5.1 a Board Evaluation of Newspaper - NHS Highland€¦ · As part of the evaluation, feedback was...

Highland NHS Board6 December 2011

Item 5.1(a)

COMMUNICATING THE BOARD’S VISION AND AIMS – INTERNAL EVALUATION OFNHS HIGHLAND NEWSPAPER

Report by Maimie Thompson, Head of Public Relations and Engagement on behalf ofElaine Mead, Chief Executive

The Board is asked to:

Note the findings of the internal evaluation. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the Newspaper and the evaluation. Agree if future issues should be produced and if so the underpinning framework to

measure success.

1 Background

The Board of NHS Highland was updated in October regarding initial feed-back on the NHSHighland Newspaper “Health Check” which was delivered to every household (approximately150,000) within the areas covered by NHS Highland. It was estimated that the cost ofproducing, printing and distributing such a Newspaper would not exceed £20K and thatdistribution would start on the week beginning 22nd August. The task was completed withinbudget and the agreed time-frame and a formal evaluation has now been completed.

As part of the evaluation, feedback was sought from three groups throughout Highland: NHSStaff, Non-Staff Stakeholders including Highland HealthVOICES, Argyll & Bute PublicPartnership Forum, Community Councils, voluntary and charity groups, carer organisations,Patients Council and Patient Participation Groups, and Highland Council staff.

2 Methodology

Through collaboration with the Clinical Governance Support Team (CGST), feedback on thenewspaper was facilitated in the form of a questionnaire (nine questions). It was available inboth an electronic format (online through Survey Monkey) and hard copy format.

Feedback collection ran during September and October 2011.

Other feed-back was received directly back to the Chair and the Chief Executive. This hasnot been included in this analysis.

3 Summary of Findings

A copy of the full evaluation report is attached (Appendix 1). The number of respondents toeach question varied with the maximum number of responses received 991.

There were some marked differences and similarities in responses from staff versus nonstaff. The main findings are highlighted.

59% of non staff stakeholders who responded read all of the newspaper (vs 41% ofstaff).

2

Overall non staff rated the newspaper 3.5 compared with staff who scored it as 3.1(where 5 is very good and a score of 1 very poor).

In terms of whether the Newspaper added to an individual’s knowledge about NHSHighland, 58% of non staff said yes or yes to some extent compared to 32% ofstaff.

Both staff and non staff rated the articles on Patient Stories, Key facts and ServiceRe-design as the items of most interest. Graphs and pictures were of less interest.

Two thirds (68%) of non staff thought having a newspaper delivered was an effectiveway (to a great or some extent) to communicate; where as less than half (46%) of thestaff did.

One in five (21%) non staff thought NHS Highland should NOT publish further issueswhereas just under half (47%) of the staff thought further issues should NOT bepublished.

The additional free-text comments provide further context regarding what some respondentswere saying. In descending order, the most referred to themes positive (p) and negative (n)

Respondents…

…are concerned about cost of newspaper (n) …found the newspaper was informative and interesting (p) …felt the newspaper was poorly presented, not easy to read and not well written (n) …thought the newspaper was well presented, easy to read and well written (p) …thought it helps raise awareness of NHS issues (p) …felt the target audience would not be interested in the newspaper (n) …felt there were some delivery issues to households (n) …thought it can directly reach more of the Highland population (p)

4 Contribution to Board Objectives

The development, distribution and promotion of Health Check to “every” household coveredby the NHS Highland area sought to provide further clarity on the strategic direction andambitions of NHS Highland. In particular the need for change and the associated impacts ofchange. The publication actively supports the Boards objectives regarding quality, efficiency,productivity and safety.

Articles included the need to improve the health of the Highland population, and some of thechallenges around reducing health inequalities. There was also a focus on improvingoutcomes for older people through shifting the balance of care in partnership with LApartners across the Highland.

5 Governance Implications

The production and evaluation encompassed many aspects of governance includingdiscussions with staff, patients and public around the content as well as participating in theevaluation. Preparation, production and dissemination was delivered within agreed budget.Within the context of an NHS Highland annual budget of over £600 million the cost of lessthan £20K for a publication of this scale is modest. There needs to be some furtherconsideration, therefore, regarding why there was such adverse reactions (internal) andnegative publicity (external) which seem disproportionate.

3

There was not a budget identified for the Newspaper with costs being met through slippagefrom vacant posts in the Public Relations and Engagement Team, which remain unfilled.

5 Risk Assessment

No explicit risk assessment was undertaken in relation to the publication and disseminationof the Newspaper. However there are significant risks to the delivery of NHS Highland’sstrategic objectives if patients, public, staff and partners are not adequately informed aboutwhy some health services need to change. The absence of adequate communications andengagement represents a significant risk. The newspaper forms one specific element of awider communications and engagement strategy. The specific purpose of the evaluationwas intended to assess the effectiveness of the Newspaper as a communication tool and geta handle on how to shape and balance the content.

