Southeast Missouri State University: Campus Health Clinic Carly FinkeCory Gool Rachel HofmannDerek...

Southeast Missouri State University:

Campus Health Clinic

Carly Finke Cory GoolRachel Hofmann Derek MillerAdam Kazda Michael Rhyne Joshua McDonoughBenjamin Zelasko

About the Clinic

• CHC provides health services for students, faculty and staff at SEMO

• Staffed by SoutheastHEALTH

• Recent update in insurance to encourage usage

• Decrease in amount of faculty/staff each year

Defining the Problem

• Usage by employees is dwindling in recent years

• Employees perceptions about the CHC

Data Collection

• Created the survey based on the objectives created and approved by Dr. Cherry and Dr. Bruce Skinner

• Sample: Random sample of faculty and staff on SEMO campus– Faculty: 31.4% Staff: 68.6%

• Sample size: 163 out of 752 surveys received in the mail

Objective No.1: To determine the perceptions of faculty andstaff that influence their use of the Campus Health Clinic.

Items x n 95% C.I.

Feel like leaving immediately if I saw former/current student

2.26 159 2.10-2.42

Feel that CHC is mostly for students not faculty/staff

3.41 160 3.23-3.59

More likely to use CHC if I could take family members

2.79 160 2.63-2.95

Do not feel CHC has range of services I need

3.11 161 2.97-3.25

Scaling

1=SDA 2=DA 3=N/O 4=A 5=SA

Question: Regardless of whether you’ve used the CHC inthe past, we’re interested in your view of the following…

Objective No.1: To determine the perceptions of faculty andstaff that influence their use of the Campus Health Clinic.

Question: Regardless of whether you’ve used the CHC inthe past, we’re interested in your view of the following…

Items x n 95% C.I.

More likely to use CHC if other faculty/staff also used it 2.85 158 2.69-3.01

If no “time off” penalty, more likely to use CHC 3.22 158 3.04-3.40

More likely to use CHC if university provided incentive program 3.46 162 3.30-3.62

More likely to use CHC if supervisor/superior encouraged it 3.00 162 2.86-3.14

Scaling

1=SDA 2=DA 3=N/O 4=A 5=SA

Objective 4: To identify, through interactions with faculty and staff, possible programmatic and administrative incentives that

could improve usage by faculty and staff of theCampus Health Clinic.

Question: Does being an employee of the university discourage your use of the CHC?

• Top Answer: “No” (56)• “The only time I visited was to get a flu shot.”• “No, in fact I think it is an asset. I would use it much more,

probably, if I lived in Cape.”• “I just don’t think about the Clinic for health issues other than flu

shots.”• “Yes, because you wait with your students.”• “They said they would bill as an office visit. Other local doctor’s

offices charge $50-60 per visit because of the contract with the insurance. The CHC charges more than double that. If they charged what other doctors visit charge I would be more likely to use it.”

• “Rather go to my primacy care physician.”• “No, it encourages it because it is more convenient.”


could improve usage by faculty and staff of the Campus Health Clinic.

Question: Have you ever had a bad experience at the HCH? If so, what happened?

• Top Answer: “No” (43)”

• Parking is a little difficult. Even though I have an employee hang-tag, its not good in that particular lot.”

• “Yes, I was treated very rudely by the receptionist; talked down to by the practitioner.”

• “With the current university health insurance its just easier to go to another clinic. They charged my university bill and I had a difficult time getting it paid through HSA. Also seemed higher price.”

• “No, except I had to wait a long time”

• “They incorrectly diagnosed my symptoms”


could improve usage by faculty and staff of theCampus Health Clinic.

Question: What other services could the CHC provide that would encourage you to use the CHC?

• “Information for new employees to increase awareness”

• “Emergency services and weekend services”

• “Parking”

• “I have a family physician, so why use the CHC? It’s good for Flu shots”

• “After hours availability”

• “I would go more if I didn’t want to take sick leave for the visit. That would be incentive.”

• “If I could bring my children”

Objective 2Assess faculty and staff knowledge of the services provided

by the CHC.

Services provided by CHC n Yes (%) No (%)

Accepts Walk-ins 155 77.3 17.8

Accepts Insurance 155 80.4 14.7

Issue Prescriptions 154 60.7 33.7

Bound by HIPAA 155 88.3 6.7

Assessment of Illnesses 159 64.4 33.1

Assessment of Injuries 159 76.1 21.5

Physical Exams 159 58.3 39.3

Reproductive Issue 159 68.7 28.8

Medical Procedures 160 28.8 69.3

Laboratory Services 159 49.7 47.9

Allergy Shots 160 87.1 11.0

Employee Health Insurance Policy 160 69.9 28.2

Objective 3To determine the experiences and level of satisfaction

of faculty and staff who have used CHC before.

Item x. n 95% Confidence

CHC staff were helpful. 4.07 121 3.93--4.21

CHC staff were friendly. 4.08 121 3.93--4.23

CHC staff were knowledgeable. 3.95 120 3.80--4.10

I would recommend CHC to other faculty and staff.

3.75 119 3.58--3.92

While in CHC I felt uncomfortable with the people around me.

2.40 119 2.20--2.60

At CHC I received the same level of health care as my physician.

3.40 121 3.23--3.57

CHC addresses my healthcare needs.

