· web viewdelayed in (illegible word) results. results go to ice quicker. can't see trend as...

Barnsley & Rotherham Integrated Laboratory services Department: Pan PathologyFilename : Rotherham Hospital User Survey QMS No : DOC 330

Rotherham User Survey 2018 Report

Pathology would like to express their thanks to all those who were able to complete this year’s survey.

INTRODUCTIONISO Standards sub-clause 4.14.3 set requirements that the laboratory management shall seek information relating to user perception as to whether the service has met the needs and requirements of its users. This survey has been performed to comply with these standards, and in doing so, will bring to the attention of the laboratory management any areas of services provided by the laboratory that require improvement.

The user satisfaction survey ran between 23rd March to 20th April 2018 and its purpose is to obtain feedback from our users on the quality of the services provided by the laboratory.

The information gained from this survey will enable laboratory management to look at the service we provide and decide how to improve it to meet the needs and requirements of our users, as part of our commitment to continually improve quality.

METHODThe satisfaction survey was carried out using a questionnaire which was developed in consultation with BRILS Management Team, Clinical Heads of Department and the Laboratory Director, and comprised of 18 questions designed to elicit users’ general views on the quality of the services provided by Pathology. The respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction using the following response options: Yes or No, except in the case of questions relating to advice and assistance provided by pathology staff, where the response options were: Does not meet my needs, acceptable and excellent. Dissatisfaction was derived from the option ‘Does not meet my needs’ whilst satisfaction was derived from the levels ‘acceptable’, and ‘excellent’. A percentage distribution of responses was used to present the data and cumulative percentage dissatisfaction compared to cumulative percentage satisfaction. The respondents were also instructed to use ‘not applicable’ where appropriate. All questions asked were mandatory, except for question 2 & 3 which may leave the respondent identifiable. The final question asks users to provide any comments to improve the service. These have been collated and have been discussed at a feedback session to the BRILS Management Team and actions identified where appropriate. Responses are detailed at the end of the report. All responses received are duplications of the text received.

Separate user surveys have been completed for Community users (DOC 329), Phlebotomy (DOC 331), and Funeral Directors (DOC 333).

Questionnaires were sent via survey monkey to Trust users – via the communications team, direct email lists and hard copies sent to Education

Centre Wednesday Lunchtime Lecture.

Version : 2018 of 34Author : Natalie Holmes Approved by : Heather Da CostaActive Date : 14/06/2018 Review due : 14/06/2019


RESULTS OF SURVEYQuestion 1: Staff Group (Answered: 41, Skipped 0)

A total of 41 responses were received from users within the Trust, these are broken down into Hospital Medical and Nursing staff as detailed above. The one respondent who answered “Other” states that their staff group was Human Resources. A wider variety of staff groups were captured in this user survey, compared to 2017.

Question 2: Name (Optional)

This question was optional and was included to allow for specific personal feedback to be given where relevant and to enable the incentive of a box of chocolate to be delivered to the winning participant in the draw. For the purpose of confidentiality, the names of participants will not be included in this report. 22 respondents gave their name, whilst 19 respondents opted to submit their response anonymously.



Question 3: Department/Ward (Optional)

Department/Ward Number of ParticipantsAMU 3Ophthalmology 2HDU/IT 1B5 1Gastroenterology 1A1 2Medicine 1SHO 1Stroke 2CDT 1Anaesthetics 1Wharncliffe 1UECC 2Critical Care 1A&E 1Pre-Op Assessment 1HR 1Dermatology Outpatients 1

26 respondents chose to include the department in which they worked, whilst 15 respondents chose to submit their survey anonymously. The above table shows that responses were received from a wide variety of clinical areas within the hospital, covering inpatients, outpatients and surgical areas.



Question 4: Are you satisfied with the usefulness of the Pathology Website as a source of information for each laboratory?

A substantial amount of users, 53.66%-58.54%, stated that they were not aware that there was a Pathology website. Given this response, the Pathology Department will begin to promote the website in collaboration with the hospital digital communications team. 7.32% of users stated that they were not satisfied with the Pathology website across all disciplines. Where associated comments were left, responses are detailed in the table below.

