You are on page 1of 39

Inspecting Informing Improving

NHS national staff survey 2006

Results from South Western Ambulance Service NHS Trust


1. NHS Staff Survey 2006 documentation

This report is one of several ways in which we present the results of the NHS National
Staff Survey 2006:
1) This feedback report summarises the main 2006 survey results for South Western
Ambulance Service NHS Trust, and includes:
• comparisons on 28 key scores with other ambulance trusts nationally
• breakdowns of the key scores within the trust by occupational group,
directorate, location and other work characteristics
• breakdowns of the key scores within the trust by age, gender, and disability
• information about how the trust can use the survey results in support of
Improving Working Lives and the Health and Safety Executive’s Stress Audit
• information about which survey findings the Healthcare Commission will be
using in the 2007 Annual Health Check
2) A separate summary report can be downloaded from:
http://www.healthcarecommission.org.uk/staffsurveys/. The summary report is a
shorter version of this feedback report, which may be useful for wider circulation
within the trust.
3) A series of detailed spreadsheets can be downloaded from:
http://www.healthcarecommission.org.uk/staffsurveys/, in which you can find:
• responses of staff in your trust to every core survey question
• responses in every trust in England
• the average responses for each major trust type (e.g. all acute trusts, all
ambulance trusts)
• the average responses for each sub-category of trust (e.g. acute teaching
trusts in London, acute teaching trusts outside London, large acute trusts in
London, large acute trusts outside London etc)
• the average trust responses within each strategic health authority
• the average responses for each major occupational and demographic group
within the major trust types
4) The document Making sense of your staff survey data can be downloaded from
http://www.healthcarecommission.org.uk/staffsurveys/
This includes:
• details about the calculation of key scores, including the weighting method
used, and confidence intervals
• an overview of the spreadsheets described above
• detailed information about which survey findings can be used to review
Improving Working Lives and the Health and Safety Executive’s Stress Audit,
and about which survey findings will be used in the 2007 Annual Health
Check
5) The documents listed above are produced for every trust participating in the survey
by the NHS Staff Survey Advice Centre. However, some trusts may have
commissioned separate reports of the 2006 survey findings from their survey
contractor.

2
2. Introduction to this report

South Western Ambulance Service NHS Trust is classified as an ambulance trust, and
the trusts used for comparison in this report are other ambulance trusts nationally1.

South Western Ambulance Service NHS Trust had, at the time of sampling, 2121 staff
who were eligible to receive the survey2. Questionnaires were sent to a random sample of
798 staff. 487 completed questionnaires were returned, representing a response rate of
61%3. This is above average for ambulance trusts in England,

The rest of this report is structured as follows:

Section 3: Description of this year's survey results 4

Section 4: Graphs showing 28 key scores for South Western 9


Ambulance Service NHS Trust, compared with other
ambulance trusts nationally

Section 5: Tables of key scores, broken down by occupational group, 12


directorate, location and full time/part time staff, line
managers/non-line managers, and shift workers/non-shift
workers

Section 6: Tables of key scores, broken down by age, gender, and 21


disability

Section 7: Tables showing the profile of respondents to the survey in 26


terms of work and demographic characteristics

Appendix 1: Tables showing the numbers used to construct the graphs 29


in section 4

Appendix 2: Survey findings that are relevant to the Healthcare 31


Commission’s Annual Health Check, Improving Working
Lives and the Health and Safety Executive’s stress audit

1
Excludes multiple service trusts
2
This includes only staff employed directly by the trust (i.e. excluding staff working for external contractors). It
excludes bank staff unless they are also employed directly elsewhere in the trust.
3
Questionnaires could only be counted if they were received complete with their ID number by the closing
date
3
3. Description of the 2006 survey results for South Western Ambulance
Service NHS Trust
This report focuses on 28 key areas which include data from all sections of the core
questionnaire: work life balance; appraisal, training, learning and development; team
working, supervision, communication and staff involvement; safety at work; and staff
attitudes. Later in the report, charts and tables show how South Western Ambulance
Service NHS Trust compares with other ambulance trusts on each of these key scores,
how they have changed since previous surveys, and how scores differ for staff groups
within the trust. In this section, we provide an introduction to the scores and describe the
main results for South Western Ambulance Service NHS Trust.
All percentage scores are shown to the nearest 1%. This means scores of less than 0.5%
are displayed as 0%.

3.1 Work life balance


3.1.1 Percentage of staff working extra hours
(the lower the score the better)
82% of staff at the trust said that, in an average week, they work longer than the hours for
which they are contracted. The trust's score of 82% was below average for ambulance
trusts in England.

3.1.2 Percentage of staff working extra hours due to pressure and demands of job
(the lower the score the better)
70% of staff at the trust said that in an average week they work longer than the hours for
which they are contracted, and give at least one of the following reasons for this: because
it is necessary to meet deadlines; because it is expected by their immediate manager;
because it is expected by colleagues; because it is impossible to do the job without doing
so; or because they don't want to let down the people they work with. The trust's score of
70% was average for ambulance trusts in England.

3.1.3 Quality of work life balance


(the higher the score the better)
Staff were asked questions to assess the extent to which they believe that their trust and
immediate manager are committed to helping them find a good balance between their
work and home life. Possible scores range from 1 to 5, with 1 representing virtually no
commitment from the trust, and 5 representing excellent commitment from the trust to
helping staff achieve a good balance. The trust's score of 2.97 was above average for
ambulance trusts in England.

3.1.4 Percentage of staff using flexible working options


(the higher the score the better)
47% of staff at the trust said that they had taken advantage of at least one of the following
flexible working options in their current job: flexi-time, working reduced hours (i.e.
part-time), working from home, annualised hours, working during school term-time only,
making team decisions about rotas, and job-sharing. The trust's score of 47% was below
average for ambulance trusts in England.

For more survey findings about work life balance (including support for carers), please
see appendix 2 of this report, and questions 1 to 6 in the detailed spreadsheets which
can be downloaded from http://www.healthcarecommission.org.uk/staffsurveys/.

3.2 Appraisal, training, learning and development


3.2.1 Percentage of staff appraised within previous 12 months
(the higher the score the better)
59% of staff at the trust said that they had received an appraisal or performance
development review in the last 12 months. The trust's score of 59% was above average
for ambulance trusts in England.

4
3.2.2 Percentage of staff having well structured appraisal reviews within previous
12 months
(the higher the score the better)
25% of staff at the trust said that they had received an appraisal or performance
development review in the last 12 months, in which they had agreed clear objectives for
their work, which they had found useful in helping them improve how they do their job,
and which had left them feeling that their work is valued by their employer. The trust's
score of 25% was above average for ambulance trusts in England.

