. 15

Figure 9: Thinking about the health worker(s) you saw during your visit on that day, how

good were they at: [respectfulness and emotional support (CARE)] ....................... 16

Figure 10: Thinking about all your experiences with cohealth over the past 12 months:

[coordination] ........................................................................................................... 17

Figure 11: Have you ever been referred to other services at cohealth? .................................. 17

Figure 12: Did you attend those services? ................................................................................. 17

Figure 13: Thinking about when decisions were being made about what services you would

receive or what you wanted to achieve [care planning]… .................................... 18

Figure 14: Asked whether they would like family, carer or friends to be involved in the

planning of their services ......................................................................................... 19

Figure 15: Has a written Care Plan............................................................................................. 19

Figure 16: Found Written Care Plan Helpful (of those who had one) ........................................ 19

Figure 17: Proportion of clients who reported that they were: [informed about rights

and responsibilities] ................................................................................................... 20

Figure 18: Respondents by Site/Location .................................................................................. 22

Figure 19: Respondents by Service/Program............................................................................. 23

Figure 20: Who was the appointment for? ............................................................................... 24

Figure 21: Was this the first time you accessed services at cohealth? ..................................... 24

Figure 22: Was the appointment part of a planned follow up or monitoring? ......................... 24


Figure 23: How long have you been accessing services at cohealth? .................................... 24

Figure 24: How many times have you accessed cohealth over the past year? ...................... 24

Figure 25: Health Status ............................................................................................................. 25

Figure 26: Long term physical or mental health condition, impairment or disability ................. 25

Figure 27: Chronic health conditions ......................................................................................... 25

Figure 28: Born in Australia ......................................................................................................... 26

Figure 29: Asylum Seeker or Refugee ........................................................................................ 26

Figure 30: Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.............................................................................. 26

Figure 31: English Fluency .......................................................................................................... 26

Figure 32: Gender Identity ......................................................................................................... 27

Figure 33: Sexual Identity ........................................................................................................... 27

Figure 34: Housing status............................................................................................................ 27

Figure 35: Employment status .................................................................................................... 27

Figure 36: Age............................................................................................................................ 28

Figure 37: Concession cards ...................................................................................................... 28

Figure 38: LGAs (from postcode) ............................................................................................... 28

cohealth client survey 2015 results of the 37% who had a written care plan, 97% found it helpful....

Documents