CAA 2020 Patient Experience Survey Report

`

2020 CAA Patient Experience Survey Final Report

Prepared for the Council of Ambulance Authorities Ipsos reference 20-010831-01

Contacts:

Julia Knapp Julia.knapp@ipsos.com Ph: 03 9946 0805

Calum Ravesi calum.ravesi@ipsos.com Ph: 03 9946 0855

Ipsos Level 2, Building 1, 658 Church Street Richmond VIC 3121

© 2020 Ipsos

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

Contents Contents

3

Executive Summary Key findings

4 4

1

Research context 1.1 Research context and objectives

8 8

2

Research design 2.1 Research methodology 2.2 How to interpret this report 2.3 Significance Testing 2.4 Response Summary 2.5 Description of survey sample

9 9 10 11 11 12

3

Findings 3.1 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3

15 15 18 18 22 26

Overall satisfaction Patient experience Calling the Ambulance Service Waiting for the ambulance Provision of care

Appendix Appendix A: Patient Survey Questionnaire Appendix B: Detailed tables

34 34 38

Executive Summary Between June and August 2020 in Australia and Papua New Guinea, and during May 2020 in New Zealand, service members surveyed people who had a recent experience with a participating ambulance service. The survey was the fourth wave of the study since the survey transitioned to an ‘experience’ model questionnaire and the first wave that Papua New Guinea Ambulance Service has participated. Australian service members used a standardised questionnaire, while New Zealand and Papua New Guinea services use a slightly modified survey tool. Where comparable, results from the St John New Zealand Ambulance service and Wellington Free Ambulance in New Zealand have been included in this report. Differences in the methodology employed in Papua New Guinea meant that no meaningful comparisons could be made between this service and the Australian and New Zealand results.

In Australia, the survey was conducted via a mail-out invitation. The invitation included a hardcopy questionnaire that recipients could complete and return using the reply-paid envelope provided. Also included in the invitation was an online link to the survey so that recipients could complete the survey online. The New Zealand methodology differed in that they invited patients to participate via an SMS that contained a link to complete the survey.

In Papua New Guinea, the survey was conducted in-person in the native language of the patient, results were then translated back to English for the purposes of analysis.

Key findings

Overall Satisfaction

In 2020, 98% of Australian service users were satisfied with their last experience using their local ambulance service.

•

1

Patient experience in 2020 remained overwhelmingly positive amongst Australian Ambulance service users. The proportion of patients that reported being ‘very satisfied’ increased significantly1 from 82% in 2019 to 85% in 2020.

For details on how significant testing was conducted and please see section 2.3

•

Four of the eight Australian services demonstrated an increase in NET Satisfaction. This increase was statistically significant in Victoria.

•

There was little disparity between Australian service providers: all services recorded a NET Satisfaction score of between 97% and 99%.

•

When comparing St John and Wellington Free Ambulance Services those respondents in Wellington (92%) were significantly more likely to report being ‘very satisfied’ compared to St John (87%) services.

•

In New Zealand, 88% of respondents reported they were ‘very satisfied’ with their last experience using the ambulance service whilst 9% reported being ‘satisfied’, this added up to a NET Satisfaction score of 97% - one percentage point lower than Australia.

•

Over nine-in-ten (94%) of respondents in Papua New Guinea reported being ‘very satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’ with their last experience.

Calls to the ambulance service In Australia, 66% of respondents were connected quicker than they expected and 94% found the call taker to be helpful & reassuring.

•

The high proportion of patients reporting positive experiences with call takers was maintained in 2020. The number of respondents stating that the time they waited to be connected to the ambulance service was quicker than they expected and that the call taker was helpful and reassuring was consistent with previous years.

•

In New Zealand, 92% of respondents found the call handler to be ‘very helpful and reassuring’ or ‘helpful and reassuring’. Whilst this represents that an overwhelming majority of patients have positive experiences with call handlers, the figure is a 3% decrease when compared to 2019.

•

In Australia, older patients reported more positive experiences when calling the ambulance service. Patients aged 51 years and above were significantly more likely to respond that they were connected ‘quicker than expected’ and that the call handler was ‘helpful’ than those aged 50 years and under.

Waiting for an ambulance 64% of Australian service users felt the length of time they waited for the ambulance to arrive was shorter than they thought it would be.

•

Australia-wide, there was a significant increase in users’ satisfaction with waiting times in 2020. Of all services, QLD reported the highest increase in wait time satisfaction with 64% reporting that the ambulance arrival was ‘much quicker’ or ‘a little quicker’ than they would have expected, up from 52% in 2019.

•

Victorian users reported the most positive experiences when it came to ambulance wait time, with 7 in 10 (70%) users reporting their ambulance arrived quicker than expected.

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

•

Results remained unchanged in New Zealand: this amounted to three-in-five respondents (58%) describing the length of time waited for the ambulance to arrive as quicker than they thought it would for the fourth straight year.

•

Papua New Guinea recorded similar experiences to both Australia and New Zealand regarding ambulance wait times, 63% reported the ambulance arrived ‘much quicker’ or ‘a little quicker’ than they expected.

•

As was the case in previous years, older patients reported a significantly more positive experience with the time they waited for an ambulance compared to younger patients.

•

What respondents deemed a reasonable wait time increased to 17 minutes in 2020. The time deemed reasonable to wait for an ambulance ranged from 15 minutes in Australian Capital Territory to 22 minutes in Tasmania

Provision of care 98% of Australian service users reported that the overall level of care provided by the paramedics was ‘good’ or ‘very good’.

•

For the fourth consecutive year experiences with the level of care provided by the ambulance paramedics were very positive. Over nine-in-ten Australian respondents (91%) said the care received was ‘very good’, this represented a significant increase when compared to 2019 (88%).

•

Results indicate that a high standard of care is consistently provided in each State and Territory in Australia. All services across each year of the study have recorded between 94% and 99% as a proportion of respondents rating their level of care as ‘good’ or ‘very good’.

•

Experiences of care in Papua New Guinea were overwhelmingly positive, 94% reported the care they received as ‘Very good’ or ‘good’.

95% of Australian service users reported that they had a ‘very high’ or ‘high’ level of confidence in the ambulance staff and their ability to provide quality care and treatment.

•

The proportion of Australian service users reporting having a high level of confidence was increased significantly in 2020, up from 93% in 2019.

•

There was little disparity when comparing Australian states. All services recorded a NET Confidence score of between 93% and 95%.

•

The proportion of New Zealand services users reporting confidence in the service staff decreased in 2020, down from 99% in 2019 to 97% in 2020.

•

Older service users reported significantly greater levels of confidence in ambulance service staff than younger users.

95% of Australian service users reported that ambulance service staff provided a ‘very clear’ or ‘reasonably clear’ explanation of their condition and reasons for treatment.

•

As was the case in previous years, 95% of Australians reported receiving a ‘very clear’ or ‘reasonably clear’ explanation of their condition and reasons for treatment. Of all services, patients in QLD (98%) reported the highest positive response to this question in 2020.

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

•

New Zealand results remained consistent in 2020 with 95% reporting they received a ‘very clear’ or ‘reasonably clear’ explanation.

96% of Australian service users reported that, all things considered, they were comfortable during their ambulance journey.

•

The comfort during the ambulance journey reported by Australian service users remained consisted with 2019 findings with little disparity between the results for each of the state services.

•

As with previous years, 95% of New Zealand service users rated their level of comfort during the journey as ‘very comfortable’ or ‘comfortable’.

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

1 Research context 1.1 Research context and objectives The Council of Ambulance Authorities (CAA) represents the eleven statutory ambulance services across Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea. CAA represents a unified voice for the pre-hospital sector working to respond to changing community needs with patientcentred practices.

The CAA has administered the Patient Experience Survey since 2002 in Australia and 2007 in New Zealand. This is the first iteration of the study in Papua New Guinea. The Survey is used to monitor patient experience in order to identify the quality of ambulance services, as reported by recent service users, following the re-design of the survey in 2017. This information helps the CAA and its members to determine what did and did not occur as part of a patient’s ambulance experience and identify aspects of service delivery that could be improved.

Patients, or their carers, are asked to rank their satisfaction with ambulance services and treatment, including telephone assistance, timeliness of response, treatment received, competency of staff, journey comfort and overall satisfaction.

In Australia, the survey is conducted as a mailout, in New Zealand via SMS and in Papua New Guinea it is conducted in-person. The survey is administered to a sample of patients who have been transported by services in an emergency or urgent context. Individual ambulance services in each state are responsible for data collection.

20-010831-01 Ambulance Experience Reporting 8

2 Research design 2.1 Research methodology The CAA developed a core set of questions for the patient experience survey. Services were instructed not to modify the questions (except to update with locally relevant language, such as ‘paramedic’ or ‘ambulance officer’). The questionnaire is included as an appendix to this report. Services were also able to add any additional questions at the end of the survey.

Services were responsible for finalising the formatting of the questionnaire (e.g. adding logos or any additional graphic work). The CAA provided an example cover letter which services could update with their own information.

Services were then responsible for randomly drawing a sample of n=1,300 Code 1 and Code 2 patients to send the sample to. A definition of Code 1 and Code 2 is provided below.

Emergency incidents

Urgent incidents

Count the number of Code 1 incidents, defined as emergency events requiring one or more immediate ambulance responses under lights and sirens where the incident is potentially life threatening.

Count the number of Code 2 incidents, defined as urgent incidents requiring an undelayed response by one or more ambulances without warning devices, with arrival desirable within 30 minutes.

The survey was printed and mailed by all services within Australia. Unlike previous years, participants were given two options to complete the survey: either via the hardcopy questionnaire provided in the survey pack or, for the first time, via an online survey link2. This minor change in methodology was made in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent restrictions. It was determined that by providing this option this would allow recipients of the survey pack to complete the questionnaire without having to leave their homes to return a completed hardcopy survey. In New Zealand, services conduct the survey using a different approach. Sampled patients are sent an SMS invitation that allows them to complete the survey online over their mobile device. In Papua New Guinea the survey was conducted in-person in the native language of the patient, results were then translated back to English for the purposes of analysis. The fieldwork period differed amongst the services, all responses within Australia and Papua New Guinea were received between June and August 2020. New Zealand data collection methods differ in that surveys are run throughout the year.

