Filename : Barnsley 2015-16 customer survey / QMS No : DOC 135
Barnsley User Survey 2017Report
Pathology would like to express their thanks to all those who were able to complete this year’s survey.
Introduction
ISO Standards subclause 4.14.3 set requirements that the laboratory management shall seek information relating to user perception as to whether the service has met the needs and requirements of its users. This survey has been performed to comply with these standards, and in doing so, will bring to the attention of the laboratory management any areas of services provided by the laboratory that require improvement.
The user satisfaction survey ran between 1st to 31st March 2017 and its purpose is to obtain feedback from our users on the quality of the services provided by the laboratory.
The information gained from this survey will enable laboratory management to look at the service we provide and decide how to improve it to meet the needs and requirements of our users, as part of our commitment to continually improve quality.
Method
The satisfaction survey was carried out using a questionnaire which was developed in consultation with BRILS Management Team, Clinical Heads of Department and the Laboratory Director, and comprised of 14 questions designed to elicit users’ general views on the quality of the services provided by Pathology.
The respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction using the following response options: Does not meet my needs, acceptable, good and excellent. Dissatisfaction was derived from the option ‘Does not meet my needs’ whilst satisfaction was derived from the levels ‘acceptable’, ‘good’ and ‘excellent’. A percentage distribution of responses was used to present the data and cumulative percentage dissatisfaction compared to cumulative percentage satisfaction.
The respondents were also instructed to use ‘not applicable’ where appropriate. The final question asks users to provide any comments to improve the service. These have been collated and have been discussed at a feedback session to the BRILS Management Team and actions identified where appropriate. Responses are detailed at the end of the report.
Separate user surveys have been completed for Phlebotomy (QU-AUD-SYS-GP-D-43), Funeral Director (QU-AUD-SYS-CELLP-D-161) and Community users (DOC276).
Questionnaires were sent via survey monkey to
- Trust users – via the communications team and hard copies sent to Education Centre Wednesday Lunchtime Lecture.
ReSULTs of Survey
A total of 27 responses were received from users within the Trust, these are broken down into Hospital Medical and Nursing staff as detailed above.
One user of the Blood Sciences service stated that the Pathology website did not meet their needs and left comments (Comment Number 6, 19 & 25). Another user stated that the Pathology webpage for each of the departments did not meet their needs, but did not leave a comment. 11-26% of users stated that the usefulness of the Pathology website was excellent, with each department receiving fewer percentage of excellent scores when compared with the results of 2015-16 User Survey.
All users were satisfied with the range of investigations provided by each of the laboratories. 22% of Histopathology and Blood Transfusion users and, 30% of Blood Sciences and Microbiology users thought the range of investigations provided by the laboratory were excellent. All departments received fewer excellent scores when compare to the results of the 2015-16 Survey.
All users were satisfied with the system used to transport samples to the laboratory. Between 11-15% of users thought that the system used to transport specimens to the laboratory was excellent.
On user of the Blood Sciences service stated that the paper request forms and layout did not meet their needs and left comments below (Comment Number 6, 19 & 25).Another user of each of the services stated that the paper request form and layout did not meet their needs but did not leave a comment.
3.7% of users in Histopathology and Blood Transfusion rated the paper request form and layout as excellent. This was an improvement on the 2015-16 user survey for Histopathology.
Blood Sciences and Microbiology departments receive electronic requests. 92% of Blood Sciencesand 96% of Microbiology users who used the ICE system to request tests were satisfied.Both departments received fewer excellent scores when compare to the results of the 2015-16 Survey. A number of comments have been received and are detailed below.
One user of the Blood Transfusion service stated that the system used for reviewing results did not meet their needs, this user provided comments below (Comment Number 11 & 13). Another user of the Blood Sciences service stated that the system used for reviewing results did not meet their needs, this user provided a comment (Comment Number 19 & 25).
Between 15-26% of all users thought that the system used for reviewing results was excellent. All departments received fewer excellent scores when compare to the results of the 2015-16 Survey.
