490 likes | 500 Views
This workshop focuses on designing a survey instrument to assess employee satisfaction, analyzing gathered data, and formulating a response. The case study is based on the University of Washington's Student Health Center.
E N D
Assessing Student Health Center Staff Satisfaction (and How to Respond When They Tell You What They REALLY Think? ACHA Annual Meeting June 3, 2010Philadelphia, PA
Presenter • Mark ShawDirector of Health PromotionUniversity of Washington Seattle campus
Goals for workshop • Participants will … 1) Learn how to design a survey instrument to assess employee satisfaction 2) Understand how to analyze data gathered 3) Formulate a response to the data
University of Washington • Institution Profile • Largest public university in Northwest region of US • 28,570 Undergraduates • 11,648 Graduates/Professional • Main campus in Seattle and 2 ‘branch’ campuses (Tacoma and Bothell)
U of WA Student Health Center(Hall Health Primary Care Center) • Funded by students (Services and Activity Fee) • Budget of $6,100,000 from SAF Fee • Also see faculty/staff/community members • Insurance/patient fees raises another $5million • 130 staff (counting full and part-time)
Hall Health Center “The building”
Range of Services • Primary care clinics Specialty care clinics • Primary CareMental Health • Family HealthPhysical Therapy • Women's HealthSports Medicine • Other services • TravelEmployee Health • Immunization ClinicHealth Sciences Immunization • Health Promotion
How it all began • Winter of 2007-08 • Not a severe flu season (“pre H1N1”) • Staff from 2 separate Clinics went to Director • Complained about key people taking sick leave • Doubted validity of illness (‘mental health day’ instead?)
Small Group Discussion • What might this be a sign of? • What would you do in response?
What we did about this • Director analyzed staff sick leave over the past 3 years • Found no significant increase in sick leave taken across job titles (approx 7 days/year) • Explored options of ‘what do we do now?’ at Executive Committee level
Decision made to assess employee satisfaction • Initial steps (1) • Identify survey instrument to use • UW-wide “Leadership and Community Values Initiative” • Done in 2006 & 2008 • Existing data to compare ours with
Far reaching topics assessed in LCVI survey • Diversity • Engagement • Fairness • Local Leadership (Clinic level) • Mission/Direction • Outcomes
Far reaching topics assessed in LCVI survey • Respect • Senior Leadership (Administration) • Feeling valued • Career Development • Other (such as satisfaction with salary and benefits)
Initial Steps (2) • Consult with other UW Depts. who have assessed employed satisfaction before • Financial Management Division • Hired outside firm to conduct employee satisfaction survey • “Independent” (Management doesn’t receive raw data) • Also very costly ($8-10,000)
Our plan of action • Director of Health Promotion named lead person to conduct adapted “LCVI” with our staff • ‘Neutral’ perception of me (“like Switzerland”) • Member of HHPCC Executive Committee, but not part of Administration • 8 year employee (at outset)
“Workplace Climate Survey” • Total of 97 questions • 8 of them ‘open-ended’ • Approximately 20 minutes needed to fill out • Staff given time during workday to complete • Online, Completely Anonymous
Timeline • May 2008 Survey administered • July 2008 Data analyzed; responses formulated • August 2008 Results shared with staff • 1 Year + ‘intervention period’ • July 2009 2nd survey given • August 2009 Data analyzed, progress noted • Sept. 2009 Results shared with staff
Sample questions (A)Likert scale (1-5) • “HHPCC’s mission and goals are clearly communicated to staff. “ • “There is effective leadership in my unit.” • “Rewards and recognition are awarded fairly in my unit.” • “I understand why and how decisions are made by HHPCC administration.”
Sample questions (B)Open-ended • “What can HHPCC do to increase your satisfaction as an employee?” • “What do you believe are the core values that should shape our work at HHPCC?” • “What are the key factors that contribute to you staying at HHPCC, or that have made you consider leaving HHPCC?”
Results • 108 out of 130 staff completed survey (83%) • Numerical data compared favorably with UW-wide #s (ie., staff more satisfied at HHPCC) • Rich in ‘essay’ type responses (across the board in terms of critical, complimentary, and ‘other’)
Sample responses • “HHPCC’s mission and goals are clearly communicated to staff. “ • Strongly Agree/Agree = 58% • Neither = 32% • Strongly Disagree/Disagree = 9%
Sample responses • “There is effective leadership in my unit. “ • Strongly Agree/Agree = 64% • Neither = 16% • Strongly Disagree/Disagree = 20%
Sample responses • ““What can HHPCC do to increase your satisfaction as an employee?” • Increasing transparency • Consult with our Unit when it’s involved in high level discussion • A pay raise, and parking paid for! • I am satisfied for the most part
Early conclusions about survey results: “The Good News” • High degree of positive feelings, especially when compared to UW as a whole • Pride in work • Sense of accomplishment • Respect • Work life balance
Early conclusions about survey results: areas for improvement • Communication (‘Senior’ and at Unit level) • Decision-making process (Administration) • Recognition: contributions, accomplishments, and milestones • Leadership (‘Senior’ and at Unit level)
Small Group Discussion • What would you do to address these “areas for improvement”?