Previous user surveys have only questions if the users feel that the website is acceptable or not, and have not addressed the awareness regarding the availability of the Pathology website. Enabling users to leave this responses has highlighted the need for promotion of the website.



Comment ResponseI wasn't aware of any Pathology website on Intranet.

Given the lack of awareness regarding the Pathology Website as a source of information, the Pathology Department will begin to promote the website in collaboration with the hospital digital communications team (QIN 365).

Didn't know it existed!I didn't know this existed.

Not used websiteNot aware of siteDifficult to navigate If there is information that you are struggling to

find, please contact the laboratory.

Question 5:

Are you satisfied with the range of investigations provided by the laboratory?

100% of respondents were satisfied with the range of investigations provided by the laboratory in Blood Sciences and Blood Transfusion. In Histopathology and Microbiology, 97.22% and 97.37% respectively of respondents were satisfied. The issues that have been highlighted via associated comments that were left are in the table below and responses to each issue are provided.



Comment ResponseDelays and non-specific reports. Please contact the laboratory with examples so

that we can address these issues further.It would be nice to have a more rapid troponin test. The troponin test currently takes one hour and

cannot be performed any faster. POCT very unreliable and not comparable to the laboratory and would require a large amount of work to be done by ward staff.

No option for B-glucan/galactomanan on medi tech Microbiology staff are currently in discussions with the Meditech team regarding improving Meditech requesting.

Question 6: Are you with the air tube system used to transport specimens to the laboratory?

75.86%-77.42% of respondents were satisfied with the air tube (pod) system used for transporting specimens to the laboratory. 22.58%-24.14% were not satisfied. This question has highlighted that users feed that there are some issues with the air tube system. Where associated comments were left, responses are detailed in the table below.



Comment ResponseSometimes pod system down.

The air tube (POD) system is managed by estates. We have passed on this feedback to the Estates department.

Reasonably frequently does not workOften faulty!Often not working. Have lost samples in the past.Often doesn’t work which leads to delays in investigation as staff too busy to take blood samples to labs

The pod system is good in theory but the one on labour ward is often out of service meaning we have to either delay taking the bloods or leave our patient to take them up by handKeeps breaking, we are on a tight schedule at it has a significant impact; a 30 minute delay is 25% of the available time in that stage of the process.

Being in the UECC, we frequently recognise the times that the air tubes are non functional. These days, rather than hours, occur too frequently and for too long. It delays the services from the UECC greatly.

it always seems to be broken and we take a large amount of samples so are always having to go to labs



Question 7: Are you satisfied with the format/layout of the test request form for handwritten non-electronic requests?

94.12%-97.14% of users were satisfied with the format/layout of the handwritten request forms. Where associated comments were left, responses are detailed in the table below.

Comment ResponseNo result given or Microbiology. There is a Microbiology request form available for

use. Results are available via Meditech and ICE. Please contact the laboratory to discuss your comment further.

Most tests have to be hand-written as not included on the form

Tick boxes are available for the most popular tests, however, the lab offers hundreds of tests and it would not be practical to put all tests on the request form.

Started in Rotherham in August and because printing the labels sounded so complicated I've never learned how to so I just do the forms by hand.

Electronic requesting is encouraged where possible as it reduces the rate of request errors. Please contact the Meditech training team to arrange further training.



Question 8: Do you use electronic requesting?

87.18% of Blood Sciences Users and 83.33% of Microbiology Users use electronic requesting via ICE. Where associated comments were left, responses are detailed in the table below. This question has not been asked in previous surveys.



Comment ResponseNot aware We encourage electronic requesting where

possible as this reduces request errors. Training is available from the Meditech team who can visit the ward area and advise on how to manage patient flow, from a Meditech requesting perspective.

Don't need to for micro sample currently.Time.Table printers take too long/don't work.

But for inpatients only

I do not think that electronic requests are available to our service

use forms in derm

No way to ensure microbiology samples are taken as nurses would normally collect micro samples but Meditech requesting system is used by phlebotomists/HCAs - I don't think nurses routinely see requests unless they're on paper.Difficult to print off label. I don't know how. Much easier normally to use a paper request.



Question 9: Are you satisfied with Meditech when requesting laboratory tests?