6 Impact Assessment

This paper describes the findings of an evaluation on feed-back of NHS HighlandNewspaper. An Equality and Diversity Impact Assessment was not carried out on theNewspaper nor on the evaluation methodology. Arguably this is a short-coming andconsideration should be given to addressing this if future editions are planned.

Having said that the distribution was to “every” household which mitigated against therebeing inequalities including race, disability and gender, faith, sexual orientation and age.There are issues to consider with respect to homelessness.

Provision was made with respect to producing the newspaper in large print or in audioformat, for which there was one request (large print).

Maimie ThompsonHead of Public Relations and Engagement

25 November 2011

Appendix 1

NHS Highland NewspaperHealth Check

Summary and Analysis of Feedback

Report 2011/2012

Produced by theClinical Governance Support Team

November 2011

NHS HIGHLAND NEWSPAPER: HEALTH CHECK

Feedback on the Newspaper

Page 2 of 18

Free-text comments executive summary

The free-text comments provide real value in being able to understand the feedbackfrom the respondents. Across the questions, a number of comments were general andnot specific to the question asked. This summary is to give an overall feel for what therespondents were saying.

Full details of respondent’s answers and comments can be found within the mainbody of the report.

In descending order, the most referred to themes positive (p) and negative (n)

Respondents…

…are concerned about cost of newspaper (n) …found the newspaper was informative and interesting (p) …felt the newspaper was poorly presented, not easy to read and not well written (n) …thought the newspaper was well presented, easy to read and well written (p) …thought it helps raise awareness of NHS issues (p) …felt the target audience would not be interested in the newspaper (n) …felt there were some delivery issues (n) …thought it can directly reach more of the Highland population (p)

In descending order, five most referred to themes for how respondents would like NHSHighland to communicate (question 5)

Through various Media (locally and nationally), such as press, radio and socialmedia

Via email Online through the NHS Highland website and intranet In person through various forms i.e. meetings, walk-rounds, discussion groups, line

management, workshops, open forums etc) Continue with producing the Health Check newspaper



Page 3 of 18

Background

NHS Highland recently produced our own Newspaper: Health Check. This wasdelivered to every household in the areas covered by NHS Highland. As part of theevaluation, feedback on the newspaper was sought from three groups throughoutHighland: NHS Staff, Non-Staff Stakeholders* and Highland Council Staff

*includes Highland HealthVOICES, Argyll & Bute Public Partnership Forum,Community Councils, voluntary and charity groups, carer organisations, PatientsCouncil and Patient Participation Groups

Methodology

Through collaboration with the Clinical Governance Support Team (CGST), feedbackon the newspaper was facilitated in the form of a questionnaire. It was available inboth an electronic format (online through Survey Monkey) and hard copy format.

Quantitative and qualitative feedback was gathered on: awareness of the newspaper,newspaper content and effectiveness as a communication tool.

To gather as much feedback as possible, and depending on respondent group, thequestionnaire was either emailed for completion via a Survey Monkey link, or postedin a hard copy format to the CGST for inclusion in the analysis. Feedback collectionran during September and October 2011.

Other feed-back was received directly back to the Chair and the Chief Executive.This has not been included in this analysis.

Feedback results

The feedback results have been divided into the 3 groups, NHS Staff, Non-StaffStakeholders and Council Staff, and shown on a question by question basis.

Quantitative feedback will show counts and percentages of answers to questions (i.e.yes, no, to some extent etc)

Free-text comments to questions have been split into Positive, Negative, Mixed orNeutral, before themes in the text were identified. A lot of comments contained morethan one theme. The themes shown in this report come under positive or negative,with mixed comments split appropriately.

These comment groups and themes will also be shown in counts and percentageterms. Example comments have been included throughout the report to betterillustrate the feedback.

Suggestions for improvements / changes, taken from the free-text comments, havebeen grouped together. Equality and diversity information gathered in thequestionnaire has not been included in the results.

The number of respondents to each question varies. When interpreting results,please consider the denominator (n) number for that group to help ascertain its value.



Page 4 of 18

Q1. Were you aware of a copy of the newspaper being delivered to your home?

Answer NHS staffNon-Staff

StakeholdersCouncil

StaffTOTAL (N)

Yes 577 (83%) 83 (80%) 17 (43%) 677 (75%)No 177 (17%) 21 (20%) 23 (58%) 221 (25%)

TOTAL (N) 694 (100%) 104 (100%) 40 (100%) 898 (100%)

Q2. Did you read the newspaper?