3.67 121 3.51--3.83

1= Strongly Disagree 3= Neutral 4= Agree2= Disagree 5= Strongly Agree



Item x. n 95% Confidence

CHC is convenient 3.78 122 3.61--3.95

CHC is comfortable 4.06 124 3.90--4.21

CHC is well qualified 4.28 123 3.45--5.11

No concern waiting with students 3.72 124 3.60--3.90

Walking into CHC is convenient 3.92 121 3.77--4.07

CHC care providers have same skill as doctors

3.46 121 3.30--3.62

CHC is timely/organized 3.81 121 3.67--3.95

CHC is clean 4.03 122 3.91--4.15

CHC is high quality health service 3.67 121 3.52--3.81




Item 1 – 2 months ago

3 – 6 months ago

6 months – a year

Over a year ago

Never visited CHC

Missing Information

Last Visit to CHC

28.2 % 1.8 % 8.0 % 11.7 % 2.5 % 47.9 %

Item 1 2 3 4 5 Missing Information

Overall Satisfaction 4.9 % 3.7 % 11.0 % 30.0 % 23.0 % 27.0 %

On a scale of 1-5, with 5 being the highest, how would you rate your overall satisfaction with CHC?

Objective 5To assess concerns of faculty and staff within

demographic groups. FACULTY v. STAFF

Item x. Faculty x. Staff Probability

CHC is convenient 3.46 3.98 0.02

CHC is comfortable 4.35 4.05 0.14

CHC is well qualified 4.00 3.90 0.55

No concern waiting with students

4.00 3.75 0.25

Walking into CHC is convenient

4.24 3.88 0.04


3.60 3.53 0.73

CHC is timely/organized 3.96 3.83 0.44

CHC is clean 4.27 4.03 0.07

CHC is high quality health service

3.81 3.78 0.85



demographic groups. FACULTY v. STAFFItem x. Faculty x. Staff Probability

CHC staff were helpful. 4.23 4.12 0.48

CHC staff were friendly. 4.27 4.09 0.28

CHC staff were knowledgeable. 4.20 4.00 0.23


3.84 3.79 0.82


2.08 2.47 0.14


3.62 3.43 0.40


3.77 3.72 0.82



demographic groups. GENDER

Item x. Female x. Male Probability

CHC is convenient 3.79 3.71 0.72

CHC is comfortable 4.05 4.07 0.94

CHC is well qualified 4.42 3.86 0.58


3.67 3.79 0.59


3.93 3.86 0.69


3.58 3.04 0.01

CHC is timely/organized 3.84 3.66 0.27

CHC is clean 4.02 4.03 0.93


3.69 3.59 0.56



demographic groups. GENDER

Item x. Female x. Male Probability

CHC staff were helpful. 4.02 4.17 0.38

CHC staff were friendly. 4.02 4.24 0.22

CHC staff were knowledgeable. 3.93 4.00 0.71


3.75 3.71 0.85


2.41 2.43 0.94


3.44 3.21 0.26


3.70 3.55 0.44



demographic groups. AGE

Item 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 64+ p

CHC is convenient 3.00 3.72 4.09 3.71 3.80 3.80 .412

CHC is comfortable 4.25 4.00 4.23 3.92 4.12 4.00 .867

CHC is well qualified 3.25 3.78 4.00 3.80 4.89 3.80 .783


3.75 3.44 3.91 3.52 3.83 4.10 .427


4.00 3.67 4.36 3.70 3.90 4.10 .066


2.50 3.35 3.73 3.32 3.60 3.33 .144

CHC is timely/organized 3.50 3.59 3.86 3.64 4.00 4.00 .293

CHC is clean 4.25 4.06 3.95 3.92 4.12 4.10 .821


2.75 3.59 3.86 3.48 3.78 4.00 .051



demographic groups. AGE

Item 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 64+ p

CHC staff were helpful. 3.00 3.75 4.29 3.96 4.20 4.40 .011

CHC staff were friendly. 3.75 3.94 4.24 3.96 4.12 4.40 .565

CHC staff were knowledgeable.

3.25 3.69 4.24 3.76 4.08 4.20 .095


2.75 3.63 3.90 3.52 3.95 4.00 .089


2.25 2.50 2.76 2.29 2.10 3.10 .079


2.50 3.31 3.62 3.32 3.44 3.50 .428


2.75 3.50 3.95 3.44 3.78 3.90 .072

Limitations

• Non-Participation– Hand full of surveys were not

completed in full• Non-Applicable

– Some respondents have never been to the CHC

• Time Constraint– Needed time to receive extra surveys

Conclusion1. To determine the perceptions of faculty and

staff that influence their use of the CHC• Majority of respondents were neutral on feelings

toward CHC

2. To assess faculty and staffs knowledge of the services provided by CHC• Majority of survey takers had knowledge of

services

3. To determine the experiences and level of satisfaction of faculty and staff who have used CHC• On average, most respondents had positive

feelings toward the CHC• 53% of respondents had positive overall

satisfaction with the CHC

Conclusion

4. To identify possible programmatic and administrative incentives that could improve usage by faculty and staff of the CHC• Most said “No”• Other main answers: “Parking”, ”I have my own

doctor”, “Lower Fees”

5. To assess concerns of faculty and staff within demographic groups• Faculty and Staff only disagreed on two aspects

regarding the CHC• Males and Females had similar responses• With regards to age, the only significant difference

amongst responses was staff helpfulness

We would like to thank you for your time!

Does anyone have any questions?

Southeast Missouri State University: Campus Health Clinic Carly FinkeCory Gool Rachel HofmannDerek...

Documents

Transcript of Southeast Missouri State University: Campus Health Clinic Carly FinkeCory Gool Rachel HofmannDerek...