For the sake of reporting a robust sample size, multiple months of New Zealand survey data has been included in this report.

Services were responsible for conducting data entry into a spreadsheet template provided by the CAA. All spreadsheet data was then delivered to Ipsos for analysis and reporting.

2

Not all Australian services provided an online link in the survey invitation. Of the eight participating services six utilised this approach.

20-010831-01 Ambulance Experience Reporting 9

Responses that did not indicate if they were the ‘patient’ or ‘relative/carer of the patient’ were removed from the survey and were therefore not included in response rate calculations.

2.2 How to interpret this report The following report details findings for Patient Experience surveys completed in 2020.

Surveys that were received that did not indicate whether the respondent was the ‘the patient that was transported’ or ‘a relative, or carer of the patient’ (Q1) were excluded from the survey.

All percentages have been reported excluding any ‘Don’t know’, ‘Can’t recall’ and ‘Not Applicable’ answers, where these exist.

Questions compare 2020 results with those collected in 2019. ‘Overall Satisfaction’ (Q10) data is provided on a time series chart which documents the ‘NET Satisfied’ figure over time since 2015. Statistically significant differences by other demographics (age, gender, usage of ambulance service, person who completed the survey) are also noted. As with previous iterations of the report, ‘NET Positive’ and ‘NET Negative’ scores (e.g. Q2, NET quicker and NET slower) are reported consistently with the manner that ‘NET Satisfied’ and ‘NET Dissatisfied’ have been reported in previous waves of the study.

To better represent the total patient population of each state and territory the Australian and New Zealand Overall figures have been weighted according to recent Road and Air Patient incident data. Using this population data, the results of services were weighted up or down to reflect the population that used a service. This process is consistent with that applied to previous reports. Demographic data has not been weighted. No weighting was applied Papua New Guinea results.

All questions are reported through categorical tables and charts for 2020 results, displaying results for each service and at the overall Australia and New Zealand level. Statistically significant differences within countries (i.e. between states in Australia and services in New Zealand) as well as any differences between countries (i.e. Australia vs. New Zealand) are not displayed in charts but have been noted in the commentary. Similarly, state level results where compared against the Australian average and where significant differences where observed these were discussed. However, very few significant differences emerged, and results were largely consistent across key variables, so few differences have been noted.

Please see example below of how to interpret the charts.

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

2.3 Significance Testing Tests of significance were conducted at a national level between key groups of interest (e.g. age and gender) at the 95% confidence level and are reported where appropriate. A ‘significant difference’ means that we can be 95% confident that the difference observed between the two samples reflects a true difference in the population of interest and is not a result of chance.

The measure of certainty we have in a result is determined by the size of the sample relative to the population. Therefore it is not just the incremental differences in results that are analysed when conducting significance testing. Throughout this report results are referred to as significant despite other results having a greater difference in positive score. This can be attributed to the sample size of the results being compared. Where significance testing has occurred between pairs such as male vs. female, this has been undertaken as independentsamples t-tests. Such a test is ideal for multiple comparisons as it reduces the likelihood of displaying a significant difference where one does not exist.

Where significant differences have been observed these are detailed in the commentary of this report. Such descriptions are not value judgements on the importance of the difference.

The reader is encouraged to make a judgement as to whether the differences are ‘meaningful’ or not.

2.4 Response Summary Table 1 Response rates 2017-2020 2017

2018

2019

Response Rate

Response Rate

Response Rate

Response Rate

Total responses

Victoria Tasmania New South Wales Australian Capital Territory Queensland Western Australia Northern Territory South Australia

36% 33% 31%

41% 34% 30%

41% 31% 30%

26% 41% 28%

339 528 365

3.1% 2.3% 2.7%

29% 21% 25% 13% 28%

30% 28% 19% 12% 20%

21% 21% 9% 23%

29% 29% 19% 13% 29%

379 382 245 165 373

2.8% 2.7% 3.4% 4.4% 2.8%

Australia Total

32%

28%

25%

27%

2776

1.0%

St John Wellington

-

-

-

-

1256 428

-

New Zealand Total

-

-

-

-

1684

-

Papua New Guinea

-

-

-

-

65

-

24%

2020 Confidence Interval (+/-)

* Australian response rates assume effective mail-out size n=1300. Confidence interval data based on incidence data provided by CAA.

Response rates for the 2020 survey ranged between 13% and 41%, eventuating in a response rate of 27% in across Australia. This represented a slight increase on the response rate

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

recorded in 2019 of 25%. These rates were calculated assuming an effective mail-out size of 1,300.

A 95% confidence interval is included in the table, this denotes a range of values that you can be 95% certain contains the true mean of the population. For example, if a service has a confidence interval of 3%, we can be 95% confident that the true measure if we were to survey an entire population would fall within 3% of the figure reported. These values are derived by calculating the size of the sample in relation to the Road and Air Patient incident data.

2.5 Description of survey sample Responses relating to patient demography, person completing the survey and frequency of usage for 2020 are outlined below. Demographic data is presented at a National level and is unweighted. A

Figure 1. Gender

Base n (Australia) = 2705; (New Zealand) = 1660 (Papua New Guinea) = 65 (excludes ‘missing’ and ‘other’ responses)

In both the Australian and New Zealand samples, more females participated in the survey than males (52% females compared to 48% males in Australia and 55% females versus 45% males in New Zealand). This differed in Papua New Guinea, where 51% of respondents were male and 49% female.

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

Figure 2. Age

Base n (Australia) = 2710; (New Zealand) = 1643 (excludes ‘missing’)

Across both Australia (84%) and New Zealand (78%) the majority of respondents were aged over 50. Service users aged 50 or under made up a total of 15% in Australia and 23% in New Zealand. Respondents aged between 71 to 80 years accounted for the highest proportion of total respondents in both Australia (27%) and New Zealand (24%).

The age composition varied slightly between services; Victoria, New South Wales, Tasmania and South Australia having the oldest profiles with at least 85% of their respondents being made up of service users aged 51 years and above. In comparison, the Northern Territory (26%), Queensland, and the Australian Capital Territory had a larger proportion of younger users aged 50 years or younger of their services (both with 22%). Papua New Guinea tended to be younger with the majority under 50 years of age (88%) and only 12% making up those patients aged 50 years and over.

Figure 3. Person completing the survey

1. Is the person completing the survey? Base n (Australia) = 2776; (New Zealand) = 1684; (Papua New Guinea) = 65 (excludes ‘missing’)

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

There were differences observed between Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea in terms of the person completing the survey. In Australia, over a quarter of surveys (27%) were completed by a relative or carer of the patient, compared to 15% in New Zealand. In Papua New Guinea, over half of respondents (58%) were carers or relatives of the patient compared to 42% who were the patient that was transported. The proportion of carers/patients in Australia and New Zealand has remained consistent for the previous three years of the study.

The breakdown of who completed the survey was consistent between services within both Australia and New Zealand.

Figure 4. Frequency of usage in the last 12 months

14. How many times have you (the patient) used the Ambulance Service in the last 12 months? Base n (Australia) = 2689; (Papua New Guinea) = 65 (excludes ‘missing’)

In Australia, almost half of respondents reported using the ambulance service once in the last 12 months (49%), with a further 45% using it ‘between two and five times. The remaining 6% indicated they had used the ambulance service ‘more than five times’ in the last year.

The findings varied between state services, those respondents in New South Wales (55%) and South Australia (50%). were significantly more likely to say they had used the service between two to five times in the last 12 months. In comparison, those in Queensland were significantly more likely to have used the ambulance service more than five times (12%) than any other services.

In Papua New Guinea, 43% of respondents reported using the ambulance service once in the past 12 months, while a third of respondents (31%) used the service between 2-5 times in the preceding year.

This question was not asked in New Zealand.

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

3 Findings 3.1 Overall satisfaction Table 2. Overall satisfaction (Q10) – All Services (2020)

Victoria New South Wales Queensland Western Australia Tasmania Northern Territory Australian Capital Territory South Australia AUS OVERALL SJNZ WNZ NZ OVERALL PNG OVERALL

Satisfied

Neither satisfied, nor dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

NET SATISFIED

NET DISSATISFIED

87% 79% 87% 86% 86% 84%

12% 17% 12% 11% 12% 13%

0% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2%

0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1%

0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1%

99% 97% 98% 97% 98% 97%

0% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1%

86%

12%

1%

0%

1%

98%

1%

87% 85% 87% 92% 88% 43%

12% 13% 10% 6% 9% 51%

0% 1% 1% 2% 1% 5%

1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0%

0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 2%

99% 98% 97% 98% 97% 94%

1% 1% 2% 0% 2% 2%

Very Satisfied

Base n (Australia) = 2719; (New Zealand) = 1638, (Papua New Guinea) n= 65 (excludes ‘missing’)

As with previous waves of the study, overall satisfaction figures across all services remained overwhelmingly positive: 98% of Australian and 97% of New Zealand service users reported being either ‘very satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’ with their overall experience. The improvement in this year’s results is seen in the proportion of Australian patients reporting being ‘very satisfied’ with their most recent experience, this figure increased significantly from 82% in 2019 to an all-time high of 85% in 2020.

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

Figure 5 Overall satisfaction (Q10) – All Services (2019 vs 2020)

99%

97%

98%

97%

98%

97%

98%

99%

98%

98%

97%

97%

97%

98%

96%

99%

98%

95%

97%

100%

98%

96%

97%

97%

VIC

NSW

QLD

WA

TAS

NT

ACT

SA

AUS OVERALL

WNZ

SJNZ

Very Satisfied

Satisfied

# 2020

94%

NZ PNG OVERALL OVERALL

2019

Q10. How satisfied were you overall with your last experience using the Ambulance Service?