71.43% of Blood Sciences Users and 79.41% of Microbiology Users are satisfied with electronic requesting via Meditech. Where associated comments were left, responses are detailed in the table below.

Comment Response



Leave to juniors Thank you for your response. We hope that if you do use Meditech to request laboratory tests in the future that you are satisfied with the service.

Very helpful. Thank you for your comment.It would be useful to be able to request group and save so that phlemotomists can take these while taking routine bloods

Not possible to do this due to stringent requirements for blood transfusion samples. While we appreciate it can be time consuming, it is vital that the request form is filled out correctly for a patient

Why can't we put add on tests on meditech, and have to post a paper form via the broken tube.

The laboratory interface does not support electronic add-ons, either from Meditech or any other system. While it is something CliniSys (ICE) will be looking at in the future, it is not available as a function.

It is quite a laborious process and on labour ward the labels often don't come out on the printer meaning we have to go back in and re-request them

This has been passed onto the Meditech team.

The need to enter the same information repeatedly is frustrating as is the need to individually change the request date for every test requested. Some tests are extremely difficult to locate on the systemit is long-winded and difficult to navigate, it is unnecessarily time-consuming

Much better system on ICE for requesting where common requests just come up on a single page when you click the 'request bloods' button (you can search for less common tests, but things like FBC, U+E, LFT, coagulation etc are all on that home page).

Label printing system is too difficult. Rarely suitable printers attached to any computers. Inability to print off labels before test required (like in STH) has slowed me down at times.All the old meditech problems.Sometimes hard to find.

Question 10: Which system do you use for looking up patient laboratory results?



Users at Rotherham Hospital are encouraged to use Meditech to request and review patient results, however, ICE is also available. This question highlights that the majority of users prefer to use ICE to view patient results, with only 7.32%-9.76% of users choosing to user Meditech alone to look up patient results. 17.07%-31.71% of users utilise a combination of ICE and Meditech, whereas 58.54%-73.17% of users choose to solely use ICE for reviewing patient results.

Question 11: Are you satisfied with Meditech when reviewing laboratory results?



A majority of users (69.70%-75.86%) were not satisfied with Meditech for reviewing patient results. Reasons for this are captured in the comments, included in the table below.

Comment Response



Too slow / not easy This has been passed on to the Meditech team.Delayed in (illegible word) results. Results go to ICE quicker. Can't see trend as clear as ICE. ICE quicker and can see trends/graph easily.

Find ICE easier.As there is no results on MediTech.Its difficult and confusing.Lack of cumulative results.If you request bloods on paper form, they don't appear on MediTech.I don't feel it is safe.Not clear.Difficulty reviewing results over time.Worse access to previous result compared to ICE.You cannot see the history so you cannot tell if abnormalities are chronic or acute. Microbiology results often not on meditech. Often doctors do handwritten requests (as printing out stickers takes a lot longer) which don’t show up on meditech - this leads to people believing repeat bloods haven’t been done and leads to unnecessary further tests.Tend to default to ICE as easier to review previous results plus access to OPENNETRecently in the UECC, completed blood results do not appear on the system.Prefer the layout of ICECan't access historic results easily - have to use ICEwould be good if had star like on old system to say it was being currently processed then we would know if it had been received instead of bothering labPoor system for viewing bloods (doesn't load old results unless you select past visits); also the list of tests (Hb, urea, GGT etc) disappears off the screen if you scroll right to look at more results, so you can't see which numbers relate to which test unless you scroll back across and keep your finger on the screen!!I find it inconsistent and less intuitive than ICE. Also looks far less professional.Not always uploaded especially if taken with paper request.

This has been passed on to the MediTech team, however, if you notice a test result that is in ICE but not Meditech, please email [email protected] with details and we will investigate and try to rectify the issue


mailto:[email protected]


Not all results are on MediTech. Hard to compare. If you notice a test result that is in ICE but not Meditech, please email [email protected] with details and we will investigate and try to rectify the issue

Sometimes results only turn up on ICE.

Doesn't give all info needed. Unreliable. Need to check ICE too.

It was okay, recently it has become unreliable and slow. Toxicology does not come through on it.

Some results don't show up on meditech and fairly often it will crash if you try opening a report from microbiology.