All users of the Blood Sciences and Histopathology service thought that the usefulness and availability of advice and assistance provided by the technical staff in working hours was as acceptable, good or excellent. One user of the Microbiology services stated that the usefulness and availability of advice and assistance provided by the technical staff in working hours did not meet their needs, and left comments below (Comment Number 7 & 20). Another user of the Blood Transfusion service alsostated that the usefulness and availability of advice and assistance did not meet their needs, and left a comment (Comment Number 12).
22-30% of users stated that the availability and usefulness of advice was excellent. All departments received fewer excellent scores when compare to the results of the 2015-16 Survey.
All users of the Blood Sciences and BloodTransfusion service thought that the usefulness and availability of advice and assistance provided by the technical staff out of hours was as acceptable, good or excellent. One user of the Microbiology service thought that the usefulness and availability of advice and assistance provided by the technical staff out of hours did not meet their needs and left a comment (Comment Number 7).14-22% of users stated that the availability and usefulness of advice was excellent.
One user stated that they were dissatisfied with the usefulness and availability of clinical advice from Consultant Haematologists; this user provided a comment (Comment Number 12). Two users stated that they were dissatisfied with the usefulness and availability of clinical advice from Consultant Microbiologists and provided comments (Comment Number 6 & 7). All other users were satisfied with the usefulness and availability of clinical advice, with 15-37% of users rating this as excellent, which was a fewer percentage for all departments when compared to the 2015-16 User Survey.
One user answered that the clinical advice given did not impact patient management but they did not leave a comment. 81% of users answered that the clinical advice given did impact patient management.
All users were satisfied with the level of hour’s service provided by all laboratories. 3-11% rated the level of hours provided as excellent, which was a fewer percentage for all departments when compared to the 2015-16 User Survey.
All users were satisfied with the report content, clarity and interpretive comments provided by all laboratories. 11-19% rated the report content, clarity and interpretive comments provided as excellent, which was a fewer percentage for all departments when compared to the 2015-16 User Survey.
All users were satisfied with the report turnaround times of all departments. 7-22% rated the report turnaround times as excellent; which was a fewer percentage for all departments when compared to the 2015-16 User Survey.
USER FEEDBACK AND SUGGESTIONS
12 users left feedback or suggestions to improve the service. Each of the comments have been split into categories in the below table to allow appropriate action to be taken.
Comment Number / Comment / ResponseCompliment
1 / Overall very good service provided by the Path lab. Thanks / Thank you. The positive results have been fed back to Laboratory Managers to feed back to staff as part of staff meetings. The results have also been passed onto the Pathology Business and Service manager for inclusion in Staff Briefings.
Whole service
2 / If turnaround times can be reduced further? / As no specific department has been identified in these comments we are unable to comment.
3 / At Barnsley, - Phone alerts need to be refined so that an appropriate member of a team is notified and if results are acutely deranged another group such as the Acute Response Team need to be informed as well - Phone alerts are great, but fall down if the path lab cannot get through to ward staff and/or if ward staff do not convey the urgent message in a timely manner / We are working with the Patient Safety team to improve the transmission of urgent results.
4 / Out of hours service is limited, however I appreciate difficulty in covering the lab with 1 bleep, as an SHO I don't think I am allowed to get any consultant lab-based speciality advice out-of hours. / As no specific department has been identified in these comments we are unable to comment.
Microbiology
5 / Consultant- Consultant only microbiology at night is ridiculous. Poor for training. Poor for patients. Will probably worsen quality of conversation as medical consultant just relays message from the ward (The Dr who would have called micro) but doesn't know patient. / Clinical advice is available 24/7 by phone and through specific ward rounds.
We are putting together a business case for additional consultant microbiologist cover which would improve the time taken to get clinical advice.
6 / Micro consultant- Must be available to be contacted 24hours by all levels of doctors.
7 / I have been unable to speak to microbiology out of hours as a junior doctor.
