This report looks at findings from web survey and depth interviews about use of the site amongst people looking for a new GP. It identifies what factors are important to people and provides feedback on some proposed new indicators.
2. Customer Insight Public information 2
Introduction
• Investigate how some new measures published on the site would be received with site
users.
• In addition, the data team wanted to understand which of the existing scorecard items
were most important to users as well as to gathering sufficient information to inform future
developments of the scorecard
Research objectives
In order to meet the business objectives the following research objectives were developed;
• Explore whether banding of survey items is considered useful
• Understand the impact of composite measures of GP performance i.e. whether they are
relevant, understood or useful
• Understand the need for general composite scores covering all aspects of care
• Explore reactions to suggestions for composites for GP choices in terms of usefulness when
choosing a GP practice
• Investigate the perceived utility of Choose & Book
• Explore reactions to the Index of multiple deprivation (IMD) data
• Identify the need for immunisation data and information on expenditure on secondary care
• Understand reactions to data relating to A&E admissions, emergency appointments and
1st OP appointments
3. Customer Insight Public information 3
Methodology & Respondents – Stage 1 (Qual)
• Respondents were recruited from our panel of site
users who had all stated an interest in taking part in
research. Respondents were invited to our offices
for a face to face interview
• The interviews were qualitative and each lasted for
60 minutes
• Respondents were asked about their usage and
impressions of the GP scorecard and were also
asked for their feedback on the use of composite
scores
• The interviews were also used to explore the PIMS
GP profile which was part of a different study
• A total of 9 interviews were conducted among men
and women from a range of different ages
• All respondents were site users and were using the
internet on a daily basis.
• The majority had used the site for GP related
information in the past and many had used the GP
comparison
4. Customer Insight Public information 4
Sample and Methodology – Stage 2
Type of survey Pop-up survey which was placed on the Find Services hub page.
Those not looking for information relating to a GP were screened
out of the survey
Methodology Online quantitative survey
Fieldwork dates 4th – 26th April 2012
Sample Total sample completes n= 301
Sample
distribution
General public – self-selected sample of people who visit the site
looking for information about their GP.
Following on from the qualitative stage of the research a quantitative survey was
completed
6. Customer Insight Public information 6
Reactions to composite scores 1/3
Composite Scores
• All respondents received the following explanation of the idea of the proposed composite
scores;
• Overall clinical performance - The proposed composite score would be 1 score i.e. 1 number
which would represent the GP practices performance across 68 clinical measures.
Respondents were given the opportunity to look over the 68 clinical measures to be included
• Respondents were also asked for their thoughts on a composite based on a subset of the
clinical measures e.g. on diabetes and on patient feedback
• In addition, respondents were asked what they would expect from a composite score on ‘quality
of prescribing’
Overall reactions
• Site users have mixed reactions to the idea of using composite scores and are generally
uninterested in seeing clinical data or indicators
• Respondents were more interested in softer measures relating to a GP practice such as
opening hours, car parking, friendliness of staff and patient feedback
7. Customer Insight Public information 7
Reactions to composite scores 2/2
× General composite score of practice performance
• Overall a general composite on practice performance was not considered to be a good
use of data, an aggregated score perceived to mean little in terms of the individual
conditions
• Would be even less useful to someone in good health
• Appears to be a measure of the local demographic (and how many people suffer from
different conditions) rather than how the GP handles these conditions and this could be
misleading
• Looks like it could be used as an NHS management tool
• Does not account for variability in the practices competency in different areas, and could
be misleading if it were interpreted in this way
• Furthermore, it is difficult to understand what a composite score is and a detailed human
explanation would be needed
8. Customer Insight Public information 8
Reactions to composite scores 3/3
Composite score (based on subset of measures) related to a specific condition
e.g. diabetes
• Could be very relevant if the score related to individual conditions
• However, an explanation of its meaning would be necessary
Composite on patient experience/satisfaction
• Patient feedback score would be interesting to most respondents
• Reflects that respondents want to know that other patients are happy with the practice
× Composite score on quality of prescribing
• Respondents are generally unclear regarding what this may tell them
• Is it on appropriate prescribing? Prescribing rates? Is it cost savings associated with
prescribing generics?
• The concept of a quality of prescribing score, leads to general confusion as it is widely
believed that the patient has the right to assume competence relating to prescribing
10. Customer Insight Public information 10
Choosing a GP
We would like you to imagine that you have just moved to a new area and you would like to find a
GP practice to join, please tell us what information would be most useful for you?