Question 12: Are you satisfied with ICE when reviewing laboratory results?




In comparison to the previous question, a majority of users (91.67% -94.12%) were satisfied with ICE when reviewing laboratory results. Where associated comments were left, responses are detailed in the table below.

Comment Response



But not able to compare LFTs with old LFTs! Due to change in laboratory system there has been a very slight formatting change for some individual tests (e.g. units of iu/L instead of IU/L). This stops the cumulative test view working as it did before. Please email [email protected] with any tests where you notice this problem, and we’ll look into merging the old and new records.

Recently not able to identify micro results separately. They used to display them in blue. Can't filter them now.

This issue has now been resolved; Micro should once again have its own colour and be available as a filter option.

The previous results section is in the wrong order. Unfortunately previous results in cumulative view is hard-coded as oldest -> newest. This has been raised as an improvement request with our suppliers, but it is not something we can currently change.

It needs redesigning. We’re always open to constructive feedback; please get in touch by emailing [email protected] with any suggestions. We’re hoping to upgrade the hardware and software of ICE this year, which should provide significant performance and functionality improvements.

Can't see results over long term in one screen. Please email [email protected] with some examples of this issue and we will see if there’s anything we can do to improve the presentation of results.

sometimes difficult to get the information out that is needed

Although satisfied the new way of reporting since the labs update seems to repeat results

If you could provide some examples to [email protected] we will investigate and see if we’re able to reduce the incidence of repeat results.

For blood results, PLEASE get rid of that massive box at the top that links to other results - it doesn't need to be there, and it means you have to scroll down to see the actual results. Also, please change the set up when you click on results to see old results - the newest one should be at the top instead of having to scroll down the drop down menu to see today's result. This might seem trivial, but scrolling down when you're looking at tens or hundreds of results in a day wastes a lot of time!

The linked reports section has now been removed, which we hope will improve the presentation and accessibility of results. We are looking at a better solution for the issue of “pending” results, but this may require some time, as it will require changes to the function of our new reporting interface.









Question 13: Are you satisfied with the usefulness and availability of advice and assistance provided by laboratory staff in normal working hours?

All users were satisfied with the usefulness and availability of advice and assistance provided by laboratory staff in normal working hours was satisfactory, with over half of users stating that this was excellent in every discipline. Where associated comments were left, responses are detailed in the table below.



Comment ResponseI find the staff helpful, friendly and knowledgeable. They go out of their way to assist with queries.

Thank you. The positive results have been fed back to Laboratory Managers to feed back to staff as part of staff meetings. The results have also been passed onto the Pathology Business and Service manager for inclusion in Staff Briefings. Compliments relating to individual staff members have been fed back to the individual.

nice helpful staff

All staff very helpful. Especially when I ask stupid questionsmicrobiology requires a consultant and they are always so busy. The service is brilliant once you get to talk to them.

Question 14: Are you satisfied with the usefulness and availability of advice and assistance provided by laboratory staff out of hours?

All users were satisfied with the usefulness and availability of advice and assistance provided by laboratory staff outside of normal working hours was satisfactory, with over half of users stating that this was excellent in every discipline. Where associated comments were left, responses are detailed in the table below.



Comment ResponseFind it frustrating as ITU 2o/c can't ring micro out of hours and need to rely on waking a consultant at home who doesn't know patient history for them to ring micro consultant. Not efficient use of time.

Thank you for response to the above question. We are very sorry to hear that you find difficult to get hold of a microbiologist. We try and answer the calls as much as possible. However when one microbiologist is on leave or busy with meetings the other microbiologist may find it hard to answer all the calls, as we have only two microbiologists on site and no junior support. If you leave a message with the laboratory to staff to call you back as soon as possibleThe on-call service, which extends from 5:00 PM to 9:00 AM the next day, and for the full 24 hours on weekends and public holidays done by a Consultant microbiology as the only 1st on, is increasingly becoming very onerous which in many occasions is jeopardising our clinical duties during the day time. As you know we have no junior medical microbiologist colleagues and the calls come straight to the Consultant Microbiologists.We have found that a significant number of calls made between 11:00 PM and 7:00 AM are inappropriate and being made by junior colleagues. Examples include the following: Inadequate clinical review before the call is made,

with it appearing that the junior doctor is a go between the Consultant and Microbiologist.

