Patient Satisfaction subgroup annual report 2013-2014
Sub-Committee
Pt satisfaction and
Admissions/retention
Chair
Luciana Shaddox
Members
Richelle Janiec, Jerri Wainer, Leslie McManus, Karen Rhodenizer, Jan Large, Lorie Primosch
(ex-officio), Sharon Cooper (ex-oficio), Mannie Luque, Stephanie Scrambling
Charges
Identify and resolve patient access issues:
 Provide support for planning and implementation of a college-wide call center.
 Monitor and report current wait times for first appointments.
 Monitor and report on referrals through: UFHealth Web site, GatorAdvantage, and gatordental. Create a workflow process that
illustrates how requests for information are handled.

Monitor the patient load at the SOS Clinic and the number of patients denied access.
Call center
- This issue is being currently handled by the college administration as it requires financial commitment that need to be taken into
consideration for this implementation.
Wait times
- Accoding to our last patient Satisfaction survey, wait times from first contact to first appointment as perceived by our patients is
mostly less than 4 weeks, which is what is advertised by us. See graph below:
Length of Time to First Appointment
(2010-2013)
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Less than 2 weeks
2 to 4 weeks
2010
2011
4 to 8 weeks
2012
More than 8 weeks
2013
In 2013, about two-fifths (40.2%) of the respondents indicate that they waited less than two weeks from their initial contact until their
first appointment, and a similar percentage (36.9%) waited from two to four weeks for their first appointment. In contrast, about onesixth (17.6%) of the surveyed patients waited four to eight weeks and only about five percent of the respondents waited for more than
eight weeks before they had their first appointment. The percentages in 2013 on the “less than 2 weeks” time frame actually went up
from previous years and the “more than 8 weeks” timeframe went actually down and we are pleased with those values.
Per-team clinic reports show more than four-fifths (85.7%) of the patients who completed surveys at the Endodontics clinic and nearly threequarters (71.3%) at the St. Pete clinic waited less than two weeks after their initial contact until their first appointment. The highest percentage for
the longest wait time (more than eight weeks) was for patients in the Graduate Prosthodontics clinic – about one-eighth (13.4%) waited more than
eight weeks. That may be due to the high demand for that clinic (see graph below).
Length of Time to First Appointment
90.0%
Student Clinics
Endodontics
80.0%
Faculty Practice
70.0%
Grad Periodontics
Grad Prosthodontics
60.0%
Oral Medicine
50.0%
Orthodontics
Oral Surgery
40.0%
Pediatrics
30.0%
St. Pete
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Less than 2 weeks
2 to 4 weeks
4 to 8 weeks
More than 8 weeks
Our goal for next year is to have these values from axium to get a more accurate figure. However, it is hard to define “first contact” since
we have multiple ways patients contact us. We do however keep a separate database on numbers and this report will be available for us
to review soon.
Referrals:
UFHealth web: Numbers have doubled since 2012 to a total of ~8000 requests and only an adjusted 19% schedule rate. Craig Kirkbride
manually checks all number of referred patients that have been scheduled in other clinics. Craig and Leslie handle all the referrals out to
other clinics and the ones they cannot refer they call them back to get more information on their needs. Alhtough this is an intense
manual labor on these two staff members, Leslie and Craig are able to keep up with the calls and referrals per week from UFweb. We do
not know at this point how and why these ~20% schedule rate follow through the system.
The Gator advantage/dental program patients are seen/referred mostly to faculty practice. We need check with faculty practice whether they keep
track on the flow of these patients.
SOS patient flow is being currently evaluated.
Our goal for next year is to find a way to make this referral process completely electronic, as well as create a way into axium that
absorbs referrals numbers and times that enables the generation of electronic reports of number of patient’s referred/scheduled/seen
patients and their timeframes.
Patient Satisfaction Surveys



Continue to use the UF Survey Center to compile data and prepare presentations for the Focus Patient Satisfaction Survey.
Develop process improvement projects for areas of concern identified in survey results.
Work with the Easy Markit workgroup of the AxiUm Steering Committee to develop survey processes that can be incorporated into a daily
satisfaction survey process.
Annual survey
We just finished our 2014 survey results analysis. We received a record number of 1507 surveys from all clinics (see below comparison
from last years), of which 1414 were used for analysis by the UF Survey Center. Participation from non-teams clinics improved
tremendously (see attached full report).
Number of Surveys Completed by Year
1414
1400
1200
1085
1000
838
912
800
677
600
400
200
0
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Changes to this survey this year: we changed the participation compensation by offering a piece of candy to each clinic for each survey
delivered to us. We added/revised some questions on patient satisfaction with respect to quality of care and facilities.