3.2.3 Percentage of staff appraised with personal development plans within


previous 12 months
(the higher the score the better)
46% of staff at the trust said that they had agreed a personal development plan as part of
their appraisal or performance development review in the last 12 months. The trust's
score of 46% was above average for ambulance trusts in England.

3.2.4 Percentage of staff receiving training, learning or development in previous 12


months
(the higher the score the better)
93% of staff at the trust said that they had taken part in at least one of the following types
of employer-supported training, learning or development in the last 12 months: taught
courses, supervised on the job training, having a mentor, shadowing someone, e-learning
or online training, keeping up to date with work developments (e.g. by reading books or
journals, or by attending seminars or workshops), or other types of learning. The trust's
score of 93% was above average for ambulance trusts in England.

3.2.5 Percentage of staff receiving job-relevant training, learning or development in


previous 12 months
(the higher the score the better)
77% of staff at the trust said that they had received training, learning or development in
the previous 12 months which had helped them perform their jobs better, stay up-to-date
with their jobs or stay up-to-date with professional requirements. The trust's score of 77%
was above average for ambulance trusts in England.

For more survey findings about appraisals, training, learning and development (including
different methods of learning; training in specific areas such as equal opportunities,
awareness, major incidents, handling violence, alcohol and drugs, computer skills,
infection control and handling confidential information), please see appendix 2 of this
report, and questions 7 to 12 in the detailed spreadsheets.

3.3 Team working, supervision, communication and staff involvement


3.3.1 Percentage of staff working in a well structured team environment
(the higher the score the better)
20% of staff at the trust said that they work in a team of 15 or fewer people which has
clear objectives, and in which team members work closely together to achieve their
objectives, and meet regularly to discuss the team's effectiveness and how it could be
improved. The trust's score of 20% was above average for ambulance trusts in England.

3.3.2 Quality of job design (clear job content, feedback and staff involvement)
(the higher the score the better)
Staff were asked questions to assess the extent to which they feel they have clear goals
in their jobs, are given clear feedback on their performance and are given the opportunity
to participate in decision making. A ‘well designed' job is one that is rated highly on all
these aspects. Possible scores range from 1 to 5, with 1 representing jobs that are poor
in design, and 5 representing jobs that are very well designed. The trust's score of 3.02
was above average for ambulance trusts in England.

5
3.3.3 Support from immediate managers
(the higher the score the better)
Staff were asked questions to assess the extent to which they feel that their immediate
manager provides them with support, guidance and feedback on their work, and takes
into account their opinions before making decisions that affect their work. Possible scores
range from 1 to 5, with 1 representing very unsupportive managers, and 5 representing
highly supportive managers. The trust's score of 3.12 was above average for ambulance
trusts in England.

3.3.4 Extent of positive feeling within organisation (communication, staff


involvement, innovation & patient care)
(the higher the score the better)
Staff were asked questions about the wider organisational climate, or general feeling
within the trust. The questions covered a range of issues including communication within
the trust, employee involvement, innovation and patient care. Possible scores range from
1 to 5, with 1 representing a very negative feeling within the organisation, and 5
representing a very positive feeling within the organisation. The trust's score of 2.89 was
above average for ambulance trusts in England.

For more survey findings about team working, supervision, communication and staff
involvement (including findings on equal opportunities and discrimination), please see
appendix 2 of this report, and questions 15, 16, 19, 20, 22 and 23 in the detailed
spreadsheets.

3.4 Safety at work


3.4.1 Percentage of staff having health and safety training in previous 12 months
(the higher the score the better)
59% of staff at the trust said that they had received health and safety training (including
fire training, manual handling etc) in the previous 12 months. The trust's score of 59%
was above average for ambulance trusts in England.

3.4.2 Percentage of staff suffering work related injury in previous 12 months


(the lower the score the better)
34% of staff at the trust said that, in the previous year, they had been injured or felt
unwell as a result of one of the following problems: moving and handling; needlestick and
sharps injuries; slips, trips or falls; or exposure to dangerous substances. The trust's
score of 34% was below average for ambulance trusts in England.

3.4.3 Percentage of staff suffering work related stress in previous 12 months


(the lower the score the better)
22% of staff at the trust said that, in the previous year, they had suffered from work
related stress. The trust's score of 22% was below average for ambulance trusts in
England.

3.4.4 Percentage of staff witnessing potentially harmful errors, near misses or


incidents in previous month
(the lower the score the better)
40% of staff at the trust said that, in the previous month, they had witnessed at least one
error, near miss or incident which could have hurt patients or staff. The trust's score of
40% was below average for ambulance trusts in England.

3.4.5 Percentage of staff reporting harmful errors, near misses or incidents


(the higher the score the better)
90% of staff who had witnessed such an error, near miss or incident said that they, or a
colleague, had reported it. The trust's score of 90% was above average for ambulance
trusts in England.

6
3.4.6 Fairness and effectiveness of procedures for reporting errors, near misses or
incidents
(the higher the score the better)
Staff were asked questions to assess the climate and culture of incident reporting in
trusts. In particular, the questions asked whether staff were aware of the procedures for
reporting errors, near misses and incidents; to what extent staff feel that the trust
encourages such reports, and then treats the reports fairly and confidentially; and to what
extent the trust takes action to ensure that such incidents do not happen again. Possible
scores range from 1 to 5, with 1 representing very unfair and ineffective procedures, and
5 representing very fair and effective procedures. The trust's score of 3.42 was above
average for ambulance trusts in England.

3.4.7 Percentage of staff experiencing physical violence from patients or relatives


in previous 12 months
(the lower the score the better)
22% of staff had experienced physical violence from patients, service users or their
relatives in the previous 12 months. The trust's score of 22% was below average for
ambulance trusts in England.

3.4.8 Percentage of staff experiencing physical violence from staff in previous 12


months
(the lower the score the better)
1% of staff had experienced physical violence from colleagues or managers in the
previous 12 months. The trust's score of 1% was average for ambulance trusts in
England.

3.4.9 Percentage of staff experiencing harassment, bullying or abuse from patients


or relatives in previous 12 months
(the lower the score the better)
44% of staff had experienced harassment, bullying or abuse from patients, service users
or their relatives in the previous 12 months. The trust's score of 44% was below average
for ambulance trusts in England.

3.4.10 Percentage of staff experiencing harassment, bullying or abuse from staff in


previous 12 months
(the lower the score the better)
17% of staff had experienced harassment, bullying or abuse from colleagues or
managers in the previous 12 months. The trust's score of 17% was below average for
ambulance trusts in England.