StakeholdersCouncil

StaffTOTAL (N)

Yes - all of it 271 (41%) 60 (59%) 5 (14%) 336 (42%)Yes - some of it 170 (26%) 16 (16%) 10 (28%) 196 (25%)Yes - justscanned it

116 (18%) 15 (14%) 6 (17%) 137 (17%)

No 68 (10%) 6 (6%) 10 (28%) 84 (11%)Other* 30 (5%) 6 (6%) 5 (14%) 41 (5%)

TOTAL (N) 655 (100%) 103 (100%) 36 (100%) 794 (100%)

*Comments from other:

Theme NHS staffNon-Staff

StakeholdersCouncil

StaffTOTAL (N)

Delivery issues -not delivered /multiple copies

42 (91%) 5 (83%) 6 (86%) 53 (90%)

Onlinenewspaper notopening

4 (9%) 1 (17%) 1 (14%) 6 (10%)

TOTAL (N) 46 (100%) 6 (100%) 7 (100%) 59 (100%)



Page 5 of 18

Q3. If you read the newspaper, overall how would you rate it out of 5? 1 beingvery poor and 5 being very good

N = 551 N = 82 N = 21Average Rating

NHS staffNon-Staff

StakeholdersCouncil Staff

Rating out of 5 3.1 3.5 3.3

Comment NHS staffNon-Staff

StakeholdersCouncil Staff TOTAL (N)

Positive 108 (32%) 17 (49%) 8 (67%) 133 (35%)Negative 177 (53%) 14 (40%) 3 (25%) 194 (51%)Mixed 46 (14%) 2 (6%) 1 (8%) 49 (13%)Neutral 6 (2%) 2 (6%) - 8 (2%)

TOTAL (N) 337 (100%) 35 (100%) 12 (100%) 384 (100%)

Positive comments (as categorised by Question 3 “If you read the newspaper,overall how would you rate it out of 5? 1 being very poor and 5 being very good”)


StakeholdersCouncil

StaffTOTAL (N)

Informative / Interesting 75 (34%) 12 (39%) 3 (21%) 90 (34%)Well presented / easy toread / well written

50 (23%) 10 (26%) 8 (36%) 68 (26%)

Raises awareness ofNHS Issues

38 (17%) 3 (10%) 1 (7%) 42 (16%)

Wide range of issuescovered

24 (11%) 1 (3%) 1 (7%) 26 (10%)

Good form ofcommunication

7 (3%) 1 (3%) 1 (7%) 9 (3%)

Positive aboutnewspaper

7 (3%) 1 (3%) - 8 (3%)

Good article length 5 (2%) 1 (3%) - 6 (2%)Positive image of NHSHighland

5 (2%) - - 5 (2%)

Relevant articles /message

4 (2%) - - 4 (2%)

Engaging the public 3 (1%) 1 (3%) - 4 (2%)Control content /message

1 (1%) 1 (3%) - 2 (1%)

Gives patients’perspective

1 (1%) - - 1 (0%)

TOTAL (N) 220 (100%) 31 (100%) 14 (100%) 265 (100%)

Example comments:

“It explained many aspects of NHS aims and objectives which the general public maynot have been aware of. It was very readable”

“I thought the paper was very informative especially for non-NHS employees. Willperhaps lead to a better understanding of why people do not always need to comeinto hospital to access the best case. Also encouraging people to help reduce waste”



Page 6 of 18

“I think it had a comprehensive mix of stories; explanation; illustrations (both pictorialand diagrams) and articles covering a very wide range of things which describe thework of NHS Highland in both geographic coverage and kinds of work we do”

“Good use of patients experiences…”

“Very clear, low levels of jargon and very informative”

“Professional presentation, easy to read, good insight into current activities in theNHS Highland, interesting to read, and good to see NHS Highland making an effortto communicate…”

Negative comments (as categorised by Question 3 “If you read the newspaper,overall how would you rate it out of 5? 1 being very poor and 5 being very good”)


StakeholdersCouncil

StaffTOTAL (N)

Poor presentation / noteasy to read / not wellwritten

57 (21%) 3 (14%) - 60 (20%)

Information not useful /interesting

43 (15%) 3 (14%) 2 (67%) 48 (16%)

PR exercise 24 (9%) 2 (10%) 1 (33%) 27 (9%)Missed out keymessages

21 (8%) 4 (19%) - 25 (8%)

Cost 23 (9%) - - 23 (8%)Lack of information fromall highland

16 (6%) 2 (10%) - 18 (6%)

Content lacks substance 16 (6%) 2 (10%) - 18 (6%)Too much content 15 (5%) 1 (5%) - 16 (5%)Irrelevant / pointless 16 (6%) - - 16 (5%)Audience not interested 14 (5%) - - 14 (5%)Messages conflict withexperience/reality

13 (5%) - - 13 (4%)

Delivery issues - multiplecopies / none delivered

5 (2%) 1 (5%) - 6 (2%)

Information on pay scales 4 (1%) - - 4 (1%)Information was vague 2 (1%) 1 (5%) - 3 (1%)Waste of time (inproduction)

3 (1%) - - 3 (1%)

No staff participation 3 (1%) - - 3 (1%)Content too general - 2 (10%) - 2 (1%)Information was vague 2 (1%) - - 2 (1%)

TOTAL (N) 278 (100%) 21 (100%) 3 (100%) 302 (100%)

Example comments:

“Its purpose was not clear. If it was to spell out the scale of the problem facingHighland in terms of budget issues, it rather skirted around them”



Page 7 of 18

“It focussed largely on “success " stories. More information on current problem areaswith timescales for their resolution and perhaps how the public could help in thoseareas would improve the publication”

“It was full of photos, which only took a few moments to look at. I did not find theinformation particularly useful or informative – it did not tell me things which I did notalready know!”