Ineffective hand-over amongst clinical teams so that the medical team taking over is not aware of advice already given by Microbiologists earlier (mainly due to lack of documentation).

Not following the principles of SBAR when seeking for on-call microbiology advice, often making a second call necessary when full details have been acquired.

Requesting antibiotic codes when this is not necessary during on-call hours as the policy allows use of restricted antimicrobials for 24 hours initially if required.

The purpose of the call being defensive, i.e. double checking with the Microbiologist just in case.

We think in the setting of ITU call registrar is off good quality and will let the switch board allow calls from them

As you know all the Microbiologists are dedicated clinicians and more than happy to provide clinical advice and assist in any way they can. However, the increasing volume of calls needs to be addressed, as we cannot sustain the current demand.



We thank you for your patience and glad to hear that you are satisfied with the advice and service you receive when you speak to the Microbiology Consultants.

Often hard to reach. We apologise that you often find it difficult to reach laboratory staff out of hours. Please contact Pathology to discuss issues with contacting specific departments.

Always very helpful Thank you. The positive results have been fed back to Laboratory Managers to feed back to staff as part of staff meetings. The results have also been passed onto the Pathology Business and Service manager for inclusion in Staff Briefings. Compliments relating to individual staff members have been fed back to the individual.



Question 15: Are you satisfied with the usefulness and availability of advice from clinicians in normal working hours?

Most users were satisfied with the usefulness and availability of advice and assistance provided by clinical staff in normal working hours was satisfactory, with over half of users stating that this was excellent in every discipline. 5.56% of users felt that the usefulness and availability of advice from Consultant Microbiologists did not meet their needs during normal working hours. Where associated comments were left, responses are detailed in the table below.

Comment ResponseCan be heard to contact haem sometimes for If you are waiting for a result, please contact the



advice. laboratory. If it is only waiting for Consultant authorisation, they will be able to give you the result without Consultant comment. Otherwise, laboratory staff may be able to advise you when the Consultant will be available.

More Microbiology Consultants needed! Thank you for response to the above question. We are very sorry to hear that you find difficult to get hold of a microbiologist. We try and answer the calls as much as possible. However when one microbiologist is on leave or busy with meetings the other microbiologist may find it hard to answer all the calls, as we have only two microbiologists on site and no junior support. If you leave a message with the laboratory to staff to call you back as soon as possibleThe on-call service, which extends from 5:00 PM to 9:00 AM the next day, and for the full 24 hours on weekends and public holidays done by a Consultant microbiology as the only 1st on, is increasingly becoming very onerous which in many occasions is jeopardising our clinical duties during the day time. As you know we have no junior medical microbiologist colleagues and the calls come straight to the Consultant Microbiologists.We have found that a significant number of calls made between 11:00 PM and 7:00 AM are inappropriate and being made by junior colleagues. Examples include the following: Inadequate clinical review before the call is

made, with it appearing that the junior doctor is a go between the Consultant and Microbiologist.








As you know all the Microbiologists are dedicated clinicians and more than happy to provide clinical advice and assist in any way they can. However, the increasing volume of calls needs to be addressed, as we cannot sustain the current demand.We thank you for your patience and glad to hear that you are satisfied with the advice and service you receive when you speak to the Microbiology Consultants.

We do not have much contact with Biochemists or Haematologists, but from the few interactions these have been very satisfactory and helpful.

Thank you. The positive results have been fed back to Laboratory Managers to feed back to staff as part of staff meetings. The results have also been passed onto the Pathology Business and Service manager for inclusion in Staff Briefings. Compliments relating to individual staff members have been fed back to the individual.

All staff are excellent to communicate with.



Question 16: Are you satisfied with the usefulness and availability of advice from clinicians out of hours?

Most users were satisfied with the usefulness and availability of advice and assistance provided by clinical staff out of normal working hours was satisfactory, with over half of users stating that this was excellent in every discipline. 3.33% of users (1 respondent) felt that the usefulness and availability of advice from Consultant Microbiologists did not meet their needs and left a comment regarding this (response in the table below). 5.88% of users felt dissatisfied with the advice from Consultant Biochemists out of hours; however, no comment was left.



