Lee County EMS Customer Satisfaction Survey Design for Six Sigma (DFSS)
-
Upload
nerea-hale -
Category
Documents
-
view
19 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Lee County EMS Customer Satisfaction Survey Design for Six Sigma (DFSS)
Lee County EMS
Customer Satisfaction Survey Design for Six Sigma (DFSS)
February 23, 2007
Project Team
Team Members Lt. Chris Sutton Lt. Tom Pillsy FTO Jim McFee EMT Steve Lupe Admin. Asst. Ruth Boonstra
Team Facilitators Capt. Art Garcia Lt. Todd Bardell
Sponsor Chief Kim Dickerson Capt. Art Garcia
Lee County EMSMission & Vision
Mission StatementTo provide the highest quality out-of-hospital emergency
medical care and transportation for the residentsand visitors of Lee county, Florida.
Our highly trained professionals use the best technology to meet the needs of those who require assistance.
Vision StatementTo be a leader in our profession and serve as a role model
for other emergency medical services agencies and is an organization that people are proud to be
associated with.
Define Phase
How do we know how we are doing? Does our service meet the publics expectation’s? How do we go about measuring this? Does our current Customer Satisfaction Survey
(CSS) collect what we need? Are we delivering it to the customer in a way to
get a response?
Define PhaseProblem Statement
CSS shows voice of the Organization CSS has a low response rate CSS uses a single methodology CSS does not appear to meet the QI needs of the
organization CSS content and design not representative of DPS/LCEMS
intent to exceed customer expectations Completed CSS forms are not being processed consistently
or in a timely fashion CSS results/responses do not receive consistent follow-up
Measure PhaseLCEMS Customer Satisfaction Survey Return Percentage
Surveys Not
Returned
92%
Surveys Returned
8%
Each LCEMS patient received a survey with their fi rst statement with a request to fi ll out and return. This chart represents surveys sent f rom the beginning of the project to the fi rst week in September 2006 as
reported by LCEMS.
Measure PhaseHow the Returned Surveys Were Handled
Surveys Scanned & Entered
64%
Surveys Scanned & Not Entered
29%
Surveys Not Scanned & Not
Entered7%
Returned surveys are to be entered into an access database
and scanned to Adobe documents f or distribution and
archiving. This chart represents surveys returned f rom the
beginning of the project to the fi rst week in September 2006
as reported by LCEMS
Project Impact
Goal:
To define the DPS/LCEMS mission and commitment to exceed customer expectations
To design and implement a CSS process that allows LCEMS to identify exemplary customer service and detect and eliminate detrimental performance and practices
Project Scope
In ScopeCustomers who were transported to a Lee
County hospital
Out of ScopeRefusals, minors, deceased
Analyze Phase
Poor returnFont?Color?Bill?