“Not very easy to read – I reckon I have above average intelligence and educationand I work in the NHS and it just didn’t grab my attention”

“It tried very hard to put a positive spin on the fact that the NHS will have less moneyto go round, that services are being cut back, that staffing levels are reducing butdespite all that, patient care, delivery of services and quality of care is going toincrease. I find this hard to believe”

“I can't remember what was in it, but it didn't seem very relevant to me or my family.We've also received at least 2 copies of the newspaper so far”

Q4. Have any of your colleagues, patients, family etc mentioned the newspaperto you?


StakeholdersCouncil

StaffTOTAL (N)

Yes 313 (48%) 28 (28%) 3 (8%) 344 (43%)No 342 (52%) 75 (73%) 37 (93%) 454 (57%)

TOTAL (N) 655 (100%) 103 (100%) 40 (100%) 798 (100%)


StakeholdersCouncil

StaffTOTAL (N)

Positive 39 (14%) 8 (29%) 1 (50%) 48 (15%)Negative 196 (69%) 12 (43%) - 208 (66%)Mixed 21 (7%) 1 (4%) 1 (50%) 23 (7%)Neutral 29 (10%) 7 (25%) - 36 (11%)

TOTAL (N) 285 (100%) 28 (100%) 2 (100%) 315 (100%)

Positive comments (as categorised by Question 4 “Have any of your colleagues,patients, family etc mentioned the newspaper to you?”)


StakeholdersCouncil

StaffTOTAL (N)

Positive aboutnewspaper

27 (37%) 6 (55%) 1 (50%) 34 (40%)

Informative / Interesting 26 (36%) 1 (9%) - 27 (31%)Good form ofcommunication

10 (14%) 1 (9%) - 11 (13%)

Raises awareness ofNHS Issues

8 (11%) 1 (9%) 1 (50%) 10 (12%)

Well presented / easy toread / well written

2 (3%) 2 (18%) - 4 (5%)

TOTAL (N) 73 (100%) 11 (100%) 2 (100%) 86 (100%)



Page 8 of 18

Example comments:

“Appreciated being given information about NHS Highland that previously was notshared”

“Positive – found the paper informative and interesting. More aware of what is goingon in the NHS”

“I have heard a few patients and also family members mention the NHS budget cuts,quoting the figures provided in the publication. I think this is really useful, as peoplefeel more involved and informed about THEIR NHS, and take some ownership andresponsibility for it”

“That it was a good idea to be contacted by newspaper and also that it wasinformative”

Negative comments (as categorised by Question 4 “Have any of your colleagues,patients, family etc mentioned the newspaper to you?”)


StakeholdersCouncil

StaffTOTAL (N)

Cost 156 (60%) 4 (27%) - 160 (58%)Audience not interested 21 (8%) 2 (13%) 1 (50%) 24 (9%)Delivery issues -household did not receivecopy

14 (5%) 6 (40%) - 20 (7%)


14 (5%) - - 14 (5%)

PR exercise 9 (3%) 1 (7%) - 10 (4%)Irrelevant / pointless 10 (4%) - - 10 (4%)Waste of time (inproduction)

8 (3%) - - 8 (3%)

Lack of information fromall highland

8 (3%) - - 8 (3%)

Environmentally wasteful 6 (2%) - - 6 (2%)Conflicting messages toreality/experience

4 (2%) 1 (7%) - 5 (2%)

Poor presentation / noteasy to read / not wellwritten

5 (2%) - - 5 (2%)

Form of communication 1 (0%) 1 (7%) 1 (50%) 3 (1%)Information on pay scales 2 (1%) - - 2 (1%)Negative / very negativefeedback

2 (1%) - - 2 (1%)

Missed out keymessages

1 (0%) - - 1 (0%)

TOTAL (N) 261 (100%) 15 (100%) 2 (100%) 278 (100%)



Page 9 of 18

Example comments:

“We asked at the community council and did not receive a single positive response.Everyone thinks the newspaper was a total waste of NHS funds”

“…Those who were NHS staff were concerned at the cost of doing it at and themessage that this sent to the public at a time when NHS were being asked to makecuts…”

“One family member put it straight into the bin. Another family member has yet toreceive the newsletter. I have not received the newspaper yet and the only reason Iknow about it was because I work for the NHS. I had to ask my family if they knewabout the newspaper. No-one has mentioned it to me, neither friends, family orcolleagues”

“Anyone I have spoken to about it thought it was a waste of money considering theeconomic climate at present”

“They feel it is a waste of money that could be spent on more important things withinthe NHS and a lot of households will just put straight into bin without reading!”