Base n (Australia) = 2719; (New Zealand) = 1638, (Papua New Guinea) n= 65 (excludes ‘missing’)

While minor changes were observed in the overall satisfaction result between 2019 and 2020 for almost all services, two services experienced a significant increase in NET Satisfaction. In Victoria, NET Satisfaction increased significantly from 97% in 2019 to 99% in 2020, whilst the Wellington Free Ambulance increased from 96% to 98%.

Interestingly, older patients reported higher levels of satisfaction when compared against younger patients (98% vs 96%). A significantly smaller proportion of frequent users (five times or more) reported being satisfied (94%) than those who had either used the service once or between two to five times (both 98%).

In Papua New Guinea, satisfaction was overwhelmingly positive with a total of 94% selecting they were either ‘very satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’ with their overall experience.

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

Table 3. Overall satisfaction (Q10) – Time series

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Victoria New South Wales Queensland Western Australia Tasmania Northern Territory Australian Capital Territory South Australia Australia Overall

97% 99% 98% 97% 98% 97% 98%

97% 100% 97% 98% 96% 98%

97% 97% 98% 99% 97% 97% 97%

98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 92% 97%

97% 98% 96% 99% 98% 95% 97%

99% 97% 98% 97% 98% 97% 98%

98% 98%

98% 98%

98% 97%

98% 98%

100% 98%

99% 98%

St John Wellington New Zealand Overall

-

-

97% 97% 97%

98% 96% 98%

97% 96% 97%

97% 98% 97%

Q10. How satisfied were you overall with your last experience using the Ambulance Service?

Base n (Australia) = 2719; (New Zealand) =1638 (excludes ‘missing’)

This is the fifth time in the six waves of the study that the reported NET Satisfaction of Australian respondents has been 98%, the only exception being in 2017 when this figure dropped slightly to 97%. This small amount of variation is also observed when looking at New Zealand results. With the exception of 2018, whereby NET Satisfaction reached 98%, each year has recorded a satisfaction score of 97%.

The consistently positive results suggest that standards of service delivery have become entrenched across all services in both Australia and New Zealand.

“Very satisfied with the whole service provided, staff were confident and reassuring”- Patient, Western Australia “I can’t think of anything which would have improved my experience - I was very satisfied with the service given to me. They were excellent.”- Patient, NSW “Professionalism made the experience. Gave me confidence to be proud of how I was treated.” Patient, VIC

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

3.2 Patient experience 3.2.1 Calling the Ambulance Service Time taken Table 4. Time taken to be connected (Q2) – Australia and Papua New Guinea 2020

Victoria New South Wales Queensland Western Australia Tasmania Northern Territory Australian Capital Territory South Australia Australia Overall Papua New Guinea

Much quicker than I thought it would be

A little quicker than I thought it would be

About what I thought it would be

A little slower than I thought it would be

Much slower than I thought it would be

NET QUICKER

NET SLOWER

52%

20%

25%

3%

0%

71%

3%

41% 48%

21% 18%

34% 31%

3% 2%

1% 2%

62% 66%

4% 3%

46% 47%

24% 18%

29% 32%

1% 2%

0% 1%

69% 65%

1% 3%

42%

16%

38%

2%

2%

58%

4%

50% 47%

21% 23%

27% 27%

2% 2%

0% 1%

71% 70%

2% 3%

46%

20%

30%

2%

1%

66%

3%

38%

40%

20%

0%

2%

78%

2%

2. Which of the following would best describe how you felt about the length of time you waited to be connected to the Ambulance Service call taker? Base n (Australia) = 2323; (Papua New Guinea) n= 65 (excludes ‘missing’, ‘don’t know/can’t say’)

In Australia overall, two thirds of respondents (66%) indicated that they were connected to the Ambulance Service call taker either ‘much’ or ‘a little’ quicker than expected, with almost half (46%) of the participants responding it was ‘much quicker than I thought it would be’. Nearly one third of participants (30%) indicated that the time taken to be connected was as expected, while only 3% were connected either ‘a little’ or ‘much’ slower than expected. Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory were the most satisfied regarding the time taken to be connected.

Seventy-eight percent of respondents in Papua New Guinea (78%) reported they felt the time to be connected was either ‘much’ or ‘a little’ quicker than expected, with 20% of patients indicating the time to be connected to the Ambulance Service caller met their expectations.

This question was not asked in New Zealand.

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

Figure 6. Time taken to be connected – Australia and Papua New Guinea (Q2) – 2019 vs 2020

71% 62% 67%

VIC

65%

NSW

66%

69% 70%

61%

QLD

WA

Much quicker

65% 64%

TAS

71%

74%

78% 66%

58% 68%

65%

AUS OVERALL

58%

60%

NT

ACT

SA

# 2020

2019

A little quicker

PNG

2. Which of the following would best describe how you felt about the length of time you waited to be connected to the Ambulance Service call taker? Base n (2019) = 2115; n (2020) = 2323, (Papua New Guinea) n= 65 (excludes ‘missing’, ‘don’t know/can’t say’)

Regarding the time taken to be connected, overall, 2020 results were in line with the results recorded in 2019. Similar proportions of respondents reported that the time taken to be connected was either ‘much’ or ‘a little’ quicker than expected, 66% in 2020 vs. 65% in 2019.

The proportion of respondents indicating they were connected either ‘a little’ or ‘much’ slower dropped from 5% in 2019 to 3% in 2020.

The Australian Capital Territory was the only service to experience a significant improvement in reported times to be connected to the call taker, up from 60% in 2019 to 71% in 2020.

“Not a long delay after calling 000, were concerned for my wellbeing.” – Patient, TAS “Quick, prompt response to call.” – Patient, VIC

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

Assistance provided Table 5. Assistance provided by call taker (Q3) – All Services 2020 Very helpful and reassuring

Helpful and reassuring

OK

Not helpful and not reassuring

Very unhelpful and not at all reassuring

NET Helpful

NET Unhelpful

Victoria New South Wales Queensland Western Australia Tasmania Northern Territory Australian Capital Territory South Australia Australia Overall

74% 62% 73% 67% 63% 63%

23% 28% 23% 31% 29% 29%

3% 9% 3% 2% 7% 8%

1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0%

0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0%

96% 90% 96% 98% 93% 92%

1% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0%

66% 67% 69%

26% 26% 25%

7% 8% 5%

1% 0% 1%

0% 0% 0%

92% 92% 94%

1% 0% 1%

St John Wellington New Zealand Overall

77% 80% 78%

15% 9% 14%

6% 10% 7%

1% 1% 1%

1% 1% 1%

93% 89% 92%

1% 1% 1%

Papua New Guinea

51%

38%

10%

2%

0%

89%

2%

3. Throughout the 000/111 call, how helpful and reassuring was the Ambulance Service call handler you were speaking with? Base n (Australia) = 2238; (New Zealand) = 820, (Papua New Guinea) n= 65 (excludes ‘missing’, ‘don’t know/can’t say’)

For both Australia and New Zealand, a majority of the respondents indicated that the assistance provided by the call taker was either ‘very helpful and reassuring’ or ‘helpful and reassuring’: 94% and 92% respectively. For Western Australia, Tasmania, the Northern Territory and South Australia 0% of respondents reported that the call taker was unhelpful. In New Zealand, only 1% of respondents indicated the call taker was unhelpful across the board.

Eighty-nine percent respondents in Papua New Guinea (89%) reported they felt the call taker was either ‘Very helpful’ or ‘Helpful’, one in ten (10%) patients indicated the Ambulance Service call taker was OK. Western Australia was the star performer when it came to the reported helpfulness of the call taker. The positive score recorded at this service (98%) was significantly higher than the Australian average.

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

Figure 7. Assistance provided by call taker – All Services (Q3) – 2019 vs 2020

96%

90%

96%

98%

93%

92%

92%

92%

94%

89%

93%

92% 95%

92%

93%

94%

94%

95%

93%

94%

95%

93%

95%

95%

VIC

NSW

QLD

WA

TAS

NT

ACT

SA

AUS OVERALL

WNZ

SJNZ

Very helpful

Helpful

# 2020

89%

NZ PNG OVERALL OVERALL

2019

3. Throughout the 000/111 call, how helpful and reassuring was the Ambulance Service call handler you were speaking with?

Base n (Australia, 2019) = 2010; (New Zealand, 2019) =1069; n (Australia, 2020) =2238; n (New Zealand, 2020) n=820 (Papua New Guinea) n= 65 (excludes ‘missing’, ‘don’t know/can’t say’)

Once again, the Australian overall results experienced a minor increase when compared against the previous year, reaching an all-time high of 94%. This was driven by significant increase in those reporting the call taker was ‘Very helpful’ or ‘Helpful’ in Victoria and Western Australia, For the fourth consecutive year, only 1% of Australians indicated that the call taker was unhelpful.

In New Zealand, the proportion of respondents who said the call taker was ‘Very helpful’ or ‘Helpful’ decreased significantly, from 95% to 92%. Wellington’s significant decline from 95% to 89% was the key contributor to this shift. The significantly greater proportion of patients rating the helpfulness of the call taker as just ‘OK’ also contributed to this change in result.

“Very clear instructions on phone. Quick response.” – Carer, Western Australia “The operator I initially spoke with was calming and reassuring.” – Patient, Tasmania “Excellent phone service – operator helped until ambulance arrived.” – Carer, Tasmania “Operator was very knowledgeable and reassuring.” Carer, Victoria

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

3.2.2 Waiting for the ambulance Time taken Table 6. Time taken for ambulance to arrive (Q4) – All Services 2020 Much quicker than I thought it would be

A little quicker than I thought it would be

About what I thought it would be

A little slower than I thought it would be

Much slower than I thought it would be

NET Quicker

NET slower

49% 32% 38% 44% 41% 33%

22% 27% 26% 24% 20% 23%

23% 31% 27% 27% 28% 31%

4% 8% 7% 4% 6% 8%

2% 1% 2% 2% 5% 5%

70% 59% 64% 67% 61% 56%

6% 10% 9% 6% 11% 13%

Victoria New South Wales Queensland Western Australia Tasmania Northern Territory Australian Capital Territory South Australia Australia Overall

45%

24%

25%

4%

1%

69%

5%

42% 40%

25% 25%

25% 27%

5% 6%

3% 2%

67% 64%

7% 8%

St John Wellington

39% 36%

20% 21%

29% 30%

8% 9%

5% 4%

58% 57%

13% 13%

New Zealand Overall

38%

20%

29%

8%

5%

58%

13%

Papua New Guinea

24%

40%

24%

6%

6%

63%

13%

4.Which of the following would best describe how you felt about the length of time you waited for the ambulance to arrive?