Comment ResponseBit of a pain that you have to be a consultant to contact micro consultants out of hours! Consultants aren't often on site overnight, so you have to call them at home to speak to the micro consultant and have them call you back - this wastes a lot of time. It should be okay at least for the registrar (often a very senior doctor!) who is on site to call micro consultants out of hours.

Thank you for response to the above question. We are very sorry to hear that you find difficult to get hold of a microbiologist. We try and answer the calls as much as possible. However when one microbiologist is on leave or busy with meetings the other microbiologist may find it hard to answer all the calls, as we have only two microbiologists on site and no junior support. If you leave a message with the laboratory to staff to call you back as soon as possibleThe on-call service, which extends from 5:00 PM to 9:00 AM the next day, and for the full 24 hours on weekends and public holidays done by a Consultant microbiology as the only 1st on, is increasingly becoming very onerous which in many occasions is jeopardising our clinical duties during the day time. As you know we have no junior medical microbiologist colleagues and the calls come straight to the Consultant Microbiologists.We have found that a significant number of calls made between 11:00 PM and 7:00 AM are inappropriate and being made by junior colleagues. Examples include the following: Inadequate clinical review before the call is made, with it

appearing that the junior doctor is a go between the Consultant and Microbiologist.









Question 17: Are you satisfied with the report turnaround times?

100% of users were satisfied with the report turnaround times in Microbiology. 10.00% were not satisfied with the turnaround times for Blood Sciences, 2.86% were not satisfied for Blood Transfusion, and 8.57% were not satisfied with Cellular Pathology. Where associated comments were left, responses are detailed in the table below.



Comment ResponseDelayed we have to wait till end of day. We aim to turn tests around as quickly as possible;

however, some tests are batched or sent to other Trusts for analysis. Please contact the department if you wish to discuss this further.

Some chemistry is a little slow.Blood tests often taken longer when (illegible word) down.

Pathology times have been slow but I am well aware of the pressures the service has been under

It was fine, it has become very slow recently, we are having to make decisions without results or on the back of VBGs

I guess from a UECC point of View we are priority cases and want results as soon as it leaves the patient. But in reality, we do have an excellent service often with results within the hour.Please get rid of the thing where the test appears on the ICE main screen only for you to click on it only to see that everything is 'pending'. It's better to just not have that test pop up until the results are available, even if that means waiting a bit longer.

We have a KPI to achieve 90% of tests completed within an hour for A&E for the most frequently requested tests, and we monitor this KPI. There are occasions when depending on the test or other issues, such as analyser breakdown, requests will take longer. Please phone the laboratory if you wish discuss further.

The feedback regarding ICE has been fed back to the ICE team.

Generally good. Thank you. The positive results have been fed back to Laboratory Managers to feed back to staff as part of staff meetings. The results have also been passed onto the Pathology Business and Service manager for inclusion in Staff Briefings. Compliments relating to individual staff members have been fed back to the individual.

Question 18: Are you satisfied with the report content, clairty and interpretive comments?Version : 2018 of 34Author : Natalie Holmes Approved by : Heather Da CostaActive Date : 14/06/2018 Review due : 14/06/2019


100% of users were satisfied with the report content, clairty and interpretive comments for Blood Transfusion and Histopathology, and 95% were satisfied with Blood Sciences and Microbiology reports. Where associated comments were left, responses are detailed in the table below.

Comment ResponseICE not clear - too many "(Illegible word) screen". Unable to comment.Heamolysed samples are reported - this means when looking back through ICE at previous results or cumulative reports there are results which aren’t accurate but this isn’t necessarily highlighted

Haemolysed , icteric, lipaemic samples all have a comment stating as such and every test on ICE with a comment will have a small sign next to that particular result which will show the comment once cursor is moved over it.

Would like further sensitivities on microbiology results... they could always have an order of preference. Sometimes my call for advice is simply because of allergy or interaction and no other sensitivities shown.

Antibiotic sensitivities are released according to the antibiotic policy. Where we are made aware of allergies in the clinical details, we will endeavour to provide alternative sensitivities.

Not enough micro detail re. sensitivities.

