Skip to main content

Improving Patient Satisfaction Surveys

If you ask identical patient satisfaction questions of a 30 year-old woman and an 85 year-old man, you aren't segmenting, you aren't learning and you're probably not satisfying anyone either.

OK, let's set up a hypothetical here. Imagine a 30 year-old woman, an executive at a major Internet company, fracturing a leg falling off the mountain she was climbing. Further, imagine an 85 year-old farmer fracturing a leg falling off the tractor he was driving. Let's say their injuries are severe enough to require surgery at your hospital and so it transpires that both patients are admitted to adjacent rooms on your ortho/surgery floor.

Two patients more different than alike save for the admitting diagnosis. With me so far?

Yet perhaps during their stay - and certainly after - as occupants of the same nursing unit, they'll be asked nearly-identical survey questions designed to elicit their satisfaction as patients and customers. Questions about "responsiveness" and "communication" and "coordination" and "pain control" and the facilities and the food. Some questions are JCAHO-inspired, others are CMS-mandated and a few are industry standards, oldies-but-goodies.

Am I alone in seeing a problem? Think about it.

Think about how these two patients live their lives, where and how they travel, where and what they eat, what they buy, how they interact with the world, their experiences when they're not lying horizontal in your bed. Think about how they choose health care providers and how they rely (or not) on health care's so-called experts. Think about the possible lifestyle-driven differences in their answers to a question about "call button responsiveness."

In other words, think about the EXPECTATIONS they arrived with. Do you really think these two hypothetical patients would show up at your facility with identical expectations for much of anything beyond getting well?

So how useful are their surveyed responses? You ask the same questions, average the responses and learn...what?

I'm sure the survey vendors among us will say their software's drill-down capabilities offer additional insights and so, perhaps, you look below the surface and learn that younger patients are less satisfied on certain indicators than those in older demographics.

But now you're stuck. WHY are younger patients less satisfied? You can only speculate and your systems and surveys won't easily tell you since, traditionally, they're designed to collect what's relatively easy to collect and/or directly related to patient care, payment or some regulatory purpose. Actionable information on customer attitudes, expectations and behaviors - critical to none of those processes - is nowhere to be found.

So if you're looking for meaningful strategic separation, you must start by understanding what makes your customers tick BEFORE they occupy room #2021. Satisfaction is, very simply, your actions and processes seen through a customer's lens. Learn as much as you can about the world seen through that lens. Learn how those lenses cluster and segment. Ponder the resulting differences and similarities.

Most of all, stop assuming that you'll get there with averaged answers to universal questions
. If you can't (or won't), do me a favor and remove "market segmentation" from your list of core competencies.


Comments

Shereen said…
So are you saying that we find out what our customers are thinking by simply talking to them?! Astonishing!

smm

Popular posts from this blog

Michael Porter On Health Care Reform

Michael Porter, writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, proposes "A Strategy For Health Care Reform - Toward A Value-Based System." His proposals are fundamental, lucid and right-on, meaning they're sure to be opposed by some parties to the debate, the so-called "Yes, but..." crowd. Most important, in my opinion, is this: "... electronic medical records will enable value improvement, but only if they support integrated care and outcome measurement. Simply automating current delivery practices will be a hugely expensive exercise in futility. Among our highest near-term priorities is to finalize and then continuously update health information technology (HIT) standards that include precise data definitions (for diagnoses and treatments, for example), an architecture for aggregating data for each patient over time and across providers, and protocols for seamless communication among systems. "Finally, consumers must become much mor

Being Disrupted Ain't Fun. Deal With It.

Articles about disrupting healthcare, particularly those analogizing, say, Tesla's example with healthcare's current state, are frequently met with a chorus of (paraphrasing here) "Irrelevant! Cars are easy, healthcare is hard." You know, patients and doctors as examples of "information asymmetry" and all that. Well, let me ask you this: assuming you drive a car with a traditional internal combustion engine, how much do you know about the metallurgy in your car's engine block? I'll bet the answer is: virtually nothing. In fact it's probably less than you know about your own body's GI tract. Yet somehow, every day, us (allegedly) ignorant people buy and drive cars without help from a cadre of experts. Most of us do so and live happily ever after (at least until the warranty expires. Warranties...another thing healthcare could learn from Tesla.) Now, us free range dummies - impatient with information asymmetry - are storming healthcare

My Take On Anthem-Cigna, Big Dumb Companies and the Executives Who Run Them

After last Friday's Appeals Court decision, Anthem's hostile takeover of, er, merger with Cigna has but a faint pulse. Good. Unplug the respirator. Cigna's figured it out but Anthem is like that late-late horror show where the corpse refuses to die. Meanwhile, 150 McKinsey consultants are on standby for post-merger "integration" support. I guess "no deal, no paycheck..." is powerfully motivating to keep the patient alive a while longer. In court, Anthem argued that assembling a $54 billion behemoth is a necessary precondition to sparking all manner of wondrous innovations and delivering $2.4 billion in efficiencies. The basic argument appears to be "We need to double in size to grow a brain. And just imagine all those savings translating directly into lower premiums for employers and consumers."  Stop. Read that paragraph again. Ignore the dubious "lower premiums" argument and focus on the deal's savings. $2.4 billion saved