Customer Service Excellence - Telephone Monitoring Audit including Face to Face Contact Between Staff and Customers (TELMON1718)

Transcription

1 Customer Service Excellence - Telephone Monitoring Audit including Face to Face Contact Between Staff and Customers (TELMON1718) Department: Quality Assurance Summary by: Quality Improvement Auditor Date: December 2017

2 BACKGROUND: In December 2009, The Trust published a Customer Service Policy and Standards offering a service that is efficient, effective, excellent, equitable and empowering, with the patient and their family, friends and carers always at the heart of service provision. An audit regarding telephone monitoring was undertaken in November 2010 and re-audits were undertaken in May 2012, November 2013, November 2015 and November This audit seeks to assess whether standards are being maintained regarding telephone monitoring and face to face contact between Trust staff and customers. AIM: To measure whether the relevant guidelines contained within the Customer Service Policy and Standards regarding telephone usage and face to face contact between Trust staff and customers are being followed, offering an efficient and excellent service. This will be done in three ways. Firstly, by making outgoing calls from the Quality Assurance department and Director level departments and monitoring the responses. Secondly, by visiting selected departments/service areas and monitoring telephone calls they receive and how they respond. Thirdly, this will be done by auditing (observing) face to face contact between Trust staff and customers. STANDARDS: The Royal Marsden Customer Service Policy and Standards (v9, Feb 2017). Telephone calls: a) The calls are picked up within 3 rings standard 95% b) The receivers identify themselves on answering the telephone call standard 100% c) The receivers identify their department/the hospital on answering the telephone call standard 100% d) The receivers are polite at all times during the telephone conversation standard 100% e) If an answerphone message was left, the caller received a response within 2 working days standard 100% Face to face contact between Trust staff and customers: a) The customers were greeted immediately or as soon as a staff member was free standard 100% b) The staff member listened to what the customer had to say standard 100% c) The staff member dealt with the request promptly standard 100% d) The staff member was courteous and respectful to the customer standard 100% METHODOLOGY: Monitoring/observing this audit will be done in three ways: 1. Members of staff in the Quality Assurance (QA) Team and the PAs at Director Level will be asked to monitor dialled out internal phone calls within the Trust for a two week period which will commence on 20 th November Audit tool (Appendix A). Page 2 of 9

3 2. Departments with high volume of incoming phone calls will be audited across both sites by the Quality Improvement Auditor on various days in November The departments to be audited will be Outpatients, Pharmacy and Facilities across both the Sutton and Chelsea sites. Departments will be audited for no more than 10 calls each or no longer than 90 minutes (whichever comes first). Audit tool (Appendix B). 3. The Quality Improvement Auditor will sit near six receptions anonymously, three at Chelsea and three at Sutton for a 30 minute period on a random day and time during November A data collection tool will be devised that will address each of the four standards listed above and be completed after each observation. Chelsea receptions audited: Main reception Wallace Wing Radiotherapy (Wallace Wing) Sutton receptions audited: Main reception Pharmacy Bud Flanagan RESULTS: 1. Results from QA Team and Director Level PAs monitoring dialled out internal telephone calls: A total of 162 dialled out internal phone calls were monitored by the QA team and the PAs to the Director of Projects and Estates, Deputy Chief Nurse and Deputy Director of Human Resources. Table 1 below shows the comparison between previous audits undertaken in 2015 and 2016 with regard to the number of monitored dialled out internal telephone calls by division. Other includes the following departments: QA, PALS, Complaints, Information, Finance, IT, Estates and Facilities, SMCS and Private Patients. Cancer Division 6/73 (8%) Cancer Division 34/165 (21%) Cancer Division 11/162 (7%) Clinical Division 7/73 (10%) Clinical Division 13/165 (8%) Clinical Division 31/162 (19%) Other 60/73 (82%) Other 118/165 (71%) Other 120/162 (74%) Table 1 Page 3 of 9

4 Table 2 below shows a comparison between the audits undertaken in 2015 and 2016 with regard to percentage of dialled out internal calls that were answered within 3 rings. Calls that were not answered at all did not give a reason or specify whether or not the call went to voic . Therefore due to this ambiguity, the percentage of just those calls that were answered and answered within 3 rings was also included in Table 2 below. An additional column in the audit tool will be included for the next re-audit for whether or not any calls that were not answered went to voic . Answered within 3 rings 69/73 (95%) Answered within 3 rings 145/165 (88%) Answered within 3 rings 137/162 (85%) Answered after more than 3 rings 1/73 Answered after more than 3 rings 6/165 (4%) Answered after more than 3 rings 7/162 (4%) (1%) Straight to voic 2/73 (3%) Straight to voic 3/165 (2%) Straight to voic 0/162 (0%) Not answered at all Not answered at all 11/165 Not answered at all 18/162 1/73 (1%) For calls that were answered: answered within 3 rings 69/72 (96%) (6%) For calls that were answered: answered within 3 rings 145/154 (94%) Table 2 (11%) For calls that were answered: answered within 3 rings 137/144 (95%) With regard to whether or not the receiver identified themselves and the department, those calls that went to voic or weren t answered at all (18 calls) were excluded from the analysis. Therefore 144 instead of 162 calls were analysed for this section. Table 3 shows a comparison between the audits undertaken in 2015 and 2016 with regard to percentage of dialled out internal calls where the receiver identified themselves and the department. Receiver identified themselves 55/70 (79%) Receiver identified themselves 113/151 (75%) Receiver identified themselves 106/144 (74%) Receiver identified the department 50/70 (71%) Receiver identified the department 107/151 (71%) Receiver identified the department 99/144 (69%) Table 3 141/144 (98%) dialled out internal calls that were answered, were answered by a receiver who was considered friendly and polite at all times. Three of the calls answered were considered as not being friendly and polite at all times. Comparing to the previous audit from November 2016, there were 147/151 (97%) calls that were answered by a receiver who was considered friendly and polite at all times. There was 1 internal call made where a message was left and a response was received the same day. Page 4 of 9