Action plans for ‘Areas of improvement’ (1) • Communication • Dissemination of Dept. Heads committee minutes • Intranet for posting wide range of information for staff • Transparency of information—for example, posting survey data • Staff newsletter started (written by Director)
New Mission/Vision/Values statement created • Work group formed in Summer 2008 • Led by ‘yours truly’ • Wide cross-representation of staff (15), in terms of both Depts. and levels • “1st draft” shared widely, open for comments • ‘Near-final draft’ read out/distributed at all-staff mtg. • ‘Finished’ after last comments reviewed
Action plans for ‘Areas of improvement’ (2) • Decision-making process • Director began blog about upcoming major building renovation • Input sought a various levels on this project • More consultation in budgeting process
Action plans for ‘Areas of improvement’ (3) • Recognition of staff • Employee Recognition Committee established (by me) • Positive attention drawn to excellence (small and large) • NOT just at someone’s retirement! • Funding from UW Medical Center Service Excellence budget (private donations)
G.E.M. (Going the Extra Mile) Recognition (accompanied by $3 gift card) • Date:________________________________ • To:__________________________________ • From:_______________________________ • Recognized for:_______________________ _________________________________
Service Excellence Award • Nomination Forms reviewed by the Employee Recognition Committee • Selection ceremony ‘a big deal’ • Hour long, time for staff to socialize • “Executive breakfast” at Faculty Club
Action plans for ‘Areas of improvement’ (4) • Leadership • Taking a lead from UW-wide 2nd LCVI survey… • Focus on raising level of 20+ Clinic/Dept. Head leadership skills through 8-hour training led by outside consultant
Leadership Training topics • Leadership-Best Practices • Understanding and Resolving Conflict • Establishing Performance Expectations • Introducing and Managing Change
2nd survey • Shorter by far…40 vs. 89 questions (less demographic info sought) • Designed to assess change from 2008 as accurately as possible • Added questions designed to assess the 4 initiatives we did to improve in selected areas
Results • Less responses…87 out of 130 (67%), vs. 83% the first time around • Contributing factors…done over summer months (vs. May before); ‘heat wave’ (100 F. +) during survey period; possible discouragement from budget situation
Results: Notable Positives • Pride in work • Mean score 4.20 (2009); 4.25 (2008) • Respect (co-worker) • Mean score 4.09 (2009); 3.96 (2008) • Job satisfaction • Mean score 4.08 (2009); 4.04 (2008)
Improvements (all p < 0.05) • “I understand how my unit’s work contributes to the mission and goals of HHPCC” • Mean score 4.34 (2009); 4.08 (2008) • HHPCC’s mission and goals are clearly communicated to staff • Mean score 3.93 (2009); 3.61 (2008)
Improvements (all p < 0.05) • How satisfied are you with the recognition you receive for the work you do • Mean score 3.70 (2009); 3.42 (2008) • How satisfied are you with the pattern of communication in your unit • Mean score 3.79 (2009); 3.41 (2008)
Declines (all p < 0.005) • Relationships between staff and HHPCC administration are generally positive • Mean score 3.28 (2009); 3.51 (2008) • How satisfied are you with the pattern of communication throughout HHPCC • Mean score 2.81 (2009); 3.08 (2008)
Assessing the 4 initiatives we began to improve selected areas • Communication (‘Senior’ and at Unit level) • Decision-making process (Administration) • Recognition: contributions, accomplishments, and milestones • Leadership (‘Senior’ and at Unit level)
Transparent in explaining the decision-making process to HHPCC staff
Increase the quality and skill of the leadership at my Unit's level
Where to from here? • Keep up with the action plans for the ‘areas needing improvement’ • Meanwhile, try not to let what was going well ‘slip’ • “Time out” from surveying during renovation • Plan to give 3rd survey 6 months after newer/improved building is finished
Why is employee satisfaction important? • Higher amounts of it could lead to… • Greater productivity • Longer period of retention • Higher level of patient care (Minimizing error, maximizing outcome (MEMO project; Linzer, et al @ Univ. of Wisconsin)
Contact Information • Mark Shaw • mshaw@u.washington.edu • (206) 616-8476 • hallhealth.washington.edu/healthpromotion