Customer satisfaction survey - Executive Summary

This is the Executive Summary of the Customer Satisfaction Survey carried out by Carol Goldstone Associates in 2005 (published in 2006) for the CRU.

Contact Frequency

Continuing the high level of customer interaction reported in 2004, most CRU customers have had contact with the Unit at least ten times, although a minority of one in ten NHS Trusts have been in touch with CRU less often. On the whole, relationships are not new, with nine in ten customers having been communicating with CRU for at least two years.

Forms of Communication

Since 2004, customers have maintained or increased the variety of methods they use to communicate with CRU, although telephone calls and letters remain the most popular, particularly amongst insurance companies and solicitors. Whilst proportions sending and receiving emails has increased more than two-fold, the use of e-communications has not increased across the board, as we note that less than one in twenty representatives have embraced e-services including Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) and CUE CACHE (Claims Underwriting Exchange, Crif Application for Claims History Exchange).

Overall rating

In the vast majority of cases, CRU customers award a mean rating of 4.00 or above (i.e. no lower than ‘quite’ satisfied) for communication. Whilst this is true of all customers, NHS Trusts are particularly positive, with approximately nine in ten satisfied with communication, regardless of format. In turn, compensators tend to be more favourable than representatives; notably with e-services (unsurprising, given their increased use of these methods).

Overall treatment

Customers were asked to evaluate CRU’s overall treatment of them against a number of predefined statements. In general, respondents rate CRU very highly in terms of good customer service (listening, being respectful, fair and helpful and providing a service appropriate to the customers’ needs). CRU rated less highly on maintaining confidentiality, although a number of organisations ‘do not know’, and are not explicitly negative. Compensators and representatives are less positive about how promptly CRU returns documents (notably amongst top and middle clients).

Service evaluation

Each of the individual forms of communication were evaluated in more detail, against a number of pre-determined criteria.

• Phone call received from CRU: All service criteria were rated highly by customers, improving on ratings awarded in 2004. CRU rates particularly well on the initial phases of a call (timing, introduction, attitude of staff). The detail of the call, and particularly, the extent to which staff explain next steps, is rated slightly less highly (as was the case in 2004), notably amongst representatives.
• Phone call made to CRU: Achieved lower overall ratings than phone calls received. One in five disagree that the call back option was offered, notably compensators and representatives. On a positive note, almost all customers agree that when calling CRU, staff are available, answer the phone politely, are helpful and try to answer all questions.
• Letter received from CRU: Whilst there is still some reservation as to whether letters received from CRU are accurate and/or helpful, ratings of these have generally improved since 2004. Clients have noticed a definite improvement in the inclusion of assurances of confidentiality, and also, of notification of any further action.
• Letter sent to CRU: Customers are generally less satisfied with responses to letters that they send to CRU than they are with letters instigated by CRU. Whilst mean ratings are improved since 2004, there is still concern over the proportion of letters responded to within 10 days, and lack of explanation for this.
• Emails received from CRU: Ratings of all aspects of email communication from CRU rate at least 4.50 out of 5.00; all are improved on 2004 ratings.
• Emails sent to CRU: Mainly positive ratings given (>4.00), other than why a response would not be provided within 10 working days. However, this is predominantly because customers emails were responded to within that timeframe.

Reflecting preferences recorded in 2004, customers would prefer to communicate with CRU using telephone and email. It is notable however, that customers are open to a wider range of methods (including e-services) than previously, particularly compensators who are more likely than representatives to use EDI and CUE already.

Additional communications

Email tends to be used to make general enquiries about case progress or to register claims, with NHS Trusts showing a more varied use, including systems access and form requests. Customers who have not yet had email communications with CRU opt for potentially similar uses (progress chasing, form requests and claim registration).

Awareness of e-services amongst compensator and representative non-users is precisely as in 2004, an awareness more than twice as likely amongst compensators. More than half are interested in adopting EDI and/or CUE links with CRU, the majority stating that this is likely to happen in the near future.

Website

Awareness and usage of the CRU website has increased significantly since the last survey; two thirds aware, and of these, two thirds have visited the site, primarily to get information and/or to access webforms. Users largely rate the site as useful, with those specifically using it to access webforms evaluating the service as easy to find and use (although a significant minority did not receive a prompt response). Customers who do not visit the website generally state a lack of awareness, or perceived lack of need. Despite this, more than half state that they are likely to visit the site in the future.

Literature specifics

Awareness and use of the Z1 Guide, and awareness of the Z2 Guide Appeals Procedure (web versions) are lower than for their hard copy equivalents in 2004. Both retain their very high ‘usefulness’ ratings first awarded in the 2004 survey.

Awareness of hard copy versions of CRU 1, CRU4, CRU100 and CRU 102 remains high, that of online forms is lower (just a quarter of customers in the case of CRU 4 and CRU 102). The CRU 100 is found easy to understand, the CRU 102 easy to complete.

Complaints procedure

One in ten customers have complained to CRU, and are significantly less likely than in the last study to have done so recently. These respondents tend to have complained just once or twice, and largely feel that their most recent complaint was dealt with well, although not as well as reported in 2004.

Importance vs. performance

CRU customers see all of a wide range of staff attributes as important, with accuracy, reliability, promptness and accessibility rating as the top three. NHS Trusts have higher customer service expectations than compensators and representatives, rating a number of diverse attributes as more important than average. They also rate staff performance more highly.

CRU staff are experienced by customers as polite, helpful and professional. Net scores of attribute importance vs. performance show that CRU staff could improve promptness and accuracy, but are exceeding expectations on politeness and individual treatment for customers.

Suggested improvements and noted changes

As in 2004, issues of speed of communication and information distribution are the key aspects of the CRU service that customers feel need attention, notably provide certificates or up-to-date certificates quicker and provide more accurate or detailed information. This aligns with earlier findings that staff promptness and accuracy are slightly below expectation.

Customers tend to view CRU as having stayed the same over the past 18 months, although, particularly positively, a quarter of NHS Trusts feel that CRU has improved a lot over the last year and a half.

Overall rating

On the whole, customers feel that they have been sufficiently informed as to what was happening throughout the recovery process. The one in ten who did not would generally have liked better or more communication.

In 2006, CRU customers award CRU a mean overall satisfaction rating of 4.23 out of 5.00, a marginal increase on the 4.15 awarded in 2004. This equates to nine in ten customers being quite or very satisfied with the way in which they were dealt with by CRU as a whole.

Key findings

In summary, levels of satisfaction with the service received from CRU remain reassuringly good. Customers have maintained, if not increased, the variety of mechanisms with which they communicate with CRU (notably email) and all methods produce at least satisfactory ratings. Whilst awareness of e-services remains static since 2004, more customers are aware of, and using, the website (and finding this useful) Customers tend to be satisfied with their communications with CRU, citing many attributes of good customer service. Organisations generally report feeling informed throughout the recovery process, indeed, nine out of ten customers report being satisfied overall with how they were dealt with by CRU. This proportion equates to a mean rating of 4.23 out of 5.00 for overall satisfaction, a slight increase on evaluation in 2004. Suggestions for improvements to the service include improved communications (notably progress reports) and information dissemination, with staff perhaps needing to pay more attention to promptness and accuracy.