Overall Quality of Care*
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Excellent
Very Good
2009
2010
Good
2011
Fair
2012
Poor
2013
On average, about three-quarters of the respondents from 2009 to 2013 rate the overall quality of the dental care they receive as
“Excellent” and about one-fifth rate the overall quality as “Very Good.” In contrast, almost none of the respondents rate the overall
quality of care as either “Fair” or “Poor.”
In 2013, about three-quarters (76.5%) of the patients who responded rated the overall quality of the dental care they receive at the UF
College of Dentistry as “Excellent” and more than one-fifth (21.6%) rated it as “Very Good.” About two percent of the 2013 respondents
rate the overall quality of care as “Fair” (1.7%) or almost none rated it as “Poor” (0.2%).
In 2013, the average level of response on a scale where “Excellent” = 4 and “Poor” = 1 is 3.74.
The committee presented results to staff during the Annual Staff Retreat and at CAQA committee. We developed a standard of care
document to follow certain thresholds and maintain good quality and patient satisfaction rates. We intend to circulate these stadards
now to each clinic/department along with the surveys by clinic so they develop proper steps to maintain/improve patient satisfaction
where needed.
Goals for next year:
- Create marketing strategy for surveys results distribution to each clinic along with created standards of care values so each clinic
can evaluate their own performance and develop plans to improve their results (yearly reports).
- We also recommend that the survey center help us to identify better ways to analyze the results and provide recommendations
and action plans for improvement.
Discharge surveys
We are currently evaluating recent discharge survey reports. These surveys allow us to track the reasons patients discontinued care in
our program. They are mailed to each patient that gets discharged and we rely on the patients to return them completed to us. Last
report we had about 70-80% of patients that completed these surveys were no longer in the student care program because treatment
was completed and about 5-10% due to financial reasons. Every patient that is discharged from our program receives this survey by mail.
We have created a case completion assessment form to track Case Completion and disposition/transfer of patient to other clinics. This
report will be evaluated soon.
Goals for next year:
- Continue gathering data from these surveys and look for creative ways to gather more discharge surveys back, especially from
patients discharged early (due to finances, non-compliance with appointments etc).
- Create ways in Axium to track discharge numbers/reasons/times.
Daily surveys
We are currently evaluating recent daily survey reports. Because we had not received a big response in the random daily surveys back
from the clinics in the past (some clinics better than others), we created a day of the month when these surveys must be distributed by
the check in clerks to every patient that checks in. This new process re-started in the Spring of this year and the reports will be generated
and evaluated by this committee by semester.
Goals for next year:
- Continue this work and evaluate the results by semester.
- Motivate clinics to contribute with the surveys distribution and return.
-
Focus surveys on important issues that come up on annual surveys – ask Florida Survey Center to help us with implementation
process.
Focused surveys (NEW)
We recently developed two small surveys to be given to patients at two different timepoints in their treatments at the DMD clinics: at
phase I evaluation (end of disease control phase) and at case completion timepoint. These surveys are attached here and will be
presented to the CAQA for approval on their next meeting.
Goals for next year:
-
Approve and Implement new focused surveys
Generate and evaluate reports by semester
Courtesy and helpfulness (student/faculty/staff)?
Combined "Very Good" and "Excellent"
99% 99%
100%
100%
98%
98%
96%
94%
91%
92%
90%
summer 2010
89%
fall 2010
88%
86%
84%
82%
student
faculty
staff
We combined “excellent” and “very good” to simplify reports. Most results are in the “excellent” category.
Overall Satisfaction?
Combined "Very Good" and "Excellent"
98.75%
98.75%
98.70%
98.65%
98.60%
98.55%
98.50%
98.45%
98.40%
98.35%
98.30%
98.45%
Summer 2010
Fall 2010
We combined “excellent” and “very good” to simplify reports. Most results are in the “excellent” category.
Combined "Very Good" and "Excellent"
98.75%
100.00%
98.00%
96.82%
97.88%
97.77%
98.75%
98.25%
96.23%
96.00%
94.00%
92.00%
90.05%
88.75%
90.00%
87.56%
Summer 2010
88.00%
Fall 2010
86.00%
84.00%
82.00%
80.00%
Availability of
appointment?
Oral Hygiene
care
reviewed?
Nutritional
counseling
provided?
Was today's
treatment
explained to
you?
Was your
chief
complaint
addressed?
Cleanliness of treatment area?
Combined "Very Good" and "Excellent"
100.00%
100.00%
99.50%
99.00%
98.02%
98.50%
98.00%
97.50%
97.00%
Summer 2010
Fall 2010
We combined “excellent” and “very good” to simplify reports. Most results are in the “excellent” category.