Base n (Australia) = 2561; (New Zealand) =1588, (Papua New Guinea) n= 65 (excludes ‘missing’, ‘don’t know/can’t say’)

In Australia, almost two thirds (64%) of respondents said that the ambulance arrived ‘much’ or ‘a little’ quicker than expected, with two fifths (40%) of respondents reporting that it arrived ‘much’ quicker. 70% of Victorians reported that the ambulance arrived quicker than they thought it would, with almost half (49%) of these respondents indicating it was ‘much’ quicker.

This result was significantly better than the Australian average.

In New Zealand, over half of the participants (58%) indicated the ambulance arrived either ‘much’ or ‘a little’ quicker than expected. Almost two thirds of respondents in Papua New Guinea (63%) reported they felt the ambulance either arrived ‘much’ or ‘a little’ quicker than expected.

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

Figure 8. Time taken for ambulance to arrive – All Services (Q4) – 2019 vs 2020

70% 59% 65%

VIC

64%

67%

69% 61%

52%

NSW

QLD

WA

56%

56%

TAS

NT

Very helpful

64%

56%

66% 58%

67%

58%

ACT

63%

SA

Helpful

60%

AUS OVERALL

# 2020

57% 54%

WNZ

58%

58%

59%

58%

SJNZ

63%

NZ PNG OVERALL OVERALL

2019

4.Which of the following would best describe how you felt about the length of time you waited for the ambulance to arrive? Base n (Australia, 2019) =2385; n (New Zealand, 2019) =1426; n (Australia, 2020) = 2561; n (New Zealand, 2020) = 1588, (Papua New Guinea) n= 65 (excludes ‘missing’, ‘don’t know/can’t say’)

Every state or territory in Australia, with the exception of the Northern Territory, reported an increase with the satisfaction of timeliness of ambulance arrival. This culminated in the Australia overall result increasing by four percentage points from the previous year to 64%.

Significant improvements in reported wait times were observed in two service, the first being Queensland, up 12 percentage points to 64%, and in the Australian Capital Territory up 11 percentage points to 69%.

Results in New Zealand overall remained stable, with both services recording results largely in line with 2019.

“They arrived promptly, were very competent, reassuring and helpful.” – Patient, Tasmania “Prompt service, pleasant paramedics and safe arrival at hospital.” – Patient, Victoria “Arrived promptly, took control of situation, asked lots of questions, respectful.” – Carer, Tasmania “Prompt arrival, professional, courteous, constant communication.” – Carer, Northern Territory “The very short waiting, the feeling of total reassurance.” – Patient, Australian Capital Territory

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

Reasonable wait time Table 7. Reasonable time for an ambulance (Q9) – Australia 2020 Average (minutes)

Victoria New South Wales Queensland Western Australia Tasmania Northern Territory Australian Capital Territory South Australia Australia Overall

Standard deviation

Minimum

Q1

Median

Q3

Maximum

16.8

10.3

3

10

15

20

90

17.2 17.0

10.2 11.0

1 1

10 10

15 15

20 20

93 120

15.5 22.2

7.3 13.2

5 5

10 15

15 20

20 30

45 90

18.6

12.6

3

10

15

20

90

15.1 16.6

7.9 9.8

1 3

10 10

15 15

20 20

60 80

17.0

10.4

1

10

15

20

120

9.Considering all circumstances, if you had an emergency in your home, what do you feel would be a reasonable time to wait for an ambulance to arrive? Base n (Australia) =2285, (excludes ‘missing’, ‘don’t know/can’t say’)

The survey asked respondents what they considered to be a reasonable wait time for an ambulance to arrive to their home. This was an open-ended question, requesting participants to write any value in minutes. When a respondent answered with a range, (e.g. 10 to 5 minutes), the maximum value was reported, which is important to note when interpreting data.

Table 6 displays: •

mean (the average)

•

the minimum answer provided in each state and across the country

•

first quartile Q1 (the point where 25% of answers are below this point and 75% above)

•

median or second quartile (the mid-point where half the answers are below this point and half above)

•

third quartile Q3 (the point where 75% of answers are below this point and 25% above)

•

the maximum answer provided in each state and across the country.

Across Australia on average, respondents reported that 17.0 minutes was a reasonable time to wait for an ambulance if they had an emergency in their home. Those from Tasmania had the most lenient expectations of ambulance wait times, with an average wait time of 22.2 minutes. This figure was greater when compared against the Australian average. South Australians (16.6), Victorians (16.8), Queenslanders (17.0) and those from New South Wales (17.2) all had very similar expectations of wait times, in line with Australia overall.

This question was not asked in New Zealand.

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

Figure 9. Reasonable time for an ambulance – Australia (Q9) – 2019 vs 2020

22.2 16.8

17.2

16.1

16.6

VIC

NSW

17.0

18.6 15.5

21.7

18.0

17.3

15.3

QLD

WA

TAS

NT

15.1

16.6

17.0

16.4

15.8

16.8

ACT

SA

AUS OVERALL

# 2020 9.Considering all circumstances, if you had an emergency in your home, what do you feel would be a reasonable time to wait for an ambulance to arrive? (Average in minutes) Base n (2019) =2135; (2020) =2285 (excludes ‘missing’, ‘don’t know/can’t say’)

Australians overall were slightly more tolerant of wait times in 2020 compared to 2019, with responses of 17.0 and 16.8 respectively. All states and territories, with the exceptions of Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory, increased their leniency regarding wait times.

Whilst no significant change in results was observed when comparing 2019 and 2020 results, the highest increases were seen in the Northern Territory, up to 18.6 minutes, and South Australia up to 16.6 minutes.

“Very quick to respond, thorough care and information provided.” – Patient, Australian Capital Territory “Quick response, very understanding. Reassuring me and making me feel calmer.” – Patient, South Australia “The ambulance arrived very quickly – around 5 minutes.” – Patient, Victoria “Arrived quickly, explained the treatment thoroughly.” – Patient, New South Wales

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

3.2.3 Provision of care Care provided Table 8. Paramedics’ care (Q5) – Australia and Papua New Guinea 2020 Very good

Good

OK

Poor

Very poor

NET Good

NET Poor

Victoria New South Wales Queensland Western Australia Tasmania Northern Territory Australian Capital Territory South Australia Australia Overall

92% 88% 92% 92% 91% 93%

7% 8% 7% 6% 7% 4%

1% 3% 1% 2% 2% 2%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0%

99% 96% 99% 98% 97% 97%

0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1%

92% 89% 91%

6% 9% 7%

2% 1% 1%

0% 0% 0%

1% 0% 0%

97% 98% 98%

1% 0% 0%

Papua New Guinea

65%

29%

5%

0%

2%

94%

2%

5. Could you rate how you felt about the level of care provided to you by the ambulance paramedics? Base n (Australia) =2719; (Papua New Guinea) n= 65 (excludes ‘missing’, ‘don’t know/can’t say’)

Overall, respondents’ experiences with the care provided by the ambulance paramedics were very positive. Just over nine-in-ten (91%) Australian patients reported their care as ‘very good’, with a further 7% indicating their care was ‘good’. Just 16 respondents in total across the entire Australia sample reported their care as poor. Results by state and territory followed this pattern, with Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia all reporting 0% of care being either ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’. 93% of those in the Northern Territory indicated the care they received from paramedics was ‘very good’, the highest proportion amongst all services.

The experience of care received by patients in Papua New Guinea was overwhelmingly positive with ninety-four percent (94%) indicating it was ‘very good’ or ‘good’.

This question was not asked in New Zealand.

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

Figure 10. Paramedics’ care – Australia and Papua New Guinea (Q5) – 2019 vs 2020

99%

96%

99%

98%

97%

97%

98%

96%

99%

98%

VIC

NSW

QLD

WA

TAS

97%

97%

91%

98%

94%

97%

99%

97%

NT

ACT

SA

AUS OVERALL

94%

PNG OVERALL

5. Could you rate how you felt about the level of care provided to you by the ambulance paramedics? Base n (2019) =2556; n (2020) =2719 (Papua New Guinea) n= 65 (excludes ‘missing’, ‘don’t know/can’t say’)

For the fourth consecutive year, experiences regarding the level of care were almost entirely positive. Victoria, Queensland, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory all reported marginal increases from 2019 to 2020, whilst Queensland recorded an increase from 96% in 2019 to 99% in 2020 when it came to patients reporting the care they received as ‘Very good’ or ‘Good’.

“Both paramedics listened to my concerns and explained all of the actions that they would carry out to allay my concerns.” – Patient, Victoria “Paramedics provided constant support, comfort and transparency throughout the experience.”

– Carer, Victoria “Great courtesy by both paramedics, always informed me what was happening and kept my wife informed.” – Patient, New South Wales “Found paramedics caring, supportive and knowledgeable.” – Patient, Queensland

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

Trust and confidence Table 9. Trust and confidence in quality of care and treatment (Q6) – All services 2020

Victoria New South Wales Queensland Western Australia Tasmania Northern Territory Australian Capital Territory South Australia Australia Overall St John New Zealand Overall Papua New Guinea

Very high level of confidence

High level of confidence

Confident

Low level of confidence

Very low level of confidence

NET High level of confidence

NET Low level of confidence

79%

17%

3%

1%

0%

96%

1%

73% 76%

20% 19%

5% 3%

2% 1%

1% 1%

93% 95%

3% 2%

73% 72%

21% 21%

6% 6%

0% 0%

0% 1%

94% 93%

0% 1%

77%

20%

3%

1%

0%

96%

1%

72% 71% 75%

21% 24% 20%

6% 5% 4%

1% 0% 1%

1% 0% 1%

93% 95% 95%

1% 0% 1%

84%

13%

2%

1%

0%

97%

1%

84%

13%

2%

1%

0%

97%

1%

40%

29%

26%

5%

0%

69%

0%

6.How would you rate the level of trust and confidence you had in the ambulance service staff and their ability to provide quality care and treatment? Base n (Australia) =2726; (New Zealand) =1212; (Papua New Guinea) n= 65 (excludes ‘missing’, ‘don’t know/can’t say’)

Reported levels of trust and confidence in the quality of care and treatment provided by ambulance service staff were high across the board, with Australia averaging 95% and all Australian services recording a positive score of between 93% and 96%. Again, the small range of variation across services indicates that nationwide there are high levels of trust in ambulance service staff.

