2016 Annual Provider Satisfaction Survey
2016 Annual Provider Satisfaction
Survey
All County Intake and Coordination of Care
Agencies
1/13/2017
Page 0 of 13
July 13, 2017
2016 Annual Provider Satisfaction Survey
Contents
Overview................................................................................................................................................ 2
Results .................................................................................................................................................. 2
Response Outcomes ...................................................................................................................... 2
Overall Rating Outcomes ................................................................................................................ 4
Individual Rating Outcomes ............................................................................................................ 5
Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 12
Significance Score Testing ........................................................................................................... 12
Recommendations for Action ........................................................................................................ 12
Page 1 of 13
July 13, 2017
2016 Annual Provider Satisfaction Survey
Overview
The 2016 Annual Provider Satisfaction Survey was made available to the Chief Executive Officers,
Chief Financial Officers, Chief Operating Officers, Quality Management Directors and Compliance
Directors of all Intake and Coordination of Care (ICC) Agencies and Specialty Agencies throughout all
counties within the Cenpatico Integrated Care (C-IC) service area. An invite to complete the survey was
sent via email to all recipients and the survey was available for electronic submission during
11/07/2016-11/18/2016. Recipients also received two separate email reminders asking for their
participation in the survey, prior to the survey closure date.
The 2016 survey was comprised of nine categorical questions, including demographic identifiers and
satisfaction scoring. The two demographic questions asked providers to identify their agency type and
county location, allowing for greater drill down capabilities without compromising anonymity. The seven
satisfaction scoring questions asked providers to rate their level of satisfaction with Cenpatico
Integrated Care in the following areas: (A) Claims Payment, (B) Collaboration with Providers, (C)
Accessibility of Training, (D) Transparency in Business Operations, (E) Notification of Changes, (F)
Accessibility of Cenpatico Leadership and (G) Availability of Technical Assistance. Satisfaction ratings
for questions (A) through (G) were based on a weighted Likert Scale from 1 (lowest) through 5
(highest). A “not applicable” (N/A) option was also available, however this option was not weighted and
was not included in averaging ratings. A comment box was also available for each question to allow for
providers to share additional information.
Upon the closure of the survey, an analysis of the results was completed and the findings are detailed
in this report.
Results
Response Outcomes
The 2016 survey response count was 154, resulting in a 43% response rate. 184 recipients opened the
survey, of which 154 recipients completed the survey, resulting in a completion rate of 84%. Figure 1
compares the 2015 survey response rate of 52% to the 2016 survey response rate of 43%.
Figure 1
Page 2 of 13
July 13, 2017
2016 Annual Provider Satisfaction Survey
Figure 2 displays response rate by agency type. This question was added to the 2016 survey. Of those
that completed the survey: 49% indicated they represented a Specialty Agency, 46% indicated they
represented an ICC Agency, 5% indicated “Other”. “Other” agency types included Family Health
Center, FQHC, CSA/COS, Non Profit Community Program, Adult Residential and Prevention Services.
Figure 2
Figure 3 displays response rate by county. This question was added to the 2016 survey. Pima County
was the highest selected county for location of agency, at 70%. Pinal was the second highest selected
county for location of agency, at 12%. Gila and Greenlee counties were not selected as locations for
agency, both reporting at 0%.
Figure 3
Page 3 of 13
July 13, 2017
2016 Annual Provider Satisfaction Survey
Overall Rating Outcomes
Figure 4 displays the weighted average satisfaction scores and satisfaction percent for questions (A)
through (G). Question (C) Accessibility of Training, scored the highest level of satisfaction at 77%
(3.84). Question (F) Accessibility of Cenpatico Leadership, scored the second highest level of
satisfaction at 73% (3.67). Question (D) Transparency in Business Operations, scored the lowest level
of satisfaction at 66% (3.28).
Figure 4
Figure 5 compares the 2015 and 2016 satisfaction ratings for questions (A) through (G). The data
illustrates that satisfaction scores for five of the seven categories increased in 2016 from 2015,
including (B) Collaboration with Providers, (C) Accessibility of Training, (E) Notification of Changes, (F)
Accessibility of Cenpatico Leadership and (G) Availability of Technical Assistance. For 2016, category
(C) Accessibility of Training saw the biggest increase in satisfaction at 77% from 60% in 2015. The
following two categories saw a slight decrease in satisfaction scores in 2016: (A) Claims Payment at
70% from 71% in 2015 and (D) Transparency in Business Operations at 66% from 67% in 2015.
Figure 5
Page 4 of 13
July 13, 2017
2016 Annual Provider Satisfaction Survey
Individual Rating Outcomes
Figures 6-19 illustrate detailed response data for questions (A) through (G), including response counts,
the Mean, Median and Mode and any additional comments.
