DDHA HEALTH CARE QUALITY:
REPORT OF 2006 PATIENT SATISFACTION SURVEY
Developmental Disabilities Health Alliance, Inc.
1285 Broad Street
Bloomfield, NJ 07003-3045
DDHA…Creating Healthy Communities…
Satisfaction Survey Report, 2006 - DDHA 2
DDHA Health Care Quality:
Report of 2006 Satisfaction Survey
DDHA surveyed 147 patients/proxies in 6 primary care sites – Hackensack, Bloomfield,
New Brunswick, Hamilton, Clementon, and Vineland – with a Patient Satisfaction
Survey instrument between March and May, 2006.
The survey form assessed 4 quality/satisfaction domains: Access, Quality, Satisfaction,
and Health Status. The first three domains encompass 7 sub-domains.
Patients ranged in age from 14 years old to 84 years old (mean age = 43.6 years); proxy
respondents were predominantly women caregivers (either family members or paid care
99% of respondents were able to schedule appointments within two weeks and agreed
that phone calls to DDHA offices are handled efficiently and effectively.
Average waiting room times across all DDHA settings was a low 6.9 minutes.
“Very good” to “Excellent” ratings were found for driving to DDHA offices (92%),
parking (88%), and physical access to waiting/exam rooms (92%).
Respondents agreed or agreed strongly that emergencies (96%) and Rx refill requests
(98%) were handled efficiently.
Quality of Care
Respondents overwhelmingly felt that quality was high and that staff, both professional/
clinical and clerical, were knowledgeable, courteous, efficient, and respectful.
96% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they were pleased with the treatment
received from DDHA; that clinical staff listened to them; that they were afforded
adequate privacy during their office visits; and that the offices were comfortable and
Written Comments – 32% (n = 56) of respondents provided optional written comments on
the survey form; nearly all of these comments were positive in nature.
Satisfaction Survey Report, 2006 - DDHA 3
DDHA Health Care Quality:
Report of 2006 Satisfaction Survey
To review the quality of care provided by the primary
care sites of the Developmental Disabilities Health Alliance
(DDHA), quality and satisfaction data were collected using a
“I like everything about the Patient Satisfaction Survey form completed during regular
doctors and staff. They office visits. Between March and May 2006, survey
answer my questions and information was collected from patients in the six current
listen, and give me respect.
They treat us with respect.” DDHA primary care sites:
(Group Home Manager)
1. Hackensack in Bergen County
2. Bloomfield in Essex County
3. Hamilton in Mercer County
4. New Brunswick in Middlesex County
“There is nothing about this 5. Clementon in Camden County
office that is not excellent. 6. Vineland Area Office
Great staff, great care!.”
(Mother of 28 Year Old Patient)
Satisfaction survey forms were collected from 147 patients
who presented for routine health care visits at these offices;
the information from these survey forms is presented in this
report. The goal of the survey was to assess satisfaction with
DDHA health care services as well as to gauge additional
“I am very pleased how our
five ladies get dedicated
aspects of quality.
loving and professional
care by the entire I. Survey Form
team…who really pull
together to ensure quality
for the DDD population.
The survey form entitled, the DDHA Patient
(Group Home Manager) Satisfaction Survey, consists of several personal identification
items followed by 25 items covering four domains and seven
sub-domains, or areas, related to quality and satisfaction with
health care (a copy of the form is included in Appendix A).
“Very patient- The overall structure of the survey (i.e., domains and sub-
friendly…very domains) is shown in Figure 1 (next page) and the items,
knowledgeable about domains/subdomains, and item response types are shown in
medical concerns and the table in Appendix B.
health care coverage,
especially with all the
changes…the entire office Figure 1 shows the domains: Access (9 items); Quality
staff couldn’t be any better. (6 items); Satisfaction (5 items), and Health Status (6 items).
They make the quality of life The 9 access items are subdivided into three subdomains:
a lot better. scheduling, physical access, and non-visit responding, or
“responsiveness” of DDHA staff. The quality items are
subdivided into two subdomains – quality of professionals
Satisfaction Survey Report, 2006 - DDHA 4
and quality of clerical staff. The satisfaction items are also subdivided into two
subdomains – satisfaction with care and satisfaction with the DDHA facilities. All
domain and subdomain item designations are shown in the table in Appendix B. In
addition, the form provides for optional written comments.
In cases in which most of the rating data are generally positive such as in this
survey, it is often helpful to directly examine and assess the “negative” responses in the
data in order to identify elements that may have been overshadowed by the
predominantly positive results and to identify targets for quality improvement.
Therefore rating items in any respondent survey that included responses that were
potentially negative were identified (Table 1). Ratings of 3 are generally considered to
be “neutral” while lower ratings (1 or 2) are considered negative. Nonetheless, Table 1
shows all of the items for which any respondent ratings were made that were 3 or under.
Although a rating of 3 anchors the center of the scales used and can generally be
considered neutral, with many high ratings as here, a rating of 3 may indicate some
weakness. Thus, the data in Table 1 represent respondents who rated items negatively,
or in the case of ratings of 3 “potentially negative,” and may represent reasonable targets
for quality improvement efforts.
Even with a direct assessment of negative or “potentially” negative ratings (i.e.,
ratings of 3), there are very few items identified for change. Using a most conservative
criterion of 5% of the sample (i.e., more than 7 respondents), only four items are
candidates for quality improvement: (1) #9 – driving to office; (2) #10 – parking; (3) #22
– evening and weekend responding and (4) #23 – self-ratings of health. Only one of
these (#22) is directly related to the provision of health care and could rightly be a target
for QI. Item #23 (self ratings of health) may be more representative of patient
characteristics than of care, although health care quality may have an impact on this
variable in the future. That is, negative ratings on this item detect individuals who are
becoming sicker which could be due to disease processes, aging, or other factors. While
potentially related to quality of care, it is not possible, without case-mix corrections, to
directly link changes in this item to care practices.
Nonetheless, with the exception of item 23, it may be reasonable, in an overall
sense, to use these as targets for quality improvement efforts. For example, clarification
of evening and weekend on-call procedures may be beneficial, specific parking areas
could be designated, driving maps prepared and sent to patients’ homes prior to office
visits, and clarification of evening and weekend on-call procedures, are all appropriate
goals for improvement.
For the complete results email: email@example.com