In New Zealand this question was only asked to patients of St John. Here 97% of patients reported either ‘very high’ or ‘high’ levels of confidence and trust and only 1% reported low levels of confidence.

In Papua New Guinea, seven in ten respondents (69%) indicated the level either ‘very high’ or ‘high’ levels of confidence and trust and 5% indicated they had low levels of confidence.

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

Figure 11. Trust and confidence in quality of care and treatment – All services (Q6) – 2019 vs 2020

96%

93%

95%

94%

93%

96%

93%

94%

90%

94%

94%

VIC

NSW

QLD

WA

TAS

Very High

93%

95%

91%

93%

95%

93%

NT

ACT

SA

AUS OVERALL 2019

High

# 2020

95%

97%

97%

99%

99% 69%

SJNZ

NZ PNG OVERALL OVERALL

6.How would you rate the level of trust and confidence you had in the ambulance service staff and their ability to provide quality care and treatment? Base n (Australia, 2019) =2570; n (New Zealand, 2019) =809; (Australia, 2020) =2570; (New Zealand, 2020) =1212, (Papua New Guinea) n= 65 (excludes ‘missing’, ‘don’t know/can’t say’)

Overall results for Australian services saw an increase in 2020, up two percentage points from 93% in 2019 to 95%. This increase was driven by a increase in the proportion of patients from the Queensland service that reported ‘Very high’ or ‘High’ levels of confidence in service staff.

Whilst results in New Zealand remain overwhelmingly positive for this measure, a decrease was observed in New Zealand, the NET positive score dropping from 99% to 97%.

“The level of trust we have in their service.” – Carer, Queensland “The two female paramedics were amazing, ever ensuring me that they had the knowledge and ability to carry out their duties. I put my full trust in them.” – Patient, Western Australia “They instilled complete confidence in their handling of the situation.” – Carer, Northern Territory “My confidence in their medical training. Their confident and positive approach to my predicament.” – Patient, Australian Capital Territory

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

Communication Table 10. Service staff explanations (Q7) – All services 2020

Victoria New South Wales Queensland Western Australia Tasmania Northern Territory Australian Capital Territory South Australia Australia Overall

A very clear and thorough explanation of my condition & reasons for treatment were provided

A reasonable clear explanation of my condition & reasons for treatment were provided

Explanation of my condition & treatment were just OK

Some explanation was given but I could not understand it

No not at all

NET Clear

NET Unclear

76% 70% 74% 71% 73% 78%

20% 20% 24% 24% 23% 18%

2% 7% 1% 4% 1% 3%

0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0%

97% 90% 98% 95% 96% 96%

1% 3% 1% 1% 2% 1%

68% 73% 73%

27% 23% 22%

4% 3% 3%

0% 1% 1%

1% 0% 1%

94% 96% 95%

1% 1% 2%

St John Wellington New Zealand Overall

84% 72%

10% 24%

4% 3%

1% 0%

1% 0%

94% 96%

1% 0%

79%

16%

4%

1%

1%

95%

1%

Papua New Guinea

57%

37%

3%

2%

2%

94%

3%

7.Did the Ambulance service staff explain, in a way you could understand, your condition and reasons for the treatment they were providing? Base n (Australia) =2612; (New Zealand) =736, (Papua New Guinea) n= 65(excludes ‘missing’, ‘don’t know/can’t say’)

In Australia, a majority (95%) of respondents felt that the ambulance service staff provided a ‘very clear’ (73%) or ‘reasonably clear’ (22%) explanation of their condition and reasons for treatment. Only 2% of Australian respondents considered their explanation unclear. Nearly all Queensland patients (98%) rated the explanation they were provided as ‘very clear’ or ‘clear’.

This was higher than the national average of 95%.

Overall, New Zealand reported results largely in line with Australia, with 95% of respondents indicating their explanation was either ‘very clear’ or ‘clear’. St John recorded a slightly more positive result when compared against Wellington. Eighty four percent of those in the St John area considered their explanation very clear, significantly more than Wellington (72%).

In Papua New Guinea, results were similar to Australia and New Zealand with 94% of respondents receiving a ‘very clear’ or ‘clear’ explanation from the Ambulance service staff.

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

Figure 12. Service staff explanations – All Services (Q7) – 2019 vs 2020

97%

90%

98%

95%

96%

96%

94%

96%

95%

96%

94%

96%

93%

96%

97%

92%

95%

95%

95%

95%

VIC

NSW

QLD

WA

TAS

NT

ACT

SA

AUS OVERALL

WNZ

Very Clear

Reasonably Clear

# 2020

94% 96%

SJNZ

95%

94%

96%

NZ PNG OVERALL OVERALL

2019

7.Did the Ambulance service staff explain, in a way you could understand, your condition and reasons for the treatment they were providing? Base n (Australia, 2019) = 2453; n (New Zealand, 2019) =1680; (Australia, 2020) =2612; (New Zealand, 2020) =736, (Papua New Guinea) n= 65 (excludes ‘missing’, ‘don’t know/can’t say’)

Results across Australia were largely consistent when comparing 2020 results to those recorded in 2019. Queensland again was the big improver, the proportion of those rating the explanation they received as ‘Very clear’ or ‘Clear’ increased from 93% to 98% in 2020.

Marginal improvements were also observed in Victoria, the Northern Territory and South Australia.

New Zealand dropped one percentage point from the all-time high of 96% in 2019, to 95% in 2020.

“Ambulance service staff were very clear and provided a high level of care.” – Patient, Victoria “Care, clear explanations and thoughtfulness.” – Patient, Tasmania “Great handling, clear way of relaying information.” – Carer, Northern Territory “The service was excellent. Good communication and advice. Clear and concise.” – Carer, Australian Capital Territory “Very caring, explaining the procedures clearly.” – Patient, South Australia

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

Quality of the ride Table 11. Quality of the ride (Q8) – All Services 2020 Very comfortable

Victoria New South Wales Queensland Western Australia Tasmania Northern Territory Australian Capital Territory South Australia Australia Overall

Comfortable

OK

Uncomfortable

Very uncomfortable

NET Comfortable

NET Uncomfortable

74%

22%

3%

0%

0%

96%

0%

70% 74%

24% 22%

5% 3%

1% 1%

1% 1%

93% 96%

2% 2%

75% 71%

22% 25%

3% 3%

0% 1%

0% 0%

97% 96%

0% 2%

76%

21%

3%

0%

0%

97%

0%

78% 73%

18% 24%

3% 3%

1% 0%

0% 0%

96% 97%

1% 0%

73%

23%

3%

1%

1%

96%

1%

St John Wellington New Zealand Overall

73% 79%

21% 16%

4% 3%

1% 0%

1% 1%

94% 96%

2% 1%

74%

21%

3%

1%

1%

95%

2%

Papua New Guinea

35%

37%

21%

5%

3%

71%

8%

8.Giving consideration to the situation you were in and local road conditions, how would you rate your level of comfort with the paramedic’s handling of the vehicle during your ambulance journey? Base n (Australia) =2630; (New Zealand) =1525; (Papua New Guinea) n= 65 (excludes ‘missing’, ‘don’t know/can’t say’)

Among all Australian patients, nearly three quarters (73%) reported that the ride was ‘very comfortable’ and 23% indicated that the ride was ‘comfortable’. This led to an overall positive score of 96% when it came to the comfort of the journey. No respondents from the Northern Territory or South Australia reported ‘uncomfortable’ or ‘very uncomfortable’ during their ambulance journeys.

New Zealand recorded results consistent with Australia, 95% of participants indicating they were comfortable and only 2% of respondents reporting being uncomfortable during their journey.

Seventy-three percent of patients in Patients in Papua New Guinea reported the paramedics handling of the vehicle during their ambulance journey was either ‘very comfortable’ or ‘comfortable’. There was a total of 8% of patients who indicated their journey was uncomfortable.

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

Figure 13. Quality of the ride – All Services (Q8) – 2019 vs 2020

96%

93%

96%

97%

96%

97%

96%

97%

96%

96%

94%

95%

94%

96%

95%

97%

95%

97%

97%

98%

96%

95%

95%

95%

VIC

NSW

QLD

WA

TAS

NT

ACT

SA

AUS OVERALL

WNZ

SJNZ

Very comfortable

Comfortable

# 2020

71%

NZ PNG OVERALL OVERALL

2019

8.Giving consideration to the situation you were in and local road conditions, how would you rate your level of comfort with the paramedic’s handling of the vehicle during your ambulance journey? Base n (Australia, 2019) =; n=2466 (New Zealand, 2019) =1605; (Australia, 2020) =2630; (New Zealand, 2020) = 1525, (Papua New Guinea) n= 65 (excludes ‘missing’, ‘don’t know/can’t say’)

Results from 2019 to 2020 were largely consistent across Australia with no significant increases or decreases observed when comparing 2019 and 2020 results. Victorians reported an increase of two percentage points from 2019 to 96%, the largest improvement amongst any of the services.

New Zealand results also remained very consistent with no shift greater than one percentage point experienced at either of the two New Zealand services.

“Staff courteous, ride comfortable.” – Carer, New South Wales “It was comfortable and a very smooth ride.” – Patient, Queensland “Very comfortable ride, excellent care.” – Patient, Australian Capital Territory “I was warm, comfortable, with a very smooth ride.” – Patient, South Australia “Driver did fantastic job considering the road conditions.” – Patient, Tasmania

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

Appendix Appendix A: Patient Survey Questionnaire 2020 CAA Patient Experience Survey Please answer the questions below by placing a tick in the appropriate box. If you don’t understand any questions, please use the ‘don't know’ option and move to the next question. Please refer to your most recent experience with the ambulance service when answering these questions. If the question is not relevant to your recent experience, mark the ‘NA’ box and move on to the next question. Please note that your personal opinions will be kept confidential and that no information which could identify you will be released.