8 / The consultant on-call service in microbiology with cross cover between Rotherham and Barnsley results in very variable on call advice which is often overturned the following morning
9 / My only other qualm is in difficulty getting virology swabs for things such as resp virus PCR, I believe staff have to attain unique specimen vessels for pathology. I found this difficult when acutely trying to assess for flu etc. where I have seen other trusts with 'Point of care testing'. Otherwise fantastic service. / Subject to business case approval we hope toimplement Flu Point of care testing in ED for Winter 2017.
Blood Sciences
10 / Have sometimes found it difficult to get hold o consultant haematologists. ? does switchboard have up to date bleep numbers? / We have checked with switchboard and the bleep number is accurate.
11 / Sometimes immunology results dont get put onto ICE very quickly / As some tests are referred to specialist centres the results may take longer than other blood sciences samples - expected turn around times can be found on our website. All our turn-around times are monitored for compliance.
Blood Transfusion
12 / When phoning the labs from emergency theatre or intensive care regarding critically unwell patients, there seems to be no appreciation from the staff at the other end - particularly in blood bank that the patient may be very unstable and there should be a real sense of urgency in trying to provide the service we need. / Whilst every effort is made to ensure that blood and blood products are provided in a timely manner, it is acknowledged that individual response can be dependent on multiple factors. We are committed to improving clinical engagement, emphasising the need for effective communication in the provision of blood, however should there be specific issues that require addressing on a individual basis, please contact the Bloodbank Manager to discuss. In addition we are introducing an algorithm driven MH activation protocol for those specific patients where clinical requirement needs escalating.
13 / I wish Blood transfusion results ( for me, HLA B27 were available ion ICE) / The laboratory computer system and ICE are two independent reporting systems which for a number of transfusion tests are fundamentally incompatible. We are currently reviewing referred work and the reporting of such results in line with the implementation of a new LIMS systems and hopefully we should be able to provide a wider service in the future.
Cellular Pathology
14 / Histopathology specimens seem to take a while to be processed. / Due to the manual nature of processing of histopathology samples the turn around is longer than for other pathology disciplines, all of our expected turn around times are published on our website and monitored for complaince.
15 / Marked down some of histopathology as I think there must be some delays in sending specimens of out the hospital that differs from other larger trusts but I appreciate the difficulty with this. / There are some samples that have to be sent off site for specialist testing, this may impact turn around times.
Add-on Requests
16 / Printing paper to add on bloods ins time consuming, paper and pod wasting. Could there be a way to add electronically so there is still an audit trail but less waste? In a 12 hour night shift I can spend over an hour printing and podding when I would see more patients. / Unfortunately the technology to do this is not available, even if requested over the phone the paper form is required for tracability.
17 / Add on tests is time consuming. Could this be done electronically?
18 / it will be useful if add on test is done electronically rather than with paper.
19 / About add on test- Lab should know and add test once on ICE requested. No need for paper add on requests to send (waste of time).
20 / When we add on blood tests we have to print the request and pod it. Is it not possible for the labs to acknowledge the request electronically to avoid wasting time and paper?
User Information
21 / Very good service but it will also help when new test added on the system to be informed to this and also the indication for ordering such test. / When new tests are added communications are sent out via the weekly Hospital Buzz
22 / Never used the website. / The website holds a wealth of information about our entire service
ICE
23 / If frequent problems with ICE and its slowness can be sorted? / These comments have been fed back to the Trust IT Team.
24 / Good overall service but there are a lot of crashes where the system is unavailable either for requesting or reviewing results or both which causes a huge hold up to work!
WinPath
25 / When blood requested- No information on if sample is collected (as spc) until till received in lab. / ICE records 4 stages for you to monitor the progress of samples you have requested
POS – an order has been placed on Ice, the patient will have the sample taken at a later date
SPC – when an order is placed on ICE as a completed request (this should only be done if the sample is to be taken at the time of placing an order) or when a postponed order has been completed because the sample has been taken
REC – Received in laboratory
RR – Reported
The ICE userguide available on the link below may be of assistance
Version : 2017 / Page 1 of 19
Author : H. Da Costa/D. Firth / Approved by : A. Davis-Green
Active Date : 16/11/2017 / Review due : 31/12/2018