• There are many factors which contribute to the decision to join a GP practice
• Patients are particularly interested in the practicalities of visiting a GP surgery as well as the
friendliness of staff and GPs
Base n=714 comments
3%
4%
5%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
11%
13%
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%
Ease of appointment booking
Referral to clinics/specialists
Appointment booking system
Patient feedback
Waiting times
Gender of GP
Services available
Friendliness of staff & GPs
Location
Opening hours
% of comments
What kind of
hours of service
is offered
How far is it
from where I
live? A Dr who is not
rude
Friendly and
helpful
receptionists
and Drs
11. Customer Insight Public information 11
Using information to choose a GP
Q. On a scale of 1-5 where 1= not at all relevant and 5 = very relevant, please rate the following
information in terms of how relevant it would be to you if you were choosing a new GP
21%
34%
16%
7%
6%
6%
7%
4%
4%
12%
10%
9%
5%
6%
4%
4%
3%
2%
22%
15%
23%
15%
17%
17%
14%
8%
7%
20%
15%
21%
26%
20%
20%
20%
25%
18%
26%
27%
30%
47%
52%
53%
55%
60%
70%
Proximity to public transport/bus
routes
Car parking facilities
GP special interests
Services/clinics offered
Patient feedback
Distance from home/work
Availability of evening/weekend
appointments
Availability of appointments 2 days in
advance
Availability of same day/within 48 hour
appointments
1 = not at all relevant 2 3 4 5 = very relevant
• Flexible appointment times, distance from home/work and patient feedback information are
particularly relevant to users when choosing a GP.
n=301
88%
Score 4&5
85%
75%
73%
72%
73%
51%
42%
46%
12. Customer Insight Public information 12
Different measures to compare GPs
Q. It is also possible to compare GP practices in terms of a number of different measures, we
would like you to tell us whether you would be interested in seeing the following
measures/information (some of which already appear on the site) when choosing a GP
3%
5%
7%
9%
6%
66%
56%
53%
45%
44%
31%
39%
40%
46%
51%
Number of patients receiving
seasonal flu vaccinations
Number of patients admitted to
hospital in an emergency
Number of patients who
attended A&E from the
practice
Number of patients using
choose and book, online
hospital booking service
Number of patients referred for
an outpatient appointment
Don't understand this information Not useful/would not use Yes, I would be interested in this information about the practice
• Of the suggested measures relating to attendance at hospital, it is not clear which respondents would be most
interested in seeing. For example, 51% of respondents would be interested in the number of patients referred for an
outpatient appointments, but 44% would not find this useful
• Furthermore, 66% of respondents would not find the number of patients receiving seasonal flu vaccinations useful.
n=301
13. Customer Insight Public information 13
Users were shown an image of the Index of
Multiple Deprivation scores on scorecard
26%
9%
19%
12%
15%
20%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
1 not at all useful
2
3
4
5 very useful
Don't know
How useful is this information on
a scale of 1 (not at all useful) to 5
(very useful?)
Have you ever looked at this
score before?
11%
86%
3%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Yes
No
Don't remember
• There is no real consensus as to how useful this measure was. However, only 15% of respondents rated
it as ‘very useful’ and 86% had never looked at this score before, suggesting that site users are unsure
what the score will mean for them
n=301n=301
14. Customer Insight Public information 14
Expenditure on secondary care
14%
7%
13%
19%
39%
9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
1 not at all
interested
2
3
4
5 very interested
Don't know
Q. We are considering including a measure which relates to the level of expenditure on secondary care, by
secondary care we mean healthcare that is not provided by the first Dr that you see e.g. referrals to a hospital or
clinic. Each GP practice spends a certain amount of their budget referring patients to secondary care. How
interested on a scale of 1-5 where 1 = not at all and 5 = very interested would you be in seeing this type of
information?
• 58% of respondents would be very interested or somewhat interested in measures relating to the
expenditure on secondary care
• Many respondents agree that this measure will provide and indication of the level of care they
may receive
n=301
5%
6%
7%
12%
16%
24%
0% 10% 20% 30%
Indicates whether patient
gets the best treatment
Indication of level of
service
Just interested
To see how budget is
spent
Shows positive GP
attitude towards patient
care
Shows willingness to
refer
Q. Why do you say that
n=151 comments
58%
16. Customer Insight Public information 16
Users were shown two images of how patient
survey data could be presented on scorecard
Banded survey data
Unbanded survey data
17. Customer Insight Public information 17
Patient survey data presentation
21%
52%
4%
23%
Unbanded data Banded data shown with icons
Neither, I would prefer something else I don't have a preference
Q. Which of the two presentations of data do you prefer?
n=301
• 52% of respondents preferred the banded data shown with icons. However, there was still a
significant minority that preferred the percentages displayed (21%) or had no preference (23%)
Base n=235 comments
35% – Ease & clarity
31% – Prefer visuals
18% – Easier to understand the
data
Base n=93 comments
37% – Easier to understand the
percentages
32% – Prefer data/percentages
20% – Dislike visuals, could be
misleading
Percentages are
clearer and
easier to
understand
Better to view
at a glance
The colours
make it easier
to spot what is
what
Graphic image is
more powerful
and translates
into any
language
Why?
Banding is too
generic, would
prefer to see the
% and the number
Icons look
more user
friendly
18. Customer Insight Public information 18
Questions and comments to:
thechoicesteam@nhschoices.nhs.uk
please quote “Slideshare” in subject line