Q5. How else would you like NHS Highland to communicate with you?


StakeholdersCouncil

StaffTOTAL (N)

Media (local andnational) – press / radio /social media

83 (23%) 14 (19%) 2 (12%) 99 (22%)

Email 73 (20%) 19 (26%) 5 (29%) 97 (22%)Online - website /intranet etc

47 (13%) 4 (6%) 2 (12%) 53 (12%)

In person - meetings /walk-rounds / discussiongroups / linemanagement /workshops / openforums

44 (12%) 6 (8%) - 50 (11%)

Continue with HealthCheck newspaper

31 (9%) 11 (15%) 4 (24%) 46 (10%)

All forms of Informationin other areas - NHSHsites / council buildings /libraries / supermarkets /post office

15 (4%) 5 (7%) - 20 (4%)

Via GP Practice -newspaper / newsletter /appointments / TVscreens in waiting rooms

14 (4%) 2 (3%) 1 (6%) 17 (4%)

Open / honestcommunication

13 (4%) - - 13 (3%)

Newsletters / informationupdate sheets

9 (3%) - - 9 (2%)



Page 10 of 18

Coherent/efficientcommunications plan

5 (1%) 2 (3%) 1 (6%) 8 (2%)

Improve / develop /utilise existingcommunication systems

7 (2%) - - 7 (2%)

Leaflets / posters 3 (1%) 2 (3%) 1 (6%) 6 (1%)Patient representativegroups

- 5 (7%) - 5 (1%)

Use more cost-effectivemethods

5 (1%) - - 5 (1%)

Other 5 (1%) - - 5 (1%)Direct to mobile device 3 (1%) 1 (1%) - 4 (1%)Information in Pay slip 3 (1%) - - 3 (1%)Mail shots - 1 (1%) 1 (6%) 2 (0%)

TOTAL (N) 360 (100%) 72 (100%) 17 (100%) 449 (100%)

Q6. Has the newspaper added to your knowledge about NHS Highland?


StakeholdersCouncil

StaffTOTAL (N)

To a greatextent

6 (1%) 9 (10%) 1 (4%) 16 (2%)

To some extent 176 (31%) 45 (48%) 12 (45%) 233 (33%)Neutral 87 (15%) 11 (12%) 3 (11%) 101 (14%)Not really 172 (30%) 18 (20%) 3 (11%) 203 (29%)Not at all 128 (23%) 10 (11%) 8 (30%) 146 (21%)

TOTAL (N) 569 (100%) 93 (100%) 27 (100%) 699 (100%)

Q7. Which article(s) / item(s) were of most interest to you?


StakeholdersCouncil

StaffTOTAL (N)

Patient Stories 180 (46%) 52 (69%) 9 (56%) 241 (51%)Key Facts 174 (44%) 36 (49%) 9 (56%) 219 (46%)Service Re-design 174 (44%) 39 (51%) 6 (38%) 219 (46%)Front Page(message from GarryCoutts (Chair)

95 (24%) 28 (38%) 4 (25%) 127 (27%)

Smaller Items 91 (23%) 29 (39%) 6 (38%) 126 (26%)Article by ChiefExecutive

80 (20%) 25 (34%) 3 (19%) 108 (23%)

Article by MedicalDirector

76 (19%) 24 (32%) 7 (44%) 107 (22%)

Graphs 73 (19%) 15 (20%) 7 (44%) 95 (20%)Back Page (how toget in touch)

58 (15%) 24 (32%) 4 (25%) 86 (18%)

Pictures andCaptions

65 (17%) 16 (22%) 2 (13%) 83 (17%)

TOTAL (N) 395 (100%) 75 (100%) 16 (100%) 476 (100%)



Page 11 of 18


StakeholdersCouncil

StaffTOTAL (N)

Positive 27 (23%) 6 (22%) 2 (50%) 33 (22%)Negative 42 (36%) 10 (37%) 1 (25%) 53 (36%)Mixed 1 (1%) 1 (4%) - 2 (1%)Neutral 46 (40%) 10 (37%) 1 (25%) 59 (40%)

TOTAL (N) 116 (100%) 27 (100%) 4 (100%) 147 (100%)

Positive comments (as categorised by Question 7 “Which article(s) / item(s) were ofmost interest to you?”)


