A Customer’s Suggestion for Your Worksite Medical Clinic
I
n 2006, an on-site medical mini-clinic was built in the Hennepin County Government Center for county employees and their adult dependents. The clinic would provide services primarily for acute conditions at no cost to employees. Appointments were suggested, although, walk-ins were also welcome. Promotional magnets and fliers blanketed employee offices. Yet, contrary to the anticipated excitement of the clinic opening, few employees sought service. Utilization remained low until the county — the customer — provided the missing information necessary for the clinic’s success. As with many on-site clinics, a third-party medical organization planned and operated the county’s clinic. The clinic was purposefully built next to the county’s employee wellness offices to cultivate the integration of medical and wellness services. This model provides a “one-stop shop” for employees who can access medical care, financial and health information, wellness coaching and programs. (As a point of reference, the clinic and wellness offices share a common door, with the clinic’s entrance locked. One person staffs the clinic. Given this, the wellness staff often assists patients with nonmedical questions as the Physician’s Assistant works inside the clinic. Having county staff interact with patients was not originally intended, yet has provided meaningful insight to the customers’ perspective of the clinic and the impetus for this article.) The clinic offered services for acute respiratory illness, gastrointestinal conditions, minor skin irritation, musculoskeletal pain, vaccinations, and laboratory tests. An initial analysis indicated services rendered at the clinic were as thorough as services received at a traditional clinic. The majority of patients seen at the on-site clinic were treated appropriately and By Jill Hamilton
MetroDoctors
did not need to seek additional care outside of the clinic. This information helped employees understand the depth of services available and elevated the clinic’s reputation from “school nurse clinic” to “real clinic.” The staff that opened the clinic was competent. The clinic services were appropriate for the population it served. The clinic was suitable for any organization interested in offering their employees the convenience of on-site health care. But we aren’t “any organization.” We are our own organization with our own culture and our own expectations. In other words, even an on-site medical clinic (which we presumed would not need more than itself to succeed) needed the context of its location and population in order to thrive. In planning the clinic, conversation about square footage occurred, but no one thought to talk about what would make employees feel comfortable using the clinic. Marketing materials boasted of the clinic offering Pneumovax vaccinations, but no one thought to ask employees if they cared — or understood what that meant. In retrospect, we made two erroneous assumptions in our eagerness to implement this worksite wellness “best practice.” Both the county and the third-party assumed “if we build it, they will come” since
The Journal of the Twin Cities Medical Society
employees had received promotional materials from the third-party announcing this undeniably convenient service. The materials may have reached employees but did not resonate with them. Employee interest in the clinic piqued after marketing materials were reproduced using the format, look, and feel of the county’s employee wellness program — an established and familiar program. Using pictures of employees, rather than corporate models promoted the clinic as if it was specifically about and for county employees. The person on the flier was actually the provider in the clinic. User-friendly descriptions made the clinic more approachable. “Laryngitis” became “sore throat.” “Diagnose acute conditions and monitor chronic conditions” translated into “diagnose and treat.” The second incorrect assumption involved staffing the clinic. Several providers staffed the clinic the first few years it was open — all of whom, as mentioned, were qualified and professional. Few employees expressed dissatisfaction with the medical services they received. Unfortunately, far more employees indicated frustration with the personal interaction they experienced at the clinic when it first opened. Utilization did, however, inch upward as employees promoted the clinic by word-of-mouth. Employees commented on the current provider’s patience and kindness. It became apparent users wanted not only a skilled provider but someone who listens to stories not medically related, follows an appointment with a phone call to check on the patient, remembers kid’s names, provides services — as appropriate — not listed on the list on the flier, and accommodates individual schedules — as able. Most employees would agree these gestures are desired and appreciated. Yet the customer never thought to request these traits in a provider. (Continued on page 22)
July/August 2011
21