Patient Satisfaction
Mr. Freiberger’s and Mr. Reisert’s decision to place politics over reason will lead to continued problems of poor accountability. I was always challenging the data presented at Board meetings and wanted accountability for the results.
Each month, we were given a report with 15 goals and their associated acceptable levels. Most months of the year, more than 10 of these goals were never met. Each month I would question the reasoning and was given excuses each time for why they weren’t being met.
The first set of goals was patient satisfaction. We contracted with Press Ganey to perform the ongoing survey. They were chosen according the CEO because they have a large database of other hospitals to compare. This meant that our results were going to be compared with other hospitals and therefore we could see where we ranked.
The problem has continued to be that our ranking rarely met the hospitals reported goal of 75% and we were therefore ranked lower than other hospitals. By the end of November, the results were as follows:
Inpatient satisfaction percentile ranking 75%
Outpatient surgery satisfaction 70%
Emergency Room satisfaction 50%
Outpatient satisfaction ranking 50%
There were many months that none of the 4 rankings met the 75th percentile. Each month I would question what was being done and why these numbers were not improving. I know the problem remains that administration is not supportive of the needs of employees on the "front-line" who actually care for the patients. The answer always came back from the CEO that we were being given 4’s rather than 5’s by the patients. This meant they ranked us very good rather than excellent. But the question remained; why do other hospitals, using this same tool, get more excellent ratings? What were they doing different? The CEO always minimized these results and kept saying that if only 5-10 more people put 5’s rather than 4’s we would be at our goal.
The hospital spends nearly $100,000/year on this Press Ganey survey. If the data is going to be marginalized when the results don’t validate the set goals, then why do we continue spending the money? This became an ongoing conflict at each meeting and the CEO was tiring of the repeated onslaught with no rational explanation. Our hospital was only average at best when it came to patient satisfaction. This was not and is not acceptable in my opinion.
The County Commissioners should be held accountable for this ongoing problem.
Each month, we were given a report with 15 goals and their associated acceptable levels. Most months of the year, more than 10 of these goals were never met. Each month I would question the reasoning and was given excuses each time for why they weren’t being met.
The first set of goals was patient satisfaction. We contracted with Press Ganey to perform the ongoing survey. They were chosen according the CEO because they have a large database of other hospitals to compare. This meant that our results were going to be compared with other hospitals and therefore we could see where we ranked.
The problem has continued to be that our ranking rarely met the hospitals reported goal of 75% and we were therefore ranked lower than other hospitals. By the end of November, the results were as follows:
Inpatient satisfaction percentile ranking 75%
Outpatient surgery satisfaction 70%
Emergency Room satisfaction 50%
Outpatient satisfaction ranking 50%
There were many months that none of the 4 rankings met the 75th percentile. Each month I would question what was being done and why these numbers were not improving. I know the problem remains that administration is not supportive of the needs of employees on the "front-line" who actually care for the patients. The answer always came back from the CEO that we were being given 4’s rather than 5’s by the patients. This meant they ranked us very good rather than excellent. But the question remained; why do other hospitals, using this same tool, get more excellent ratings? What were they doing different? The CEO always minimized these results and kept saying that if only 5-10 more people put 5’s rather than 4’s we would be at our goal.
The hospital spends nearly $100,000/year on this Press Ganey survey. If the data is going to be marginalized when the results don’t validate the set goals, then why do we continue spending the money? This became an ongoing conflict at each meeting and the CEO was tiring of the repeated onslaught with no rational explanation. Our hospital was only average at best when it came to patient satisfaction. This was not and is not acceptable in my opinion.
The County Commissioners should be held accountable for this ongoing problem.
posted by Anonymous at 5:50 AM
4 Comments:
I really wish you would've started down this road immediately rather than the route you chose.
It's only fair to hear the other side of the story as well, but this could be very valuable.
I would be interested to hear about the methodology used in these surveys. How does Floyd Memorial compare to other urban in-state hospitals? How does it compare regionally?