StakeholdersCouncil

StaffTOTAL (N)

All interesting /informative

6 (22%) 4 (40%) 1 (50%) 11 (28%)

Advice on drug guidance 4 (14%) 1 (10%) - 5 (13%)Pay scales information 4 (14%) - - 4 (10%)Key facts / graphics 2 (7%) 1 (10%) 1 (50%) 4 (10%)Patient stories 1 (4%) 2 (20%) - 3 (8%)Wide range of issues 2 (7%) - - 2 (5%)Did not knowtelemedicine already inuse in Highland

1 (4%) 1 (10%) - 2 (5%)

Service re-designinformation interesting

1 (4%) 1 (10%) - 2 (5%)

Awareness of howchanges will affect staff

1 (4%) - - 1 (3%)

Good article ondemographic change

1 (4%) - - 1 (3%)

Good for public to seeNHSH leads and who tocontact

1 (4%) - - 1 (3%)

Good to put a GP on thefront page

1 (4%) - - 1 (3%)

Honesty about financialsituation

1 (4%) - - 1 (3%)

Mobile dialysis unit articleinteresting/positive

1 (4%) - - 1 (3%)

Positive presentation ofNHS Highland

1 (4%) - - 1 (3%)

TOTAL (N) 28 (100%) 10 (100%) 2 (100%) 40 (100%)

Example comments:

“I particularly liked the patient stories. Really important for people to understand thegood that the NHS is doing, as the larger scale publications e.g. newspapers veryfrequently only print negative stories!

“Prescribing waste article was extremely useful in relaying message to patients”



Page 12 of 18

“The breakdown on staff in NHSH was interesting and pay comparisons. The wastein medicines picture will hopefully have an impact”

“The key facts use of graphics was excellent - very visual and easily understood.Patient stories always help put technical changes into a personal perspective”

“New drug guidance - a good idea, not being carried out generally enough…”

“Pictures and graphics - sometimes plain text is boring and what you really need iscolourful pictures to draw you to a news story. Nice to hear patient stories as well”

Negative comments (as categorised by Question 7 “Which article(s) / item(s) wereof most interest to you?”)


StakeholdersCouncil

StaffTOTAL (N)

Poor presentation / Noteasy to read / Not wellwritten

11 (24%) 2 (17%) 1 (100%) 14 (24%)

No new / interestinginformation

7 (17%) - - 7 (13%)


4 (10%) 2 (17%) - 6 (11%)

Messages conflict withexperience/reality

4 (10%) - - 4 (7%)

Cost 3 (7%) 1 (8%) - 4 (7%)Pay scales information 4 (10%) - - 4 (7%)PR exercise 1 (2%) 2 (17%) - 3 (6%)No staff participation 3 - - 3 (6%)Information was vague 1 (2%) 1 (8%) - 2 (4%)Delivery issues -household did not receivecopy

- 1 (8%) - 1 (2%)

Lack of information fromall highland

- 1 (8%) - 1 (2%)

Negative aboutnewspaper

- 1 (8%) - 1 (2%)

Other better forms ofcommunication

- 1 (8%) - 1 (2%)

Information alreadyavailable

1 (2%) - - 1 (2%)

Irrelevant / pointless 1 (2%) - - 1 (2%)Too much content 1 (2%) - - 1 (2%)Waste of time (inproduction)

1 (2%) - - 1 (2%)

TOTAL (N) 42 (100%) 12 (100%) 1 (100%) 55 (100%)



Page 13 of 18

Example comments:

“All were of interest but I was left feeling unsatisfied by all of them because the basicstructure of why the paper was being issued was unresolved. Some of the pictureswere a bit odd…”

“Waste of time and especially money”

“There was nothing in the paper I would say was particularly interesting to themajority of people”

“I think that this was a very expensive PR exercise which said very little”

Q8. Do you think having a newspaper delivered to your household is aneffective way to communicate with Highland residents about NHS Highland?


StakeholdersCouncil

StaffTOTAL (N)

To a greatextent

86 (15%) 24 (24%) 4 (13%) 114 (16%)

To some extent 180 (31%) 42 (44%) 11 (36%) 233 (33%)Neutral 88 (15%) 14 (14% 3 (10%) 105 (15%)Not really 113 (19%) 8 (8%) 7 (23%) 128 (18%)Not at all 114 (20%) 10 (10%) 6 (19%) 130 (18%)

TOTAL (N) 581 (100%) 98 (100%) 31 (100%) 710 (100%)


StakeholdersCouncil

StaffTOTAL (N)

Positive 52 (17%) 14 (25%) 3 (23%) 69 (19%)Negative 201 (67%) 29 (53%) 8 (62%) 238 (64%)Mixed 40 (13%) 7 (13%) - 47 (13%)Neutral 9 (3%) 5 (9%) 2 (16%) 16 (4%)

TOTAL (N) 302 (100%) 55 (100%) 13 (100%) 370 (100%)



Page 14 of 18

Positive comments (as categorised by Question 8 “Do you think having anewspaper delivered to your household is an effective way to communicate withHighland residents about NHS Highland?”)