3.4.11 Perceptions of effective action from trust towards violence and harassment
(the higher the score the better)
Staff were asked questions about the extent to which they think their trust takes effective
action if staff are physically attacked or bullied, harassed or abused (including racial and
sexual harassment). Possible scores range from 1 to 5, with 1 representing the
perception that the trust never takes any effective action, and 5 representing the
perception that the trust always takes effective action. The trust's score of 3.56 was
above average for ambulance trusts in England.

3.4.12 Availability of hand washing materials


(the higher the score the better)
Staff were asked questions about the availability of materials for hand washing for staff,
patients and visitors to the trust. Possible scores range from 1 to 5, with 1 representing no
availability, and 5 representing full availability. The trust's score of 4.38 was above
average for ambulance trusts in England.

7
For more survey findings about safety at work (including training in handling violence and
aggression, awareness of reporting procedures for incidents of violence and harassment,
whistle blowing, and infection control and hygiene), please see appendix 2 of this report,
and questions 10 and 24 to 34 in the detailed spreadsheets.

3.5 Staff attitudes


3.5.1 Staff job satisfaction
(the higher the score the better)
Staff were asked questions about how satisfied they are with various aspects of their job
including: recognition for good work; support from their immediate manager and
colleagues; freedom to choose methods of working; amount of responsibility;
opportunities to use their abilities; and the extent to which the trust values their work.
Possible scores range from 1 to 5, with 1 representing very unsatisfied staff and 5
representing very satisfied staff. The trust's score of 3.29 was above average for
ambulance trusts in England.

3.5.2 Work pressure felt by staff


(the lower the score the better)
Staff were asked questions to assess the extent to which they feel their workload is larger
than they can cope with. Possible scores range from 1 to 5, with 1 representing virtually
no pressure felt by staff, and 5 representing extremely high feelings of work pressure.
The trust's score of 2.87 was below average for ambulance trusts in England.

3.5.3 Staff intention to leave jobs


(the lower the score the better)
Staff were asked questions to assess the extent to which they are considering leaving
their trust and looking for a new job, either within or outside the NHS. Possible scores
range from 1 to 5, with 1 representing staff who have no intention of leaving their jobs,
and 5 representing staff who are very keen to leave their jobs. The trust's score of 2.29
was below average for ambulance trusts in England.

For more survey findings about staff attitudes, please see appendix 2 of this report, and
questions 16 to 19 in the detailed spreadsheets.

8
4. Summary scores and benchmarks for key variables

The following 2 pages present the 28 key scores described in Section 3 graphically.

To aid presentation in charts, the scores are organised in a different order from section 3.
There are two basic types of scores:
• percentage scores (Figure 4.1), i.e. percentage of respondents giving a
particular response to a survey question or series of questions
• scale summary scores (Figure 4.2), calculated by converting staff
responses to particular questions into scores; for each of the 10 key scores
in Figure 4.2, the minimum score is always 1 and the maximum score is 5

How to interpret figures 4.1 and 4.2


Figures 4.1 and 4.2 display your trust's 28 key scores, compared with national
benchmarks for ambulance trusts . (The same data are displayed in tabular form in
Tables 1 and 2 in Appendix 1).

In the figures:

Your trust's score is represented by a small red circle.


The black lines to either side of this circle represent the confidence interval
around the trust score (a measure of how accurate the trust score is).
The green bar represents the range of ambulance trusts. The median
(middle) trust score is represented by the vertical line

What a high or low score means


As the survey covers both positive and negative staff experiences, we have separated
the scores in Figs 4.1 and 4.2 to indicate whether a higher, or a lower score is preferable.

Similarly, in figure 4.2:


• for the first eight key scores, the higher score the better
• for the last two key scores, the lower score the better

9
Figure 4.1: Graph showing percentage scores for South Western Ambulance
Service NHS Trust compared with other ambulance trusts nationally
(Higher scores better)
Response rate

% staff using flexible working options


(section 3.1.4)

% staff appraised within previous 12 months


(section 3.2.1)

% staff having well structured appraisals within


previous 12 months (section 3.2.2)

% staff appraised with personal development


plans within previous 12 months (section 3.2.3)

% staff receiving training, learning or development


in previous 12 months (section 3.2.4)

% staff receiving job-relevant training, learning or


development in previous 12 months (section 3.2.5)

% staff working in a well structured team


environment (section 3.3.1)

% staff having health and safety training in


previous 12 months (section 3.4.1)

% staff reporting errors, near misses or incidents


(section 3.4.5)

(Lower scores better)


% staff working extra hours (section 3.1.1)

% staff working extra hours due to pressure and


demands of job (section 3.1.2)

% staff suffering work related injuries in previous


12 months (section 3.4.2)

% staff suffering from work related stress in


previous 12 months (section 3.4.3)

% staff witnessing potentially harmful errors, near


misses or incidents in previous month (section 3.4.4)

% staff experiencing physical violence from


patients/relatives in previous 12 months (section 3.4.7)

% staff experiencing physical violence from staff in


previous 12 months (section 3.4.8)

% Staff experiencing harassment, bullying or abuse from


patients/relatives in previous 12 months (section 3.4.9)

% Staff experiencing harassment, bullying or abuse


from staff in previous 12 months (section 3.4.10)

10
Figure 4.2: Graph showing scale summary scores for South Western
Ambulance Service NHS Trust compared with other ambulance trusts
nationally
(Higher scores better)
Quality of work life balance
(section 3.1.3)
Quality of job design (clear job content, feedback
and staff involvement) (section 3.3.2)
Support from immediate managers
(section 3.3.3)
Extent of positive feeling within organisation
(communication, staff involvement, innovation &
patient care) (section 3.3.4)
Fairness and effectiveness of procedures for reporting
errors, near misses or incidents (section 3.4.6)

Perceptions of effective action from trust towards


violence and harassment (section 3.4.11)

Availability of hand washing materials (section 3.4.12)

Staff job satisfaction (section 3.5.1)

(Lower scores better)


Work pressure felt by staff (section 3.5.2)

Staff intention to leave jobs (section 3.5.3)

Key:

Trust score
Confidence interval around the trust score
The green bar represents the range of ambulance trusts. Vertical line
defines median (middle) value

Source: National NHS Staff Survey 2006

11
5. Summary scores for occupational group, directorate, location and other
work characteristics

Tables 5.1.1 to 5.4.2 show the scores for several groups defined by work categories in
this trust.

