2020 CAA Patient
Experience Survey
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
1
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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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’.
1 Research context
1.1Research 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 torespond to changing communityneeds 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.
2
2 Research design
2.1Research 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 requiringoneormoreimmediateambulanceresponsesunderlightsand sirenswheretheincidentispotentiallylifethreatening.
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 30minutes.
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.
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.
2.2How 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.
2.3Significance 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.
2.4Response Summary
* 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
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.
2.5Description 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
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.
Figure 1 Gender
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 2. Age
Base n (Australia) = 2710; (New Zealand) = 1643 (excludes ‘missing’)
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’)
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 werethe 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.
3 Findings
3.1Overall satisfaction
Table 2. Overall satisfaction (Q10) – All Services (2020)
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.
Figure 5
Overall satisfaction (Q10) – All Services (2019 vs 2020)
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.
VIC
Table 3. Overall satisfaction (Q10) – Time series
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
3.2Patient experience
3.2.1 Calling the Ambulance Service
Time taken
Table 4. Time taken to be connected (Q2) – Australia and Papua New Guinea 2020
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.
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
Figure 6. Time taken to be connected – Australia and Papua New Guinea (Q2) – 2019 vs 2020
VIC NSW QLD WA TAS NT ACT SA AUS OVERALL PNG
Much quicker A little quicker # 2020 2019
Assistance provided
Table 5 Assistance provided by call taker (Q3) – All Services 2020
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.
7. Assistance provided by call taker – All Services (Q3) – 2019 vs 2020
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
Figure
3.2.2 Waiting for the ambulance
Time taken
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
8. Time taken for ambulance to arrive – All Services (Q4) – 2019 vs 2020
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
Figure
Reasonable wait time
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.
Figure 9. Reasonable time for an ambulance – Australia (Q9) – 2019 vs 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
VIC
3.2.3 Provision of care
Care provided
Table 8. Paramedics’ care (Q5) –
and Papua New Guinea 2020
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 territoryfollowed 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.
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
Figure 10. Paramedics’ care – Australia and Papua New Guinea (Q5) – 2019 vs 2020
VIC NSW QLD WA TAS NT ACT SA AUS OVERALL PNG OVERALL
Trust and confidence
Table 9 Trust and confidence in quality of care and treatment (Q6) – All services 2020
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.
Figure 11. Trust and confidence in quality of care and treatment – All services (Q6) – 2019 vs 2020
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
VIC
Communication
Table 10 Service staff explanations (Q7) – All services 2020 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
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.
Figure 12. Service staff explanations – All Services (Q7) – 2019 vs 2020
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
Quality of the ride
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.
Figure 13. Quality of the ride – All Services (Q8) – 2019 vs 2020
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
VIC NSW QLD
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
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
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 at all Don’t 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.
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.
Q14 How many times have you (the patient) used the Ambulance Service in the last 12 months?
Once
Between 2-5 times
Q15 What is your (the patient’s) postcode?
Postcode ____________
More than 5 times
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.
Appendix B: Detailed tables
Q10. How satisfied were you overall with your last experience using the Ambulance Service, were you?
AUSTRALIA Respondent
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 Respondent
Q3. Throughout the 000/111 call, how helpful and reassuring was the Ambulance Service call handler you were speaking with?
Respondent
Q4. Which of the following would best describe how you felt about the length of time you waited for the ambulance to arrive?
Respondent
NEW ZEALAND Respondent
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 Usage
The patient that was transported
relative, or carer of the patient
Q5. Could you rate how you felt about the level of care provided to you by the ambulance paramedics?
AUSTRALIA Respondent
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?
Q7. Did the Ambulance service staff explain, in a way you could understand, your condition and reasons for the treatment they were providing?
AUSTRALIA
& reasons for
NEW ZEALAND Respondent
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?
AUSTRALIA Respondent