Information obtained from you will be combined with the other responses and used for analytical purposes only.

Q1 Is the person completing this survey: The patient that was transported

A relative, or carer of the patient.

If you are completing the survey on behalf of the patient, wherever possible the questions should be answered from the patient’s perspective. However, some questions may relate more to your experience and can be answered from your perspective.

Thinking about your call to the Ambulance Service Q2 Thinking about your 000/111 call to the Ambulance Service, which of the following would best describe how you felt about the length of time you waited to be connected to the Ambulance Service call taker?

Much quicker than I thought it would be

A little quicker than I thought it would be

About what I thought it would be

A little slower than I thought it would be

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

Much slower than I thought it would be

Don’t know / Can’t Recall/ Did not make the call

Q3 Throughout the 000/111 call, how helpful and reassuring was the Ambulance Service call handler you were speaking with?

Very helpful & reassuring

Helpful & reassuring

Ok

Not helpful & not reassuring

Very unhelpful & not at all reassuring

Don’t know / Can’t Recall / Did not make the call

Remembering back to your experience during the Ambulance Service’s arrival and transport

Q4 Which of the following would best describe how you felt about the length of time you waited for the ambulance to arrive?

Much quicker than I thought it would be

A little quicker than I thought it would be

About what I thought it would be

A little slower than I thought it would be

Much slower than I thought it would be

Don’t know / Can’t Recall

Q5 Please rate how you felt about the level of care provided to you by the ambulance paramedics overall, including arrival, treatment and transport?

Very Good

Good

Ok

Poor

Very Poor

Don’t know / Can’t Recall

Q6 How would you rate the level of trust and confidence you had in the ambulance services staff and their ability to provide quality care and treatment?

Very high level of confidence

High level of confidence

Confident

Low level of confidence

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

Very low level of confidence

Don’t know / Can’t Recall

Q7 Did the paramedic explain, in a way you could understand, your condition and reasons for the treatment they were providing?

A very clear and thorough explanation of my condition & reasons for treatment were provided

A reasonably clear explanation of my condition & reasons for treatment were provided

Explanation of condition & treatment were just ok

Some explanation was given but I could not understand it

No not Don’t at all know / Can’t Recall

This was not possible

Q8 How would you rate your level of comfort with the paramedic’s handling of the vehicle during your ambulance journey (taking into consideration the situation you were in and local road conditions)?

Very Comfortable

Comfortable

Ok

Uncomfortable

Very Uncomfortable

Don’t know / Can’t Recall

Now think about your overall experience with the Ambulance Service

Q9 Thinking about your most recent ambulance experience, what do you feel would have been a reasonable time to wait for the ambulance to arrive?

No of minutes Q10 Please rate how satisfied were you overall with your last experience using the Ambulance Service.

Very Satisfied

Satisfied

Neither satisfied or dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

Very Dissatisfied

Don’t know / Can’t Recall

Q11a) What were the best things about your experience with the ambulance service?

Q11b) What could the ambulance service do to improve the service provided to patients?

And finally, a few quick questions about you (the patient).

Q12Which of the following best describes you (the patient)?

Male

Female

Other

Q13 Please select the age group you (the patient) falls into.

20 years and under 41-50 years 71-80 years

21-30 years 51-60 years 81-90 years

31-40 years 61-70 years 91 years +

Q14 How many times have you (the patient) used the Ambulance Service in the last 12 months?

Once

Between 2-5 times

More than 5 times

Q15 What is your (the patient’s) postcode?

Postcode ____________

The Ambulance Service respects your privacy and would like to thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place the completed questionnaire in the reply-paid envelope provided and post.

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

Appendix B: Detailed tables Q10. How satisfied were you overall with your last experience using the Ambulance Service, were you?

AUSTRALIA

Very satisfied Satisfied

Respondent

Gender

Usage

Age

Patient

Relative or carer

Male

Female

Other

Once

Between 2 and 5 times

More than 5 times 84%

20 years and under 67%

21 30 years

31 40 years

41 50 years

51 60 years

61 70 years

71 80 years

81 90 years

91 years+

85%

84%

88%

82%

69%

85%

86%

81%

78%

84%

87%

87%

86%

87%

82%

1711

610

1108

1147

5

1098

1017

135

67

59

87

114

234

427

629

522

127

13%

13%

11%

15%

17%

14%

13%

11%

26%

17%

17%

14%

10%

12%

13%

10%

16%

247

98

141

197

1

174

145

17

20

12

21

27

34

52

78

73

21

Neither satisfied, nor dissatisfied

1%

1%

1%

1%

14%

1%

1%

2%

2%

2%

2%

0%

1%

1%

0%

2%

0%

13

10

9

13

1

9

7

5

2

2

2

0

3

4

3

7

0

Dissatisfied

1%

1%

0%

1%

0%

0%

1%

2%

2%

0%

3%

3%

0%

0%

1%

0%

1%

8

6

6

8

0

6

6

2

1

0

2

2

1

1

4

2

1

Very dissatisfied

1%

0%

0%

1%

1%

0%

0%

2%

2%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

1%

13

3

5

10

1

7

6

3

2

0

2

0

5

1

2

3

1

98%

97%

99%

97%

85%

98%

98%

94%

93%

98%

95%

97%

98%

99%

99%

98%

98%

1958

708

1249

1344

6

1272

1162

152

87

71

108

141

268

479

707

595

148

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

4%

5%

0%

3%

3%

1%

0%

1%

1%

2%

21

9

11

18

1

13

12

5

3

0

4

2

6

2

6

5

2

NET SATISFIED

NET DISSATISFIED

20-010831-01 Ambulance Experience Reporting

38

NEW ZEALAND

Respondent Patient

Very satisfied

Satisfied

Neither satisfied, nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

NET SATISFIED

NET DISSATISFIED

Relative or carer

Gender Male

Age

Female

20 years and under

21 - 30 years

31 - 40 years

41 - 50 years

51 - 60 years

61 - 70 years

71 - 80 years

81 - 90 years

91 years+

88%

83%

89%

87%

91%

75%

80%

82%

85%

90%

91%

93%

92%

1250

196

650

777

57

43

88

107

208

303

352

212

45

9%

11%

9%

9%

7%

15%

16%

14%

12%

7%

7%

5%

8%

120

24

60

80

4

9

17

17

27

23

25

11

3

1%

3%

1%

2%

2%

4%

3%

2%

1%

1%

1%

2%

0%

17

7

8

16

1

3

3

2

3

4

3

4

0

1%

2%

1%

1%

0%

4%

1%

0%

1%

1%

1%

1%

0%

11

5

8

7

0

2

1

0

3

3

5

1

0

1%

0%

0%

1%

0%

2%

0%

2%

1%

1%

0%

0%

0%

8

0

1

7

0

1

0

3

2

2

0

0

0

97%

95%

98%

96%

98%

90%

96%

96%

96%

97%

98%

98%

100%

1370

220

710

857

61

52

105

124

235

326

377

223

48

2%

2%

1%

2%

0%

6%

1%

2%

2%

2%

1%

1%

0%

19

5

9

14

0

3

1

3

5

5

5

1

0

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

Q2. Which of the following would best describe how you felt about the length of time you waited to be connected to the Ambulance Service call taker?

AUSTRALIA

Much quicker than I thought it would be A little quicker than I thought it would be About what I thought it would be A little slower than I thought it would be Much slower than I thought it would be NET QUICKER NET SLOWER

Respondent

Gender

Usage

Age

Patient

Relative or carer

Male

Female

Other

Once

Between 2 and 5 times

More than 5 times

20 years and under

21 30 years

31 40 years

41 50 years

51 60 years

61 70 years

71 80 years

81 90 years

91 years+

48%

41%

45%

48%

19%

43%

48%

52%

34%

39%

39%

37%

50%

50%

46%

50%

44%

812

277

487

571

2

457

518

80

32

25

32

45

93

204

309

263

61

21%

18%

21%

19%

1%

22%

19%

21%

18%

10%

10%

18%

17%

19%

26%

20%

18%

346

119

239

214

1

218

206

29

11

6

16

21

48

66

149

113

26

28%

36%

31%

29%

66%

31%

30%

26%

43%

48%

42%

42%

29%

28%

25%

28%

36%

471

227

339

336

4

315

319

42

29

24

32

34

71

121

160

164

44

2%

3%

2%

3%

14%

3%

2%

2%

3%

3%

7%

4%

3%

3%

2%

2%

1%

34

16

20

29

1

25

22

3

4

2

4

5

9

10

9

6

1

1%

1%

1%

1%

0%

1%

1%

0%

3%

1%

2%

0%

0%

1%

2%

0%

0%

11

10

11

9

0

12

7

1

3

1

1

1

0

4

6

3

1

69%

60%

66%

67%

20%

65%

67%

72%

51%

49%

49%

55%

67%

68%

72%

70%

62%

1158

396

726

785

3

675

724

109

43

31

48

66

141

270

458

376

87

3%

4%

3%

3%

14%

4%

3%

2%

6%

4%

9%

4%

3%

4%

3%

2%

1%

45

26

31

38

1

37

29

4

7

3

5

6

9

14

15

9

2

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

Q3. Throughout the 000/111 call, how helpful and reassuring was the Ambulance Service call handler you were speaking with?