StakeholdersCouncil

StaffTOTAL (N)

Direct information: Reachmore of population

25 (29%) 5 (36%) 2 (100%) 32 (32%)

Raise awareness of NHSissues

29 (34%) 2 (14%) - 31 (30%)

Accessible to all 11 (13%) 2 (14%) 13 (13%)Good form ofcommunication

10 (12%) - - 10 (10%)

Control themessage/content

1 (1%) 2 (14%) - 3 (3%)

Encouragesfeedback/involvement

2 (2%) 1 (7%) - 3 (3%)

Read at convenience 1 (1%) 1 (7%) - 2 (2%)Wide range of issuescovered

1 (1%) 1 (7%) - 2 (2%)

Useful as a one-off 2 (2%) - - 2 (2%)Positive 2 (2%) - - 2 (2%)Cost effective 1 (1%) - - 1 (1%)Well presented / easy toread / well written

1 (1%) - - 1 (1%)

TOTAL (N) 86 (100%) 14 (100%) 2 (100%) 102 (100%)

Example comments:

“It came in to EVERY household. It was a new idea. The NHS is important toeveryone, and I think people want to know what is happening – current health issues,problems and exciting innovative ideas”

“Not everyone has access to computers, particularly the more senior members ofsociety, and leaflets/letters are easily overlooked. Ease of access is very important,and I think most folk will teak the time to at least scan through a newspapertype/sized mail-drop”

“People will experience NHS Highland at some point whether directly or indirectly.The paper is a good way to keep the public informed of what we hope or haveachieved, and also introduces staff and their role. This may play a part in reducinganxiety if they do have to stay in hospital for a period of time”

“In a lot of cases it will be the householder’s only means of knowing what NHSH isabout”

“Some people may not like it, but it is a physical thing, so even if they only glance atthe front page there is an opportunity for something of interest to catch their eye andthey may read further”

“Definitely, what better means of ensuring direct contact to as most people aspossible in the area”



Page 15 of 18

Negative comments (as categorised by Question 8 “Do you think having anewspaper delivered to your household is an effective way to communicate withHighland residents about NHS Highland?”)


StakeholdersCouncil

StaffTOTAL (N)

Cost 60 (32%) 8 (27%) 3 (38%) 71 (32%)Audience not interested 64 (35%) 5 (17%) - 69 (31%)Treated as junk mail 19 (10%) 5 (17%) 2 (25%) 26 (12%)Delivery problems -multiple copies / nonedelivered

16 (9%) 6 (20%) 3 (38%) 25 (11%)

PR exercise 8 (4%) - - 8 (4%)Information not useful /interesting

4 (2%) 1 (3%) - 5 (2%)


2 (1%) 1 (3%) - 3 (1%)

Environmentally wasteful 3 (2%) - - 3 (1%)Too much content 1 (1%) 1 (3%) - 2 (1%)Other better forms ofcommunication

1 (1%) 1 (3%) - 2 (1%)

Information was vague 2 (1%) - - 2 (1%)Information alreadyavailable

- 2 (7%) - 2 (1%)

Waste of time (inproduction)

2 (1%) - - 2 (1%)

No staff participation 1 (1%) - - 1 (0%)Irrelevant / pointless 1 (1%) - - 1 (0%)Poor presentation / Noteasy to read / Not wellwritten

1 (1%) - - 1 (0%)

TOTAL (N) 185 (100%) 30 (100%) 8 (100%) 223 (100%)

Example comments:

“Lots of people might think it is junk mail and bin it without looking at it”

“Much of the information was out of date because it was available elsewhere”

“Would prefer email or web link, much more cost effective - if I want to print it I coulddo so at my own expense not that of the NHS”

“Most will not be read and just put into the bin with other junk mail. Could be better tohave them on the table of GP waiting rooms instead”

“I doubt that the people you want to reach will read the paper”

“Newspaper was never delivered to my home I had to follow your link. It alsoappears to be an expensive exercise during a time of austerity. I remainunconvinced that it provides value for money”



Page 16 of 18

Q9. The cost to write, print and distribute was 14p per household. With this inmind, do you think NHS Highland should publish further issues?


StakeholdersCouncil

StaffTOTAL (N)

Yes 142 (24%) 45 (46%) 8 (26%) 465 (47%)Unsure 171 (29%) 33 (33%) 11 (36%) 215 (22%)No 279 (47%) 20 (21%) 12 (39%) 311 (31%)

TOTAL (N) 592 (100%) 98 (100%) 31 (100%) 991 (100%)


StakeholdersCouncil

StaffTOTAL (N)

Positive 56 (17%) 19 (29%) 1 (8%) 76 (18%)Negative 188 (35%) 22 (33%) 9 (69%) 219 (53%)Mixed 48 (14%) 14 (26%) 2 (15%) 64 (15%)Neutral 45 (13%) 11 (17%) 1 (8%) 57 (14%)

TOTAL (N) 337 (100%) 66 (100%) 13 (100%) 416 (100%)

Positive comments (as categorised by Question 9 “The cost to write, print anddistribute was 14p per household. With this in mind, do you think NHS Highlandshould publish further issues?”)