Care should be taken not to over interpret the findings if scores differ only slightly. For
example, if medical and dental staff score 3.22 on job satisfaction, and general managers
3.31, it may appear that general managers are more satisfied than medical and dental
staff. However, this difference is very small, and would probably not be statistically
significant. A more sensible interpretation would be that, on average, medical and dental
staff have similar job satisfaction to general managers.

Please note that, unlike the overall Trust scores, data in this section are not weighted.

All percentage scores are shown to the nearest 1%. This means scores of less than 0.5%
are displayed as 0%.

12
Table 5.1.1: Percentage scores for different occupational groups
Occupational group

% % % % %
% staff working extra hours 58 91 88 56 79
% staff working extra hours due to pressure 54 75 75 40 75
and demands of job
% staff using flexible working options 88 31 36 70 49
% staff appraised within previous 12 months 58 63 63 58 53
% staff having well structured appraisals 36 22 31 17 22
within previous 12 months
% staff appraised with personal development 38 53 50 43 38
plans within previous 12 months
% staff receiving training, learning or 74 100 99 100 85
development in previous 12 months
% staff receiving job-relevant training, 62 82 86 80 68
learning or development in previous 12
months
% staff working in a well structured team 20 12 21 28 17
environment
% staff having health and safety training in 54 63 69 46 55
previous 12 months
% staff suffering work related injury in 0 48 40 0 42
previous 12 months
% staff suffering work related stress in 15 33 21 13 13
previous 12 months
% staff witnessing potentially harmful errors, 11 47 40 52 44
near misses or incidents in previous month
% staff reporting errors, near misses or - 89 88 100 81
incidents
% staff experiencing physical violence from 0 36 34 0 4
patients/relatives in previous 12 months
% staff experiencing physical violence from 0 1 0 0 2
staff in previous 12 months
% Staff experiencing harassment, bullying or 7 62 56 56 19
abuse from patients/relatives in previous 12
months
% Staff experiencing harassment, bullying or 19 15 8 24 22
abuse from staff in previous 12 months
Number of respondents 27 196 136 25 55

In order to preserve anonymity of individual staff, a score is replaced with a dash if the staff group in question contributed fewer
than 11 responses to that score. In addition, due to low numbers of respondents, no scores are shown for the groups: All nurses,
Medical & Dental, General Management, Central Functions / Corporate Services and Maintenance / Ancillary.
13
Table 5.1.2: Scale summary scores for different occupational groups
Occupational group

Quality of work life balance 3.71 2.77 2.90 3.17 3.03


Quality of job design (clear job content, 3.04 2.92 3.11 3.09 3.00
feedback and staff involvement)
Support from immediate managers 3.35 2.90 3.31 3.16 3.01
Extent of positive feeling within organisation 2.99 2.75 2.95 2.99 2.82
(communication, staff involvement, innovation
& patient care)
Fairness and effectiveness of procedures for 3.46 3.40 3.45 3.36 3.38
reporting errors, near misses or incidents
Perceptions of effective action from trust 3.60 3.41 3.59 3.62 3.69
towards violence and harassment
Availability of hand washing materials 4.29 4.19 4.42 4.69 4.55
Staff job satisfaction 3.35 3.24 3.43 3.23 3.19
Work pressure felt by staff 2.96 3.02 2.65 2.54 2.88
Staff intention to leave jobs 2.52 2.38 2.04 2.53 2.32
Number of respondents 27 196 136 25 55

In order to preserve anonymity of individual staff, a score is replaced with a dash if the staff group in question contributed fewer
than 11 responses to that score. In addition, due to low numbers of respondents, no scores are shown for the groups: All nurses,
Medical & Dental, General Management, Central Functions / Corporate Services and Maintenance / Ancillary.
14
Table 5.2.1: Percentage scores for different directorates
Directorate

% %
% staff working extra hours 86 71
% staff working extra hours due to pressure 73 46
and demands of job
% staff using flexible working options 39 81
% staff appraised within previous 12 months 61 31
% staff having well structured appraisals 24 21
within previous 12 months
% staff appraised with personal development 49 21
plans within previous 12 months
% staff receiving training, learning or 97 60
development in previous 12 months
% staff receiving job-relevant training, 81 52
learning or development in previous 12
months
% staff working in a well structured team 17 14
environment
% staff having health and safety training in 62 37
previous 12 months
% staff suffering work related injury in 41 3
previous 12 months
% staff suffering work related stress in 26 3
previous 12 months
% staff witnessing potentially harmful errors, 43 17
near misses or incidents in previous month
% staff reporting errors, near misses or 89 -
incidents
% staff experiencing physical violence from 29 0
patients/relatives in previous 12 months
% staff experiencing physical violence from 1 0
staff in previous 12 months
% Staff experiencing harassment, bullying or 52 23
abuse from patients/relatives in previous 12
months
% Staff experiencing harassment, bullying or 16 10
abuse from staff in previous 12 months
Number of respondents 439 30

In order to preserve anonymity of individual staff, a score is replaced with a dash if the staff group in question contributed fewer
than 11 responses to that score. Please note that the breakdown by directorate was provided by South Western Ambulance
Service NHS Trust
15
Table 5.2.2: Scale summary scores for different directorates
Directorate

Quality of work life balance 2.88 3.12


Quality of job design (clear job content, 3.00 2.82
feedback and staff involvement)
Support from immediate managers 3.09 2.84
Extent of positive feeling within organisation 2.84 3.00
(communication, staff involvement, innovation
& patient care)
Fairness and effectiveness of procedures for 3.42 3.26
reporting errors, near misses or incidents
Perceptions of effective action from trust 3.52 3.48
towards violence and harassment
Availability of hand washing materials 4.32 4.49
Staff job satisfaction 3.28 3.25
Work pressure felt by staff 2.91 2.51
Staff intention to leave jobs 2.26 2.35
Number of respondents 439 30

Please note that the breakdown by directorate was provided by South Western Ambulance Service NHS Trust
16
Table 5.3.1: Percentage scores for different locations
Location