There is evidence that patients here are unhealthier than many other places. Is it fair to say that Floyd Memorial is a "serve all" hospital that takes a slightly higher number of people who are generally in poor health or generally are "dissatisfied" about pretty much anything?
You used the word "percentile," which implies that the 75% number means that when it comes to inpatient satisfaction, Floyd does better than 3/4 of the hospitals in the nation. I would guess IU, a public university, ranks near that line, so I'm not surprised that the hospital in a county of 70,000 reaches no higher.
Maybe the percentile usage was inadvertent? Scoring a 75 in math class is pretty close to not being able to master the material (failing). Scoring in the 75th percentile of the Math SAT, on the other hand, won't get you a scholarship, but it does mean you are better than 75% of the people taking the test.
I'm not defending anyone. But on its face, the numbers you cite don't seem to call for an all-out war on the hospital. In fact, if I were to read those 4 data points in an advertisement for Floyd Memorial, I'd say "pretty good."
And if Floyd Memorial is getting a predominance of 4s on surveys, that's pretty good, too. I think it's wise to set goals that are ambitious, but maybe it's not fair to then come back and condemn the goal-setter as one who is making excuses for failing to set ambitious goals.
Please expand on your argument. Should the goal be higher and more ambitious? Can Floyd be in the 90th percentile? Is that what you believe we should expect?
I hope you understand where I'm coming from. I don't think those are numbers to launch a press campaign about, but I'm not sure why being in the 75th percentile is a shameful thing, either. Or maybe that's not your point.
Is your point about "poor" achievement, or about the administrator being unresponsive to the board?
To begin and for clarification: I believe we have an excellent hospital with outstanding employees and physicians who really care about patients and the hospital. They are truly what makes Floyd the great hospital it is currently. There are however problems especially with the current administration and especially the CEO. For the future success of Floyd, that needs to change.
I have worked at Floyd, Jewish, Kosair, University, Norton's, and the VA. We are better than all of them.
My goal has always been to continue this level of care and competence and make sure Floyd remains the best in the area. Accepting mediocrity is not the answer.
I have attempted to work through the system doing the right thing and wanted to make the changes necessary without having to publicly criticize. But since others did not like that approach and continually stifled progress, I will continue the campaign to make the necessary changes in another venue.
I am open to debate from the Commissioners, the CEO or anyone else on any of these issues.
These percentiles were goals set by the CEO and his staff with consultation from the consultant. The Board approved them. We were told that they were not too high of standards.
These percentiles basically say that out of every 100 hospitals in their database that uses this same evaluation tool, we are in the percentiles listed. Striving to be better than 75 of every 100 other hospitals is not too high of a standard when your goal is to be the regional healthcare facility of choice as stated in our mission statement.
This surveying tool ranks all hospitals in their database and does not separate on size, patients etc.
Again, the administration set the goal. As a Board member, I had a fiduciary responsibility to the hospital, taken under oath, to assure its success. If we cannot hold the CEO responsible for goals he himself set, what good are they to begin with?
Should we lower our standards so we can say we met our goals, or should we make appropriate changes to ensure success? I always voted for the latter.
The council members who voted against your board re-appointment are exibiting manafestations of "Good ol' boy" politics, not to mention lowering the over-all IQ of the board. I am very familiar with one of the corporate lackies who now occupies a seat on the the board. I got to know of him from my former job. I can assure you that he will not resolve any conflicts with the intellect and diplomacy that you did, and he will say "yes" often to the CEO. Depend on it.
To Charlie Frieberger: All Republicans aren't bad...some are quite intelligent and progressive, two things that many local Democrats are not.
Also, some Republicans and Democrats are merely spouters of standard corporate cliches, the main ones being "yes," or how about a local one:"Let's not change"...after all, this is Floyd County/New Albany!
Well, Chuck, the status quo is safe.
I am soooooo disgusted.
Sincerely,
Russ (Roz) Tate, Jr.
Professor of History
Progressive Democrat
Pissed off Citizen
Post a Comment
<< Home