StakeholdersCouncil

StaffTOTAL (N)

Raising awareness ofNHS issues

22 (38%) 4 (18%) - 26 (32%)

Direct information: Reachmore of population

9 (16%) 4 (18%) - 13 (16%)

Yes - 11 (50%) 1 (100%) 12 (15%)Good form ofcommunication

8 (14%) 1 (5%) - 9 (11%)

Cost effective 9 (16%) - - 9 (11%)Encouragesfeedback/involvement

5 (8%) - - 5 (6%)

Control the message /content

3 (5%) - - 3 (4%)

Interesting andinformative

1 (4%) 1 (5%) - 2 (2%)

Availability in other areas - 1 (5%) - 1 (1%)Wide range of issuescovered

1 (4%) - - 1 (1%)

TOTAL (N) 58 (100%) 22 (100%) 1 (100%) 81 (100%)

Example comments:

“It is good to inform and educate and ultimately can enhance public responsibility fortheir own health to an extent. I think highlighting things like the cost of the NHS fromDNAs can be helpful, for example”



Page 17 of 18

“Not everyone is confident or has access to computers to receive communicationsthrough emails etc therefore, you are guaranteed that you are communicating witheveryone sending out hard copies to every household. I can appreciate thetimescale this must take to make this possible but, I feel this works”

“I think it allows communication with the general population in a way that is costeffective”

“Not necessarily every year, but whenever significant information to give out. Thinklocal (CHP area wide) should be at least each year”

“Good value for money as way of getting information to everyone in region”

Negative comments (as categorised by Question 9 “The cost to write, print anddistribute was 14p per household. With this in mind, do you think NHS Highlandshould publish further issues?”)


StakeholdersCouncil

StaffTOTAL (N)

Cost 169 (72%) 16 (64%) 4 (33%) 189 (69%)Audience not interested 24 (10%) 3 (12%) 2 (17%) 29 (11%)Delivery problems -multiple copies / nonedelivered

11 (5%) - - 11 (4%)


8 (3%) 2 (8%) - 10 (4%)

Other better forms ofcommunication

3 (1%) 1 (4%) 5 (31%) 9 (3%)

PR exercise 6 (3%) - 1 (8%) 7 (3%)Poor presentation / Noteasy to read / Not wellwritten

4 (2%) - - 4 (1%)

Messages conflict withexperience/reality

1 (0%) 2 (8%) - 3 (1%)

Environmentally wasteful 3 (1%) - - 3 (1%)Irrelevant / pointless 2 (1%) - - 2 (1%)Treated as junk mail 2 (1%) - - 2 (1%)Information alreadyavailable

- 1 (4%) - 1 (0%)

Information was vague 1 (0%) - - 1 (0%)Waste of time (inproduction)

1 (0%) - - 1 (0%)

TOTAL (N) 235 (100%) 25 (100%) 12 (100%) 272 (100%)

Example comments:

“That adds up to a large sum of money, which I am sure could have been less withless colour photos. The magazine was akin to a comic”

“I would rather the money was spent on direct patient care. It is a waste of time,paper, and resources”



Page 18 of 18

“Delivery is at random, one day I received 1 copy, the next day 3 copies. Waste ofpaper!”

“Not enough people read it to give value for money”

“…Generally when people are well, they have little interest in NHS, but when they ora member or their family or friend is ill they develop an interest. We did not receivethis publication in my home and I would have read it fully. Whilst 14p is cheap perhousehold, I am afraid it is a waste of time and money…”

“Money could be best spent elsewhere. Many would have been dumped withoutreading”

“Not interesting after first couple of articles people will lose interest and bin it”

Suggestions from respondents for improvements / changes

The following suggestions have been identified from the free-text comments and putinto themes. This includes suggestions from across the feedback groups.

Communicate via other forms – i.e. email / GPs / online / staff / socialmedia / jointly with other services

Include more information and communicate other issues – i.e. healthyliving / how to use NHS services / local groups / staff / executive salaries /working with other services / patient feedback / bed shortages / job cuts /waiting lists / initiatives / service reviews / problem areas / DNAs / dentistry /wheelchair services / good practice / staff contribution / patient safety /complaints handling / waiting times / board issues

Communicate via an existing media – i.e. press / radio / TV Change presentation of newspaper – i.e. Better use of space / shorter

articles / layout / easier to understand / black and white Utilise other NHS sites for newspaper – i.e. hospitals / GP practices Issuing of the newspaper – i.e. request copies / register interest / 6-monthly

/ summary issue / twice a year / annually / quarterly School NHS letter / newspaper to communicate with younger generation Provide contact details for services Encourage more feedback / involvement Distinguish from unsolicited / junk mail Survey after a few issues Use advertising space to fund Target mailing to areas where there are issues

5.1 a Board Evaluation of Newspaper - NHS Highland€¦ · As part of the evaluation, feedback was...

Documents

Transcript of 5.1 a Board Evaluation of Newspaper - NHS Highland€¦ · As part of the evaluation, feedback was...