% % % % % %
% staff working extra hours 85 82 92 94 80 52
% staff working extra hours due to pressure 73 71 82 74 57 45
and demands of job
% staff using flexible working options 35 39 38 34 76 79
% staff appraised within previous 12 months 61 61 60 69 34 71
% staff having well structured appraisals 24 26 24 27 21 37
within previous 12 months
% staff appraised with personal development 48 45 52 59 24 50
plans within previous 12 months
% staff receiving training, learning or 96 98 100 100 69 88
development in previous 12 months
% staff receiving job-relevant training, 80 84 82 80 59 75
learning or development in previous 12
months
% staff working in a well structured team 17 14 15 18 26 32
environment
% staff having health and safety training in 55 81 74 47 48 45
previous 12 months
% staff suffering work related injury in 47 38 46 43 6 0
previous 12 months
% staff suffering work related stress in 31 19 23 26 15 16
previous 12 months
% staff witnessing potentially harmful errors, 47 36 42 49 23 28
near misses or incidents in previous month
% staff reporting errors, near misses or 86 87 90 90 100 100
incidents
% staff experiencing physical violence from 37 26 33 22 2 0
patients/relatives in previous 12 months
% staff experiencing physical violence from 1 0 2 3 0 0
staff in previous 12 months
% Staff experiencing harassment, bullying or 55 51 57 48 25 28
abuse from patients/relatives in previous 12
months
% Staff experiencing harassment, bullying or 17 11 14 14 17 28
abuse from staff in previous 12 months
Number of respondents 145 90 90 78 48 32

Please note that the breakdown by location was provided by South Western Ambulance Service NHS Trust
17
Table 5.3.2: Scale summary scores for different locations
Location

Quality of work life balance 2.71 3.01 3.07 2.71 3.28 3.35
Quality of job design (clear job content, 2.91 3.05 3.13 2.91 3.02 3.25
feedback and staff involvement)
Support from immediate managers 2.99 3.17 3.19 3.00 3.12 3.39
Extent of positive feeling within organisation 2.68 3.16 2.87 2.68 3.12 3.01
(communication, staff involvement, innovation
& patient care)
Fairness and effectiveness of procedures for 3.36 3.44 3.44 3.40 3.38 3.53
reporting errors, near misses or incidents
Perceptions of effective action from trust 3.40 3.64 3.54 3.45 3.62 3.80
towards violence and harassment
Availability of hand washing materials 4.26 4.34 4.34 4.36 4.40 4.61
Staff job satisfaction 3.24 3.33 3.37 3.24 3.32 3.32
Work pressure felt by staff 2.89 2.96 2.86 2.93 2.70 2.83
Staff intention to leave jobs 2.27 2.26 2.21 2.27 2.26 2.70
Number of respondents 145 90 90 78 48 32

Please note that the breakdown by location was provided by South Western Ambulance Service NHS Trust
18
Table 5.4.1: Percentage scores for different work groups
Full time / part timea Line managers / non Shift workers /
line managers non-shift workers

% % % % % %
% staff working extra hours 87 65 88 84 87 73
% staff working extra hours due to pressure 75 44 81 69 72 66
and demands of job
% staff using flexible working options 37 90 49 41 39 70
% staff appraised within previous 12 months 61 51 65 59 61 60
% staff having well structured appraisals 26 20 31 24 25 27
within previous 12 months
% staff appraised with personal development 50 26 55 46 49 41
plans within previous 12 months
% staff receiving training, learning or 97 77 98 94 97 78
development in previous 12 months
% staff receiving job-relevant training, 81 63 83 78 82 64
learning or development in previous 12
months
% staff working in a well structured team 19 8 28 16 17 29
environment
% staff having health and safety training in 65 34 67 60 61 59
previous 12 months
% staff suffering work related injury in 40 14 29 39 40 21
previous 12 months
% staff suffering work related stress in 27 4 31 22 25 18
previous 12 months
% staff witnessing potentially harmful errors, 42 28 38 41 42 27
near misses or incidents in previous month
% staff reporting errors, near misses or 89 87 91 89 90 91
incidents
% staff experiencing physical violence from 28 8 33 24 30 0
patients/relatives in previous 12 months
% staff experiencing physical violence from 1 0 2 1 1 0
staff in previous 12 months
% Staff experiencing harassment, bullying or 51 29 48 49 54 13
abuse from patients/relatives in previous 12
months
% Staff experiencing harassment, bullying or 16 12 20 15 14 22
abuse from staff in previous 12 months
Number of respondents 430 52 91 389 413 68

a
Full time is defined for the purposes of this survey as working 30 hours or more a week
19
Table 5.4.2: Scale summary scores for different work groups
Full time / part timea Line managers / non Shift workers /
line managers non-shift workers

Quality of work life balance 2.88 3.41 3.05 2.91 2.85 3.50
Quality of job design (clear job content, 3.02 2.92 3.10 3.00 3.00 3.11
feedback and staff involvement)
Support from immediate managers 3.12 2.96 3.22 3.08 3.07 3.42
Extent of positive feeling within organisation 2.86 2.92 3.05 2.84 2.86 3.01
(communication, staff involvement, innovation
& patient care)
Fairness and effectiveness of procedures for 3.43 3.32 3.54 3.39 3.42 3.48
reporting errors, near misses or incidents
Perceptions of effective action from trust 3.54 3.50 3.54 3.54 3.50 3.81
towards violence and harassment
Availability of hand washing materials 4.33 4.42 4.34 4.35 4.32 4.56
Staff job satisfaction 3.30 3.26 3.31 3.30 3.30 3.31
Work pressure felt by staff 2.93 2.53 3.25 2.78 2.85 3.05
Staff intention to leave jobs 2.30 2.19 2.31 2.28 2.25 2.45
Number of respondents 430 52 91 389 413 68

a
Full time is defined as working 30 hours or more a week
20
6. Summary scores for different demographic groups

Tables 6.1.1 to 6.2.2 show the scores for different demographic groups in this trust.

Care should be taken not to over interpret the findings if scores differ only slightly. For
example, if male staff score 3.22 on job satisfaction, and women score 3.31, it may
appear that women are more satisfied than men. However, this difference is very small,
and would probably be statistically insignificant. A more sensible interpretation would be
that, on average, men and women have similar job satisfaction on average.

Please note that, unlike the overall Trust scores, data in this section are not weighted.

All percentage scores are shown to the nearest 1%. This means scores of less than 0.5%
are displayed as 0%.