AUSTRALIA

Respondent

Gender

Usage

Age

Patient

Relative or carer

Male

Female

Other

Once

Between 2 and 5 times

69%

69%

68%

69%

44%

66%

1077

420

704

746

4

25%

25%

26%

25%

416

175

300

277

OK

5%

5%

5%

5%

86

46

57

69

2

66

51

11

7

6

5

11

14

26

25

22

12

Not helpful & not reassuring

0%

1%

0%

1%

15%

1%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

1%

1%

0%

3%

6

6

3

7

2

5

6

1

0

0

2

1

1

3

3

0

2

Very un-helpful & not at all reassuring

1%

0%

0%

1%

0%

1%

0%

0%

3%

0%

2%

0%

0%

1%

1%

0%

0%

5

1

2

4

0

5

1

0

1

0

1

1

0

1

2

0

0

NET HELPFUL

94%

93%

94%

94%

44%

94%

94%

91%

92%

93%

92%

90%

94%

93%

95%

97%

88%

1493

595

1004

1023

4

911

974

139

68

50

73

96

207

359

571

498

114

1%

1%

1%

1%

15%

2%

1%

0%

3%

0%

3%

0%

1%

1%

1%

0%

3%

11

7

5

11

2

10

7

1

1

0

3

2

1

4

5

0

2

Very helpful & reassuring Helpful & reassuring

NET UNHELPFUL

20 years and under 70%

21 30 years

31 40 years

41 50 years

51 60 years

61 70 years

71 80 years

81 90 years

91 years+

71%

More than 5 times 72%

80%

58%

63%

73%

67%

71%

69%

60%

620

716

112

50

39

49

64

146

258

419

350

82

0%

28%

23%

19%

22%

13%

33%

26%

21%

26%

24%

28%

28%

0

291

258

27

18

11

24

32

61

101

152

148

32

41%

4%

5%

9%

6%

7%

5%

10%

6%

5%

4%

3%

9%

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

NEW ZEALAND

Respondent Patient

Very helpful & reassuring Helpful & reassuring OK Not helpful & not reassuring

Very un-helpful & not at all reassuring NET HELPFUL

NET UNHELPFUL

Relative or carer

Gender Male

Age

80%

71%

80%

76%

20 years and under 71%

514

129

289

347

22

18

33

39

85

105

189

110

30

12%

19%

12%

14%

25%

22%

17%

20%

8%

13%

10%

15%

4%

71

34

41

61

7

7

9

10

9

17

21

18

1

7%

8%

6%

8%

4%

22%

11%

8%

7%

8%

5%

3%

6%

44

16

22

38

1

8

6

5

8

12

12

5

2

0%

1%

1%

1%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

1%

1%

0%

3

2

2

3

0

0

1

0

0

1

2

1

0

1%

0%

1%

1%

0%

0%

2%

0%

2%

1%

1%

1%

0%

6

1

3

4

0

0

1

0

2

2

1

1

0

92%

90%

93%

91%

96%

78%

85%

92%

91%

90%

93%

96%

94%

585

163

330

408

29

25

42

49

94

122

210

128

31

1%

2%

1%

2%

0%

0%

4%

0%

2%

2%

2%

2%

0%

9

3

5

7

0

0

2

0

2

3

3

2

0

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

Female

21 - 30 years

31 - 40 years

41 - 50 years

51 - 60 years

61 - 70 years

71 - 80 years

81 - 90 years

91 years+

56%

68%

72%

83%

77%

83%

81%

90%

Q4. Which of the following would best describe how you felt about the length of time you waited for the ambulance to arrive?

AUSTRALIA

Respondent

Gender

Usage

Age

Patient

Relative or carer

Male

Female

Other

Once

Between 2 and 5 times

More than 5 times

20 years and under

21 30 years

31 40 years

41 50 years

51 60 years

61 70 years

71 80 years

81 90 years

91 years+

Much quicker than I thought it would be

41%

36%

39%

41%

2%

38%

42%

36%

31%

33%

28%

36%

41%

40%

41%

41%

43%

789

257

469

552

1

484

483

54

35

27

40

51

90

192

302

232

58

A little quicker than I thought it would be

25%

24%

25%

25%

18%

26%

23%

24%

11%

19%

10%

21%

27%

24%

29%

27%

23%

445

161

291

298

2

295

253

38

10

13

15

31

63

99

182

147

33

About what I thought it would be

26%

31%

29%

25%

66%

26%

27%

32%

41%

33%

43%

33%

21%

25%

24%

27%

30%

479

213

345

327

4

297

320

54

28

19

38

32

65

115

167

169

44

6%

8%

6%

7%

14%

7%

6%

6%

14%

15%

17%

6%

7%

7%

4%

4%

4%

101

46

67

77

1

86

51

8

10

8

12

11

25

27

24

23

4

2%

1%

2%

2%

0%

3%

2%

2%

3%

0%

2%

3%

4%

4%

2%

1%

0%

49

21

32

37

0

47

18

4

4

1

2

5

14

18

15

9

1 66%

A little slower than I thought it would be Much slower than I thought it would be NET QUICKER NET SLOWER

66%

59%

63%

66%

20%

64%

65%

60%

42%

52%

39%

58%

68%

65%

70%

68%

1234

418

760

850

3

779

736

92

45

40

55

82

153

291

484

379

91

8%

9%

8%

9%

14%

10%

7%

8%

18%

16%

19%

9%

11%

10%

6%

5%

4%

150

67

99

114

1

133

69

12

14

9

14

16

39

45

39

32

5

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

NEW ZEALAND

Respondent Patient

Much quicker than I thought it would be A little quicker than I thought it would be

About what I thought it would be A little slower than I thought it would be Much slower than I thought it would be NET QUICKER

NET SLOWER

Relative or carer

Gender Male

Age

39%

37%

38%

39%

20 years and under 35%

521

85

270

329

20

16

36

41

89

123

159

95

18

20%

17%

21%

19%

18%

16%

15%

15%

20%

20%

21%

24%

29%

275

41

149

162

10

9

16

19

45

63

80

51

15

29%

30%

29%

29%

19%

24%

35%

37%

27%

32%

27%

28%

20%

389

70

207

245

12

13

37

44

63

99

106

64

10

8%

10%

8%

8%

23%

13%

8%

11%

9%

7%

6%

3%

11%

108

22

57

72

13

7

10

13

20

24

25

8

5

5%

7%

4%

5%

5%

18%

7%

4%

5%

4%

4%

2%

5%

61

16

29

45

4

9

8

5

12

13

13

5

2

59%

53%

59%

58%

53%

45%

49%

48%

59%

57%

63%

67%

64%

796

126

419

491

30

25

52

60

134

186

239

146

33

12%

17%

12%

13%

28%

31%

15%

15%

14%

11%

10%

5%

16%

169

38

86

117

17

16

18

18

32

37

38

13

7

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

Female

21 - 30 years

31 - 40 years

41 - 50 years

51 - 60 years

61 - 70 years

71 - 80 years

81 - 90 years

91 years+

29%

35%

33%

39%

38%

43%

43%

35%

Q9. Considering all circumstances, if you had an emergency in your home, what do you feel would be a reasonable time to wait for an ambulance to arrive? (mins)

AUSTRALIA

Respondent

Gender

The patient that was transported

A relative, or carer of the patient

Average

17.0

16.9

Standard Deviation

9

Minimum

1

Male

Usage Once

Age

Female

Other

Between 2 and 5 times

More than 5 times

20 years and under

21 30 years

31 40 years

41 - 50 years

51 - 60 years

61 - 70 years

71 - 80 years

81 - 90 years

91 years+

16.8

17.2

17.4

16.6

17.3

17.7

16.0

15.0

17.7

17.2

16.4

17.5

17.5

16.4

17.6

12

10

10.8

7.7

9.9

10.7

12.1

8.9

9.7

10.7

10.2

14.1

11.1

10.9

8.0

8.9

1

1

1.0

10

1

1

5

5

2

5

1

3

5

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

1

1

5

10

10

12

25th Percentile

10

10

10

10

Median

15

15

15

15

15

15

15

15

15

10

15

15

15

15

15

15

15

75th Percentile

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

Maximum

90

120

90

120

30

93

120

80

80

60

90

60

120

90

93

90

60

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

Q5. Could you rate how you felt about the level of care provided to you by the ambulance paramedics?

Respondent

AUSTRALIA

Very good Good OK Poor Very poor NET GOOD NET POOR

Gender

Usage

Age

Patient

Relative or carer

Male

Female

Other

Once

Between 2 and 5 times

More than 5 times

20 years and under

21 - 30 years

31 - 40 years

41 - 50 years

51 - 60 years

61 - 70 years

71 - 80 years

81 - 90 years

91 years+

90%

92%

92%

89%

85%

90%

92%

87%

75%

94%

82%

85%

89%

94%

92%

93%

91%

1811

656

1164

1238

6

1169

1085

139

72

65

94

127

253

456

657

557

133

8%

6%

6%

9%

0%

9%

6%

9%

22%

6%

13%

11%

6%

5%

7%

6%

7%

140

53

89

101

0

102

71

17

16

6

12

14

18

21

50

42

11

1%

1%

1%

2%

14%

1%

1%

3%

0%

0%

0%

4%

3%

1%

1%

2%

1%

28

15

18

23

1

18

19

4

2

2

3

4

7

5

8

9

2

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

2%

0%

2%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

5

2

4

3

0

5

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

1

2

1

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

2%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

7

2

2

6

1

3

5

1

1

0

3

0

4

0

1

0

0

98%

98%

99%

98%

85%

99%

98%

96%

97%

100%

96%

96%

96%

99%

99%

98%

98%

1951

709

1253

1339

6

1271

1156

156

88

71

106

141

271

477

707

599

144

0%

1%

0%

1%

1%

0%

1%

1%

2%

0%

4%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

1%

12

4

6

9

1

8

6

2

2

0

4

0

4

1

2

2

1

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

Q6. How would you rate the level of trust and confidence you had in the ambulance services staff and their ability to provide quality care and treatment?