No other survey methods currently being used
Improve Phase
Voice of the agencyDirector of Public SafetyDeputy Director of Public SafetyDeputy Director of Public Safety, EMSOperations Chief EMSQuality Improvement/Quality Assurance
Manager
Improve Phase
Voice of the customerOther validated, existing customer satisfaction
surveys Multnomah County, OR Stanislaus County, CA
Further to be determined by focus groups
Improve Phase
HIPAACounty Attorney office contacted for review of
project material for patient confidentiality issues
Improve Phase
Mail Surveys Face to Face Focus Groups Telephone Surveys
Improve Phase Questions rated on a 1-4 scale
4 being the most desirable rating 1 being the least desirable rating
Evaluated whether the public recognized who we are Evaluated whether the hospital destination is customer
choice or not; and whether it was explained to them Determine potential focus group participation
Improve Phase Mail Survey
Improve legibility of questions Improve formatting of questionsStandardize the responses to facilitate
evaluating responsesAdded a cover letter (February only)Additional cost for colorAdditional cost for extra pageShould it go out with the BILL
Improve PhaseCover Letter
Improve Phase
Larger font
Standard Responses
ImprovePhase
ImprovePhase
Improve Phase - Pilot
Mail Survey
On Going
Improve Phase - Pilot
Face to Face Top 3 questions from mail survey
District Supervisor assistanceMinimum of 2 a day at area hospitals44 interviews done
Improve Phase - Pilot
Focus groups determined to be difficult to do in pilot (to be used at a later time)
Potential participation to be determined in phone interviews
Use in the control phase
Improve Phase - Pilot
Telephone SurveysSame as mail surveyContacted all transported patients who were
in the project scope
Improve Phase - Pilot
Goal of 50 completed telephone surveys 134 calls were made to get 35 responses No family member were allowed to answer
for the patient No Minors were allowed to participate
Improve PhaseScore
4
2 Responses: 36
3
1 Average: 2.92
1
4
4
4
3
4
2
Shows average of responses per question
“The emergency service personnel were courteous and respectful throughout my experience”:
1 2 3 4Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly disagree
Shows number of surveys returned
Average: 2.92Show that the response to this question, overall, was between
Disagree and Agree
Control Phase
To be turned over to Chief Dickerson and Capt. Garcia
What we found out Face to Face
Courteous and RescpectfulAverage 3.50
1
2
3
4
0 10 20 30 40 50
Appeared and Acted ProfessionalAverage 3.55
1
2
3
4
0 10 20 30 40 50
Competence and KnowledgeAverage 3.48
1
2
3
4
0 10 20 30 40 50
1 - Strongly disagree
2 - Disagree
3 - Agree
4 – Strongly Agree
Average 3.5
What we found out Phone Survey Answered survey 33 25%
Incomplete surveys 2 1%Refused to participate 9 7%Not eligible 12 9%No answer 22 16%Answering machine 28 21%Busy signal 3 2%Not a valid customer 2 1%Nonworking number 17 13%Respondent not home 6 4%Total called 134 100%
No phone number 46 24%Underage 10 5%Numbers dialed 134 71%Total systematic (Every 10th) 190 100%
What we found outEvery 10th Number Listed
46
10
134
190
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
No PhoneNumber
Underage Numbers Dialed Total Systematic(Every 10th)
Called/Not Called
134 Numbers Dialed
33
2
9
12
22
28
3 2
17
6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Answer
ed S
urve
y
Inco
mple
te su
rvey
s
Refus
ed to
par
ticipa
te
Not E
ligibl
e
No an
swer
Answer
ing M
achi
ne
Busy S
ignal
Not a
Vali
d Cus
tom
er
Nonwor
king
Numbe
r
Respo
ndan
t Not
Hom
e
What we found outCourteous and Respectful
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Responses: 35
Average: 3.69
Appeared and Acted Professional
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
1 2 3 4Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Responses: 34
Average: 3.53
Competent and Knowledgeable
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Responses: 34
Average: 3.82
What we found outEMS Response
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Responses: 31
Average: 3.48
EMS kept the patient informed
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Very Quick
Quick
Slow
Very Slow
Responses: 33
Average: 3.64
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
What we found outCleanliness
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Responses: 30
Average: 3.70
Did we meet expectations?
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Very Clean
Clean
Dirty
Very Dirty
Responses: 33
Average: 3.67
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
What we found outEMS showed concern for family
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Responses: 29
Average: 3.38
EMS showed concern for patient comfort
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Responses: 31
Average: 3.77
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
What we found out Hospital Choice/Explained
29
20
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
NO YES
Who was on Scene
15
6
30
3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Don't Know
Fire Fighters
Police or Sheriff
LCEMS
What we found out
Overall
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Responses: 34
Average: 3.79
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
What we found out
Potential Focus Group Participation
23
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
No Yes
Recommendations
Organize focus groups quarterly Evaluate mail survey Continue face to face interviews when
possible Continue phone surveys monthly Consider professional marketing agency Share results with agency
Questions?