In order to aid comparison between years, scores from 2004 and 2005 have been re-weighted according to
the 2006 weightings. This explains any slight differences between the figures quoted in this report and those
given in previous years.
21
Table 6.1.1: Percentage scores for different age groups
Age group

% % % %
% staff working extra hours 82 89 82 87
% staff working extra hours due to pressure 70 76 68 70
and demands of job
% staff using flexible working options 34 35 50 52
% staff appraised within previous 12 months 64 61 59 57
% staff having well structured appraisals 30 19 26 30
within previous 12 months
% staff appraised with personal development 51 47 51 42
plans within previous 12 months
% staff receiving training, learning or 97 99 95 85
development in previous 12 months
% staff receiving job-relevant training, 85 82 79 69
learning or development in previous 12
months
% staff working in a well structured team 20 12 20 23
environment
% staff having health and safety training in 60 63 62 60
previous 12 months
% staff suffering work related injury in 37 41 39 29
previous 12 months
% staff suffering work related stress in 23 24 23 27
previous 12 months
% staff witnessing potentially harmful errors, 55 49 31 29
near misses or incidents in previous month
% staff reporting errors, near misses or 94 89 89 85
incidents
% staff experiencing physical violence from 26 34 25 12
patients/relatives in previous 12 months
% staff experiencing physical violence from 0 2 1 0
staff in previous 12 months
% Staff experiencing harassment, bullying or 51 62 42 35
abuse from patients/relatives in previous 12
months
% Staff experiencing harassment, bullying or 12 17 17 14
abuse from staff in previous 12 months
Number of respondents 87 151 148 92

22
Table 6.1.2: Scale summary scores for different age groups
Age group

Quality of work life balance 3.05 2.75 3.00 3.09


Quality of job design (clear job content, 3.15 2.96 2.98 3.04
feedback and staff involvement)
Support from immediate managers 3.31 2.95 3.16 3.11
Extent of positive feeling within organisation 2.87 2.77 2.98 2.88
(communication, staff involvement, innovation
& patient care)
Fairness and effectiveness of procedures for 3.48 3.36 3.45 3.44
reporting errors, near misses or incidents
Perceptions of effective action from trust 3.69 3.42 3.49 3.69
towards violence and harassment
Availability of hand washing materials 4.29 4.24 4.35 4.58
Staff job satisfaction 3.41 3.25 3.28 3.30
Work pressure felt by staff 2.75 2.95 2.93 2.77
Staff intention to leave jobs 2.27 2.27 2.26 2.33
Number of respondents 87 151 148 92

23
Table 6.2.1: Percentage scores for other demographic groups
Gender Disability

% % % %
% staff working extra hours 85 84 - 85
% staff working extra hours due to pressure 73 67 - 72
and demands of job
% staff using flexible working options 38 55 - 42
% staff appraised within previous 12 months 62 55 55 60
% staff having well structured appraisals 28 20 36 25
within previous 12 months
% staff appraised with personal development 49 44 - 48
plans within previous 12 months
% staff receiving training, learning or 96 90 82 95
development in previous 12 months
% staff receiving job-relevant training, 80 78 73 79
learning or development in previous 12
months
% staff working in a well structured team 17 20 - 18
environment
% staff having health and safety training in 63 58 45 62
previous 12 months
% staff suffering work related injury in 38 35 - 36
previous 12 months
% staff suffering work related stress in 24 25 - 24
previous 12 months
% staff witnessing potentially harmful errors, 40 42 45 41
near misses or incidents in previous month
% staff reporting errors, near misses or 88 93 - 89
incidents
% staff experiencing physical violence from 30 17 45 25
patients/relatives in previous 12 months
% staff experiencing physical violence from 0 2 9 1
staff in previous 12 months
% Staff experiencing harassment, bullying or 51 44 55 49
abuse from patients/relatives in previous 12
months
% Staff experiencing harassment, bullying or 14 19 36 15
abuse from staff in previous 12 months
Number of respondents 330 151 11 469

In order to preserve anonymity of individual staff, a score is replaced with a dash if the staff group in question contributed fewer
than 11 responses to that score. This means that no analysis by ethnic group is shown.
24
Table 6.2.2: Scale summary scores for other demographic groups
Gender Disability

Quality of work life balance 2.84 3.15 - 2.94


Quality of job design (clear job content, 2.99 3.06 - 3.02
feedback and staff involvement)
Support from immediate managers 3.11 3.11 2.93 3.11
Extent of positive feeling within organisation 2.86 2.89 2.99 2.86
(communication, staff involvement, innovation
& patient care)
Fairness and effectiveness of procedures for 3.42 3.41 3.31 3.42
reporting errors, near misses or incidents
Perceptions of effective action from trust 3.52 3.57 3.64 3.53
towards violence and harassment
Availability of hand washing materials 4.34 4.33 - 4.35
Staff job satisfaction 3.30 3.29 - 3.30
Work pressure felt by staff 2.88 2.87 - 2.87
Staff intention to leave jobs 2.29 2.27 - 2.28
Number of respondents 330 151 11 469

In order to preserve anonymity of individual staff, a score is replaced with a dash if the staff group in question contributed fewer
than 11 responses to that score. This means that no analysis by ethnic group is shown.
25
7. Work and demographic profile of the respondents
The occupational group of the staff survey respondents is shown in table 7.1, other work
characteristics are shown in table 7.2, and demographic characteristics are shown in
table 7.3.

Table 7.1: Occupational group of respondents


Occupational group Number Percentage of
questionnaires survey
returned respondents
Nurses, Midwives and Nursing Assistants
Registered Nurses - Adult/General 1 0%
Registered Nurses – Children 1 0%
Nursing Auxiliary/Nursing Assistant/Healthcare Assistant 7 1%
Medical and dental
Medical/Dental – Other 1 0%
Ambulance staff (operational)
Paramedics 196 40%
Ambulance Technicians 136 28%
Ambulance Control Staff 25 5%
Patient Transport Service 55 11%
Other groups
Admin & Clerical 27 6%
Central Functions/Corporate Services (e.g. HR, Finance, 5 1%
Information Systems, Information Technology)
Maintenance/Ancillary 9 2%
General Management 8 2%
Other 5 1%
Did not specify 11 2%

Sums of percentages may add to more than 100% due to rounding


26
Table 7.2: Work characteristics of respondents

Number Percentage of
questionnaires survey
returned respondents

Full time/part time


Full time 430 88%
Part time 52 11%
Did not specify 5 1%

Shift work
Shift worker 413 85%
Non shift worker 68 14%
Did not specify 6 1%

Line manager/non line manager


Line manager 91 19%
Non line manager 389 80%
Did not specify 7 1%

Length of time in trust


Less than a year 29 6%
1-2 years 89 18%
3-5 years 124 25%
6-10 years 83 17%
11-15 years 38 8%
Over 15 years 120 25%
Did not specify 4 1%

Sums of percentages may add to more than 100% due to rounding


27
Table 7.3: Demographic characteristics of respondents

Number Percentage of
questionnaires survey
returned respondents

Age group
16-30 87 18%
31-40 151 31%
41-50 148 30%
Over 51 92 19%
Did not specify 9 2%

Gender
Male 330 68%
Female 151 31%
Did not specify 6 1%

Ethnic background
White 476 98%
Black and minority ethnic 3 1%
Did not specify 8 2%