Respondent

AUSTRALIA

Very high level of confidence High level of confidence Confident Low level of confidence Very low level of confidence NET HIGH LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE NET LOW LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE

Gender

Usage

Age

Patient

Relative or carer

Male

Female

Other

Once

Between 2 and 5 times

More than 5 times

20 years and under

21 30 years

31 40 years

41 50 years

51 60 years

61 70 years

71 80 years

81 90 years

91 years+

75%

74%

77%

73%

69%

75%

75%

74%

62%

85%

67%

73%

76%

81%

77%

72%

66%

1477

532

955

999

5

957

877

118

62

55

76

107

210

375

534

440

106

20%

19%

19%

21%

0%

19%

20%

19%

22%

13%

20%

17%

18%

16%

20%

23%

25%

406

151

264

281

0

266

244

30

20

14

22

23

53

94

155

133

33

4%

5%

4%

5%

17%

4%

4%

4%

12%

2%

5%

6%

3%

3%

3%

5%

6%

92

38

53

75

1

60

57

8

8

4

10

12

10

13

27

34

9

1%

2%

1%

1%

14%

1%

0%

4%

0%

0%

2%

4%

2%

0%

0%

1%

3%

7

9

7

8

1

9

3

4

0

0

1

3

3

0

3

4

2

1%

0%

0%

1%

1%

1%

1%

0%

5%

0%

6%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

13

1

2

11

1

7

6

1

3

0

5

0

4

1

0

1

0

95%

93%

95%

94%

69%

94%

95%

92%

83%

98%

87%

89%

94%

97%

97%

94%

91%

1883

683

1219

1280

5

1223

1121

148

82

69

98

130

263

469

689

573

139

1%

2%

1%

2%

15%

1%

1%

4%

5%

0%

8%

4%

3%

0%

0%

1%

3%

20

10

9

19

2

16

9

5

3

0

6

3

7

1

3

5

2

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

NEW ZEALAND

Respondent Patient

Very high level of confidence High level of confidence Confident Low level of confidence Very low level of confidence NET HIGH LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE

NET LOW LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE

Relative or carer

Gender Male

Age

Female

20 years and under

21 - 30 years

31 - 40 years

41 - 50 years

51 - 60 years

61 - 70 years

71 - 80 years

81 - 90 years

91 years+

85%

82%

84%

84%

83%

70%

77%

80%

83%

86%

88%

88%

86%

879

141

457

546

38

31

68

88

155

228

240

120

25

13%

13%

13%

13%

17%

20%

17%

15%

13%

13%

9%

10%

10%

133

23

69

83

8

9

15

17

24

33

24

14

3

2%

4%

2%

2%

0%

5%

6%

1%

1%

1%

3%

0%

3%

16

7

11

12

0

2

5

1

2

3

8

0

1

0%

1%

1%

0%

0%

2%

0%

1%

2%

0%

0%

1%

0%

5

2

4

3

0

1

0

1

3

0

0

2

0

1%

0%

0%

1%

0%

2%

0%

3%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

6

0

0

6

0

1

0

3

2

0

0

0

0

97%

95%

97%

97%

100%

91%

94%

95%

96%

99%

97%

99%

97%

1012

164

526

629

46

40

83

105

179

261

264

134

28

1%

1%

1%

1%

0%

5%

0%

4%

3%

0%

0%

1%

0%

11

2

4

9

0

2

0

4

5

0

0

2

0

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

Q7. Did the Ambulance service staff explain, in a way you could understand, your condition and reasons for the treatment they were providing?

AUSTRALIA

A very clear and thorough explanation of my condition & reasons for treatment were provided A reasonably clear and thorough explanation of my condition & reasons for treatment were provided Explanation of condition & treatment were just ok Some explanation was given but I could not understand it No not at all NET CLEAR & THOROUGH NET UNCLEAR

Respondent

Gender

Usage

Age

Patient

Relative or carer

Male

Female

Other

Once

Between 2 and 5 times

More than 5 times

20 years and under

21 30 years

31 40 years

41 50 years

51 60 years

61 70 years

71 80 years

81 90 years

91 years+

73%

73%

74%

72%

69%

73%

73%

77%

54%

78%

73%

75%

78%

80%

71%

72%

66%

1403

492

882

966

5

912

818

117

53

53

74

105

208

372

494

404

97

22%

23%

22%

22%

17%

23%

22%

18%

40%

20%

22%

16%

17%

17%

26%

22%

24%

429

164

291

284

1

280

260

30

29

13

27

28

44

86

176

142

32

3%

3%

2%

4%

0%

3%

3%

3%

6%

2%

0%

5%

3%

2%

2%

4%

6%

62

20

34

46

0

37

37

5

5

4

3

7

8

8

14

25

6

1%

1%

1%

1%

0%

1%

1%

2%

0%

0%

5%

3%

1%

0%

0%

1%

3%

14

9

14

9

0

9

12

2

0

0

3

2

3

2

4

4

5

1%

1%

1%

1%

15%

1%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

1%

0%

0%

1%

2%

14

5

8

8

2

10

6

1

0

0

2

1

4

1

2

6

2

95%

96%

96%

95%

85%

96%

95%

95%

94%

98%

95%

91%

95%

97%

97%

94%

90%

1832

656

1173

1250

6

1192

1078

147

82

66

101

133

252

458

670

546

129

2%

2%

2%

1%

15%

1%

2%

2%

0%

0%

5%

4%

2%

1%

1%

2%

5%

28

14

22

17

2

19

18

3

0

0

5

3

7

3

6

10

7

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

NEW ZEALAND

Respondent Patient

A very clear and thorough explanation of my condition & reasons for treatment were provided A reasonably clear and thorough explanation of my condition & reasons for treatment were provided Explanation of condition & treatment were just ok Some explanation was given but I could not understand it No not at all NET CLEAR & THOROUGH NET UNCLEAR

Relative or carer

Gender Male

Age

Female

20 years and under

21 - 30 years

31 - 40 years

41 - 50 years

51 - 60 years

61 - 70 years

71 - 80 years

81 - 90 years

91 years+

81%

68%

82%

78%

77%

62%

60%

71%

71%

86%

85%

79%

86%

505

67

262

297

16

9

19

25

52

102

176

127

34

14%

22%

14%

17%

12%

22%

26%

25%

18%

11%

13%

17%

14%

103

26

53

72

3

4

9

8

15

15

29

33

7

4%

7%

3%

4%

11%

16%

9%

4%

9%

3%

2%

3%

0%

22

6

11

15

2

3

2

1

6

3

3

6

0

0%

1%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

1%

0%

3

1

1

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

2

0

0%

1%

0%

1%

0%

0%

5%

0%

2%

0%

0%

1%

0%

2

1

1

2

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

96%

91%

96%

95%

89%

84%

86%

96%

89%

97%

97%

95%

100%

608

93

315

369

19

13

28

33

67

117

205

160

41

1%

3%

1%

1%

0%

0%

5%

0%

2%

0%

1%

2%

0%

5

2

2

5

0

0

1

0

1

0

2

3

0

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

Q8. Giving consideration to the situation you were in and local road conditions, how would you rate your level of comfort with the paramedic’s handling of the vehicle during your ambulance journey?

Respondent

AUSTRALIA

Very comfortable Comfortable OK Uncomfortable Very uncomfortable NET COMFORTABLE NET UNCOMFORTABLE

Gender

Usage

Age

Patient

Relative or carer

Male

Female

Other

Once

Between 2 and 5 times

More than 5 times

20 years and under

21 30 years

31 40 years

41 50 years

51 60 years

61 70 years

71 80 years

81 90 years

91 years+

74%

69%

73%

73%

69%

73%

73%

71%

66%

76%

72%

69%

72%

75%

75%

72%

71%

1461

469

889

987

5

932

831

109

62

51

79

101

197

352

527

413

103

21%

26%

23%

22%

17%

23%

22%

23%

24%

17%

24%

21%

23%

21%

22%

23%

28%

427

164

288

289

1

280

258

37

19

14

28

28

66

99

147

140

37

3%

4%

4%

3%

14%

2%

4%

5%

7%

6%

4%

7%

2%

3%

3%

4%

1%

61

22

41

41

1

31

42

7

5

4

4

7

8

15

16

21

3

1%

0%

0%

1%

0%

1%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

2%

1%

0%

0%

0%

14

2

7

9

0

10

5

1

0

0

1

0

4

5

4

2

0

0%

1%

1%

0%

1%

0%

1%

0%

2%

1%

0%

3%

1%

0%

0%

1%

0%

8

2

4

5

1

4

4

1

1

1

1

2

3

0

0

2

0

96%

95%

95%

96%

85%

96%

95%

94%

90%

93%

96%

91%

95%

96%

97%

95%

99%

1888

633

1177

1276

6

1212

1089

146

81

65

107

129

263

451

674

553

140

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

2%

1%

0%

3%

3%

1%

0%

1%

0%

22

4

11

14

1

14

9

2

1

1

2

2

7

5

4

4

0

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

Respondent

NEW ZEALAND

Very comfortable Comfortable OK Uncomfortable Very uncomfortable NET COMFORTABLE NET UNCOMFORTABLE

Gender

Age

Patient

Relative or carer

Male

Female

20 years and under

21 - 30 years

31 - 40 years

41 - 50 years

51 - 60 years

61 - 70 years

71 - 80 years

81 - 90 years

91 years+

73%

79%

74%

74%

83%

75%

73%

75%

68%

74%

74%

77%

78%

984

152

512

608

47

42

74

93

158

232

271

158

33

21%

16%

21%

20%

11%

19%

20%

20%

23%

21%

22%

18%

16%

278

30

139

162

6

12

20

25

51

62

77

37

6

4%

2%

3%

4%

2%

4%

5%

2%

5%

4%

2%

3%

6%

48

3

22

29

1

3

5

2

11

12

8

7

2

1%

3%

1%

1%

4%

0%

1%

0%

3%

1%

2%

1%

0%

13

5

7

11

2

0

1

0

6

3

5

1

0

1%

1%

1%

1%

0%

2%

1%

3%

1%

0%

0%

1%

0%

11

1

4

8

0

1

1

4

2

0

1

3

0

95%

95%

95%

94%

94%

94%

93%

95%

91%

95%

96%

95%

94%

1262

182

651

770

53

54

94

118

209

294

348

195

39

2%

4%

2%

2%

4%

2%

2%

3%

4%

1%

2%

2%

0%

24

6

11

19

2

1

2

4

8

3

6

4

0

CAA Patient Experience Survey – 2020 Final Report

20-010831-01 Ambulance Experience Reporting 53