Question 19: If you currently receive paper test reports, would turning off paper reports impact on your department?



This question was designed in order to gain an insight into the viability of ending the issuing of paper reports in favour of electronic reporting. It was found that a majority (64.71% - 88.24%) of users did not feel that ending paper reporting would impact upon their department. Where associated comments were left, responses are detailed in the table below.

Comment ResponseNegative Impact of Turning Off Paper Reports



The new display on ICE since Jan 2018 is awful . It used to be such a good system. Why changes are made for worse - always?

Thank you for your feedback. This question was designed in order to gain an insight into the viability of ending the issuing of paper reports in favour of electronic reporting. It is useful for Pathology to know how the paper reports we send out are used.

In response to your comment about the new ICE display: The linked reports section has now been removed, which we hope will improve the presentation and accessibility of results. We are looking at a better solution for the issue of “pending” results, but this may require some time, as it will require changes to the function of our new reporting interface. While presentation may have gotten worse, the system behind it is massively more robust and will last us several years, the old system was on the verge of complete collapse due to age and instability.

No-one known how to print off labels. We have no label printer. Far easier and quicker to request on paper.

Positive Impact of Turning Off Paper ReportsIt would increase efficiency. Thank you for your feedback. This question was

designed in order to gain an insight into the viability of ending the issuing of paper reports in favour of electronic reporting. It is encouraging to know that you are using and are satisfied with electronic reporting, and this helps to reduce the amount of paper used within the Trust.

This is assuming that Meditech is kept up to date by ward support staff to ensure that the correct clinician is highlighted and alerted to relevant results. This is the problem that is plaguing the meditech sign off of x-ray resultsShould use "file" fling on ICE.

USER FEEDBACK AND SUGGESTIONS



Users were asked to provide feedback or suggestions to improve the service. Each of the comments have been split into categories in the below table to allow appropriate action to be taken.

Comment Number

Comment Response

Compliment1 Continue the good work Thank you. The positive results have been fed back

to Laboratory Managers to feed back to staff as part of staff meetings. The results have also been passed onto the Pathology Business and Service manager for inclusion in Staff Briefings.

2 Generally the service provided is excellent.3 Thank you nice staff, good service.

IT4 Integrate ICE & MediTech or swab MediTech This has been passed onto the Meditech team.5 Could I talk to someone about improving

ICE/MediTech reporting?The Pathology IT Manager has contacted you to discuss this.

Communication6 I would be grateful for more prompt updates

when there are technical problems delaying results in the lab as the service I'm involved with relies on being able to get urgent results from OPD to plan next investigation/procedure.

We do have a communication plan in place to escalate technical problems delaying results. However, we have also raised this as a quality improvement note to develop a more robust procedure for communication (QIN 368)

7 It would helpful to except ITU registrars from the "cannot call micro cons out of hours" rule.

Thank you for response to the above question. We are very sorry to hear that you find difficult to get hold of a microbiologist. We try and answer the calls as much as possible. However when one microbiologist is on leave or busy with meetings the other microbiologist may find it hard to answer all the calls, as we have only two microbiologists on site and no junior support. If you leave a message with the laboratory to staff to call you back as soon as possibleThe on-call service, which extends from 5:00 PM to 9:00 AM the next day, and for the full 24 hours on weekends and public holidays done by a Consultant microbiology as the only 1st on, is increasingly becoming very onerous which in many occasions is jeopardising our clinical duties during the day time. As you know we have no junior medical microbiologist colleagues and the calls come straight to the Consultant Microbiologists.We have found that a significant number of calls made between 11:00 PM and 7:00 AM are inappropriate and being made by junior colleagues. Examples include the following:



Comment Number

Comment Response

Inadequate clinical review before the call is made, with it appearing that the junior doctor is a go between the Consultant and Microbiologist.







Turn Around Times8 Whatever has happened recently has had an

adverse effect on report times for basic tests this is very detrimental to us. Apologies for the negative comments. Give us a call if you want to discuss them.

The recent implementation of a new laboratory computer system has caused delays in reporting, we apologise for this and all issues should now be resolved.


· web viewdelayed in (illegible word) results. results go to ice quicker. can't see trend as...

Documents