Figure 6
Figure 7
Page 5 of 13
July 13, 2017
2016 Annual Provider Satisfaction Survey
Figure 86
Figure 9
Page 6 of 13
July 13, 2017
2016 Annual Provider Satisfaction Survey
Figure 7
Figure 11
Page 7 of 13
July 13, 2017
2016 Annual Provider Satisfaction Survey
Figure 8
Figure 13
Page 8 of 13
July 13, 2017
2016 Annual Provider Satisfaction Survey
Figure 9
Figure 15
Page 9 of 13
July 13, 2017
2016 Annual Provider Satisfaction Survey
Figure 10
Figure 17
Page 10 of 13
July 13, 2017
2016 Annual Provider Satisfaction Survey
Figure 11
Figure 19
Page 11 of 13
July 13, 2017
2016 Annual Provider Satisfaction Survey
Summary
The 2016 Annual Provider Satisfaction Survey received a 43% response rate and 84% completion rate.
According to SurveyMonkey (2012), a “great” response rate for online surveys is 20-30% and a
conservative response rate is 10-15%. SurveyMonkey (2015) also reports that surveys with openended questions (comment boxes) have a mean completion rate of 78%. The 2016 survey exceeded
the national average for both response rate and completion rate. In an attempt to determine whether
the difference between the 2015 (52%) and 2016 (43%) response rates was statistically significant, a
chi-squared test was completed. Using an alpha level of .05 as the significance criterion, the difference
between the variables was found to not be significant, X2 (1, N = 454) = 2.39, p = 0.12. Therefore, it
can be concluded that the decrease in response percentage for 2016 is not significant.
Significance Score Testing
Overall, the 2016 survey satisfaction scores increased from the 2015 satisfaction scores in five
categories. In an attempt to determine whether the difference between the 2015 and 2016 satisfaction
scores were statistically significant, unpaired two-sample t-tests were completed using an alpha level of
.05 as the significance criterion and 95% confidence level. Below are the results of the three categories
with the highest increase in scores for 2016:



Category (C) Accessibility of Training, was the highest scoring and saw the biggest increase in
satisfaction at 77% from 60% in 2015. Test results: t(199) = 4.57, p < .001. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the increase in satisfaction scores for Category (C) is extremely significant with a
relative increase of 28% in satisfaction.
Category (G) Availability of Technical Assistance also saw an increase in satisfaction at 70%
from 60% in 2015. Test result: t(199) = 2.61, p = .001. It can be concluded that the increase in
satisfaction scores is very significant with a relative increase of 17% in satisfaction.
Category (B) Collaboration with Providers saw an increase in satisfaction at 67% from 61% in
2015. Test result: t(199) = 1.07, p = 0.29. It can be concluded that the increase in satisfaction
scores is not statistically significant.
The following two categories saw a slight decrease in satisfaction scores in 2016: (A) Claims Payment
at 70% from 71% in 2015 and (D) Transparency in Business Operations at 66% from 67% in 2015.
Unpaired two-sample t-tests were completed and the results for Category (A) Claims Payment can be
seen below:
Category (A) Claims Payment test result, t(194) = 0.48, p = 0.63. It can be concluded that the decrease
in score is considered to be not statistically significant.
Recommendations for Action
I. Response Rate
While the 2016 survey response and completion rates exceeded the national average, continued efforts
to increase these rates is recommended for the 2017 survey. SurveyMonkey and Qualaroo (2014)
agree the amount of feedback is important and a high response rate is critical to the measurement of
effects and change. The following best practices were implemented for the 2016 survey and should be
continued in 2017:
Page 12 of 13
July 13, 2017
2016 Annual Provider Satisfaction Survey
1. Push the survey via email: Utilization of the direct email invitation feature that SurveyMonkey
offers. This allows for greater tracking abilities, sends automatic reminders to those who have
not responded and allows for personalized messages.
2. Provide frequent reminders: Two separate personalized email reminders were sent to those that
did not complete the survey.
3. Persuade participants that their responses will be used: The email invite sent to participants
detailed the importance of the survey and how their feedback allows for growth and
improvement. Consider publishing a report of the findings and any interventions used on the
cenpaticointegratedcareaz.com website or the Cenpatico-IC Provider Newsletter for participants
to see that their feedback is being valued. We have listed previous satisfaction ratings in the
Provider Newsletter (Fall 2015) and published the 2015 report on
cenpaticointegratedcareaz.com.
4. Consider using a third party survey company: This was a direct request from a participant in the
2016 survey, stating that a third party company would have enabled them to feel more confident
in providing honest feedback. The National Business Research Institutes (2015) states, “by
allowing a third party to conduct your survey, confidentiality and anonymity are immediately
increased”. It’s impossible to generate usable data when answers are given in half-truths, for
fear of being identified. Strategic Programs, Inc. (2015) reports that the use of a reputable third
party survey company improves participation rates, data quality, and confidentiality, leading to
better business decisions.
II. Low Scoring Questions
It is recommended that the two lowest scoring survey categories be reviewed: (B) Collaboration with
Providers and (D) Transparency in Business Operations. Zucal (2016) states that transparency and
collaboration with customers go hand in hand and leads to improved business relationships. Berg
(2011) proposes that increasing transparency leads to trustworthy information sharing and enables
sharing and collaboration. HealthCatalyst provides three best practices for payer-provider collaboration,
including collaboration on metrics and measurements, collaboration on objectives for improvement and
a plan for ensuring transparency related to performance.
Page 13 of 13
July 13, 2017