Disabled status
Disabled 11 2%
Not disabled 469 96%
Did not specify 7 1%

Dependants
Staff with dependants 176 36%
Staff with child(ren) under 5 years old 68 14%
Staff with child(ren) between 5 and 18 years old 96 20%
Staff with elderly dependants 25 5%
Staff with disabled dependants 19 4%
Staff with other dependants 6 1%
Staff with no dependants 302 62%
Did not specify 9 2%

Sums of percentages may add to more than 100% due to rounding


Sum of dependant categories may add to more than 100%, not only because of rounding but also because of
multiple types of dependant
28
Appendix 1: Information used to create figures 4.1 & 4.2
Table A1.1: Percentage scores for South Western Ambulance Service NHS Trust
benchmarked against other ambulance trusts (information shown in figure 4.1)
South Western Ambulance National scores for ambulance trusts
Service NHS Trust
Percentage score

% % % % %
Response rate 61 - 47 38 61
% staff using flexible working options 47 [43, 50] 53 43 71
% staff appraised within previous 12 59 [55, 63] 45 17 60
months
% staff having well structured appraisals 25 [22, 29] 17 7 25
within previous 12 months
% staff appraised with personal 46 [42, 50] 34 7 49
development plans within previous 12
months
% staff receiving training, learning or 93 [90, 95] 90 87 93
development in previous 12 months
% staff receiving job-relevant training, 77 [74, 81] 64 55 77
learning or development in previous 12
months
% staff working in a well structured team 20 [16, 23] 16 14 22
environment
% staff having health and safety training 59 [55, 63] 42 22 59
in previous 12 months
% staff reporting errors, near misses or 90 [87, 93] 82 76 90
incidents
% staff working extra hours 82 [79, 86] 84 78 88
% staff working extra hours due to 70 [66, 74] 70 62 75
pressure and demands of job
% staff suffering work related injury in 34 [31, 38] 37 30 42
previous 12 months
% staff suffering work related stress in 22 [19, 25] 33 22 38
previous 12 months
% staff witnessing potentially harmful 40 [36, 44] 42 37 45
errors, near misses or incidents in
previous month
% staff experiencing physical violence 22 [19, 25] 29 22 37
from patients/relatives in previous 12
months
% staff experiencing physical violence 1 [0, 2] 2 1 3
from staff in previous 12 months
% Staff experiencing harassment, 44 [40, 48] 48 44 53
bullying or abuse from patients/relatives
in previous 12 months
% Staff experiencing harassment, 17 [14, 20] 19 17 24
bullying or abuse from staff in previous 12
months

29
Table A1.2: Scale summary scores for South Western Ambulance Service NHS Trust
benchmarked against other ambulance trusts (information shown in figure 4.2)
South Western Ambulance National scores for ambulance trusts
Service NHS Trust
Scale summary score

Quality of work life balance 2.97 [2.90, 3.04] 2.93 2.72 3.14
Quality of job design (clear job content, 3.02 [2.97, 3.08] 2.92 2.74 3.02
feedback and staff involvement)
Support from immediate managers 3.12 [3.05, 3.20] 3.01 2.78 3.14
Extent of positive feeling within 2.89 [2.82, 2.96] 2.60 2.27 2.89
organisation (communication, staff
involvement, innovation & patient care)
Fairness and effectiveness of procedures 3.42 [3.37, 3.46] 3.09 2.95 3.42
for reporting errors, near misses or
incidents
Perceptions of effective action from trust 3.56 [3.50, 3.62] 3.29 3.13 3.56
towards violence and harassment
Availability of hand washing materials 4.38 [4.31, 4.45] 4.21 4.03 4.47
Staff job satisfaction 3.29 [3.23, 3.35] 3.15 3.05 3.29
Work pressure felt by staff 2.87 [2.81, 2.93] 3.08 2.87 3.23
Staff intention to leave jobs 2.29 [2.21, 2.38] 2.57 2.29 2.77

30
Appendix 2: Scores relevant to the Healthcare Commission's Annual Health
Check, Improving Working Lives and the Health and Safety Executive's
stress audit

This appendix outlines which survey questions map onto the core standards in the
Department of Health's “Standards for Better Health”, and therefore how the Healthcare
Commission will use survey data in its Annual Health Check. It also shows survey scores
which can be used to support Improving Working Lives and the Health and Safety
Executive's stress audit - the table at the end of this appendix shows how these scores
map onto each area.

As well as giving your trust's 2006 score in each area, it gives the median (middle) 2006
score for ambulance trusts and your trust's score from the 2005 survey (where
applicable).

A copy of the questionnaire can be downloaded from the Advice Centre website at
http://www.nhsstaffsurveys.com/. The 28 key scores used throughout this feedback report
are shown below in bold, together with many individual survey questions some of which
contribute to those scores.

More detailed information for any question can be found in the detailed spreadsheets at:
http://www.healthcarecommission.org.uk/staffsurveys/.

If, for example, you would like to explore responses to question 11a (% staff trained in
equal opportunities), go to the spreadsheet entitled “Q7-Q12 detailed responses.xls”.
Using columns AU-AY, you can explore the responses of staff in all NHS Trusts,
responses by major trust type, within strategic health authority and by occupational and
demographic group.

Question / Score Number Map to core Trust Median Trust


standards score ambulance score
(2006) trust score (2005)
(2006)

% staff working part time Q1a 11a 11% 11% -%


% staff working extra hours Q1b-c 11a 82% 84% -%
% staff working extra hours Q1b-c, 11a 70% 70% -%
due to pressure and Q2a,d,e,g,i
demands of the job

Quality of work life balance Q3a-c 8b, 11a 2.97 2.93 -


% staff using flexible Q4a-g 8b, 11a 47% 53% -%
working options
% staff with children under 5 Q5a - 14% 11% -%
years old
% staff with children aged 5-18 Q5b - 20% 18% -%
% staff with elderly Q5c - 5% 6% -%
dependants
% staff with disabled Q5d - 4% 4% -%
dependants
% staff with other dependants Q5e - 1% 2% -%
% of staff with dependant Q6a - 30% 24% -%
children who say the trust
offers access to a childcare
coordinator

31
Question / Score Number Map to core Trust Median Trust
standards score ambulance score
(2006) trust score (2005)
(2006)

% staff with dependant Q6b - 9% 11% -%


children who say the trust
offers subsidised childcare
% staff with dependant Q6c - 24% 32% -%
children who say the trust
offers childcare vouchers
% staff with dependant Q6d - 2% 4% -%
children who say the trust
offers other childcare support
% staff with dependants who Q6e - 1% 4% -%
say the trust offers support for
carers of other dependants