5 2. Results from observing received telephone calls in other departments / service areas: Three departments at each Trust site (total of 6 departments) were observed for no more than 10 calls each or no longer than 90 minutes (whichever came first). A total of 60 calls were monitored (10 calls per department) when observing the following departments across each of the Sutton and Chelsea sites: Outpatients, Pharmacy and Facilities. Table 4 shows the number of staff members whose calls were observed on each site for each department. A total of 12 staff members had their calls observed. Sutton Chelsea Outpatients 2 2 Pharmacy 2 2 Facilities 2 2 Table 4 All 60 calls across all six departments were answered within 3 rings. Figure 4 below shows by site and department the percentage of calls where the receivers being observed identified themselves. 56/60 (93%) of total calls observed were answered by a receiver who identified themselves. Figure 4 For all 60 calls across all six departments, the receivers identified the departments and were friendly and polite at all times. No messages were observed as being taken. Across the six departments that were being observed there were 12 different members of staff who picked up telephone calls. Page 5 of 9

6 10/12 (83%) stated that they were aware there was a customer service policy and that it could be found on the Trust intranet. For 2/12 (17%) it was not possible to ascertain if they were aware due to their department being too busy. 3. Face to face contact between Trust staff and customers: The Quality Improvement Auditor sat near six receptions anonymously, three at Chelsea and three at Sutton, each for a 30 minute period on a random day and time during November A total of 112 face-to-face contacts were observed between customers and staff members at the receptions. 78 (70%) of these were in the Chelsea Hospital and 34 (30%) were in the Sutton Hospital. a) The customers were greeted immediately or as soon as a staff member was free? Standard 100% (Please note: these are the views of the auditor through observation.) Chelsea 72/75 (96%) Chelsea 81/83 (98%) Chelsea 76/78 (97%) Sutton 35/39 (90%) Sutton 38/41 (93%) Sutton 33/34 (97%) b) Did the staff member listen to what the customer had to say? Standard 100% (Please note: these are the views of the auditor through observation.) Chelsea 75/75 (100%) Chelsea 83/83 (100%) Chelsea 78/78 (100%) Sutton 39/39 (100%) Sutton 41/41 (100%) Sutton 34/34 (100%) c) Did the staff member deal with the request promptly? Standard 100% (Please note: these are the views of the auditor through observation.) Chelsea 75/75 (100%) Chelsea 82/83 (99%) Chelsea 77/78 (99%) Sutton 38/39 (97%) Sutton 39/41 (95%) Sutton 33/34 (97%) d) Were staff members courteous and respectful to the customer? - Standard 100% (Please note: these are the views of the auditor through observation.) Chelsea 74/75 (99%) Chelsea 81/83 (98%) Chelsea 77/78 (99%) Sutton 33/39 (85%) Sutton 37/41 (90%) Sutton 32/34 (94%) Page 6 of 9

7 CONCLUSION: Overall, the results from this audit showed good standards of customer service. Results should be presented back to staff with management congratulating staff on audit findings and encouraging and enabling further improvements in customer service. It was noted that some members of staff felt it wasn t always necessary to have to state their name and department when answering phone calls especially if they could tell who was calling from the caller ID display on their phone. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. To highlight areas for improvement in staff training courses and induction. 2. To inform managers of the key findings and to remind staff that there is a customer service policy. 3. To include additional column in audit tool for the next re-audit for whether or not any calls that were not answered went to voic . 4. To re-audit by December 2018 if required. Page 7 of 9

8 Appendix A Monitoring internal telephone calls dialled out from Quality Assurance NAME OF CALLER - No. of calls Date Time Dialled department Answered in 3 rings? Y/N Did receiver identify themselves? Y/N Did receiver identify department? Y/N Was the receiver friendly and polite at all times? Y/N Did you leave a message? Y/N/ n/a If you left a message, what time and date was your call returned? Additional Information

9 Appendix B Customer Service Excellence Telephone Monitoring Number of calls Date Time Department Answered in 3 rings Y/N Did receiver identify themselves Y/N Did receiver identify department Y/N Was a message taken? Y/N/ n/a If a message was taken, were caller's details (e.g. name, contact number) recorded? Y/N Was the receiver friendly and polite at all times? Y/N Is the receiver aware of customer service policy and where to locate it? Y/N Page 9 of 9