% staff appraised within Q7a 5c, 8b, 59% 45% -%


previous 12 months 11a-c
% staff having well Q7a-d 5c, 8b, 25% 17% -%
structured appraisals within 11a-c
previous 12 months
% staff appraised with Q7a, 5c, 8b, 46% 34% -%
personal development plans Q8a 11a-c
within previous 12 months
% staff who had received Q8b 5c, 8b, 42% 35% -%
training, learning and 11a-c
development identified in
personal development plan
% staff who had received Q8c 5c, 8b, 48% 42% -%
support from immediate 11a-c
manager in accessing training,
learning and development
identified in personal
development plan

% staff receiving training, Q9a-g, 5c, 11a-c, 93% 90% -%


learning or development in Q10a-i, 13a
previous 12 months Q11a-f
% staff receiving Q9a-g, 5c, 11a-c, 77% 64% -
job-relevant training, Q10a-i, 13a
learning or development in Q11a-f,
previous 12 months Q12a,c,d
% staff having health and Q10a 8a, 11b-c, 59% 42% -%
safety training in previous 20
12 months
% staff trained in major Q10b 24 75% 65% -%
incidents or emergencies

% staff trained in preventing Q10c - 63% 60% -%


and handling violence
% staff trained in infection Q10d 4a, 11b-c, 87% 66% -%
control 21
% staff trained in computer Q10e - 26% 27% -%
skills

32
Question / Score Number Map to core Trust Median Trust
standards score ambulance score
(2006) trust score (2005)
(2006)

% staff trained in handling Q10f 9 73% 58% -%


confidential patient information
% staff trained in asking Q10g - 31% 27% -
patients/service about their
use of alcohol or drugs
% staff trained in handling Q10h - 37% 36% -
patients/service users who are
drunk or under the influence of
drugs
% staff trained in give Q10i - 47% 35% -
information to patients/service
users on diagnosis,
medication, side effects etc.

% staff trained in equal Q11a 7e, 8b, 13a 63% 49% -%


opportunities
% staff trained in racial Q11b 7e, 8b, 13a 68% 51% -%
awareness
% staff trained in gender Q11c 7e, 8b, 13a 60% 43% -%
awareness
% staff trained in disability Q11d 7e, 8b, 13a 62% 46% -%
awareness
% staff trained in harassment Q11e 7e, 8b, 13a 63% 49% -%
and bullying awareness
% staff trained in religious Q11f 7e, 8b, 13a 58% 42% -%
awareness

% staff agreeing that “My Q12a 5c, 8b 69% 56% -


training, learning and
development has helped me to
do the job better”
% staff agreeing that “It has Q12b 8b 24% 16% -
improved my chances of
promotion”
% staff agreeing that “It has Q12c 5c, 11c 72% 57% -
helped me stay up-to-date with
the job”
% staff agreeing that “It has Q12d 5c, 11a, 70% 54% -
helped me stay up-to-date with 11c
professional requirements”

% staff who had received a Q13a - 82% 81% -


new job outline or description
under Agenda for Change
% staff who believed their Q13b - 32% 34% -
Agenda for Change re-banding
was fair

33
Question / Score Number Map to core Trust Median Trust
standards score ambulance score
(2006) trust score (2005)
(2006)

% staff agreeing that “Agenda Q14a 8b 38% 21% -


for Change has been
implemented successfully in
my trust”
% staff agreeing that “I have Q14b - 30% 29% -
taken on increased
responsibilities in my job as a
result of Agenda for Change”
% staff agreeing that “I am Q14c - 40% 27% -
satisfied with the information I
have received from the trust
about Agenda for Change”

% staff working in a well Q15a-e 8a, 8b 20% 16% -%


structured team
environment

Quality of job design (clear Q16a-c, 7b, 8b 3.02 2.92 -


job content, feedback and Q19a,b,d
staff involvement)

Work pressure felt by staff Q16d-f, 7b 2.87 3.08 -


Q19c

% staff agreeing that “I have Q16a 7b, 8b 63% 54% -%


clear, planned goals and
objectives for my job”
% staff agreeing that “I cannot Q16d 7b 24% 31% -%
meet all the conflicting
demands on my time at work”
% staff agreeing that “I am Q16e 7b 41% 47% -%
asked to do work without
adequate resources to
complete it”
% staff agreeing that “I am Q16f 7b 22% 32% -%
required to do unimportant
tasks which prevent me from
completing more important
ones”

Staff intention to leave jobs Q17a-c - 2.29 2.57 -


% staff saying that if they Q17d - 29% 33% -%
leave their current job, they
would stay in NHS
% staff considering leaving Q17e - 27% 32% -%
and stating “Career
development” as a reason

34
Question / Score Number Map to core Trust Median Trust
standards score ambulance score
(2006) trust score (2005)
(2006)

% staff considering leaving Q17e - 26% 20% -%


and stating “Change of career”
as a reason
% staff considering leaving Q17e - 26% 34% -%
and stating “Would like more
pay” as a reason
% staff considering leaving Q17e - 34% 41% -%
and stating “Unhappy with
current job” as a reason
% staff considering leaving Q17e - 20% 14% -%
and stating “Family or personal
reasons” for thinking about
leaving
% staff considering leaving Q17e - 1% 1% -%
and stating “Full time
education” as a reason
% staff considering leaving Q17e - 11% 13% -%
and stating “Don’t want to work
in NHS” as a reason
% staff considering leaving Q17e - 13% 10% -%
and stating “Retirement” as a
reason

Staff job satisfaction Q18a-g 8a, 8b 3.29 3.15 -


% staff agreeing that “I am Q18a - 27% 24% -%
satisfied with the recognition I
get for good work”
% staff agreeing that “I am Q18b - 44% 40% -%
satisfied with the support I get
from my immediate manager”
% staff agreeing that “I am Q18d - 77% 73% -%
satisfied with the support I get
from my work colleagues”

% staff agreeing that “I always Q19a - 75% 70% -%


know what my responsibilities
are”
% staff agreeing that “I am Q19b - 36% 28% -%
consulted about the changes
that affect my work
area/team/department”
% staff agreeing that “I do not Q19c - 21% 32% -%
have time to carry out all my
work”
% staff agreeing that “I get Q19d - 18% 15% -%
clear feedback about how well
I am doing my job”
% staff agreeing that Q19e - 22% 31% -%
“Relationships at work are
strained”

35
Question / Score Number Map to core Trust Median Trust
standards score ambulance score
(2006) trust score (2005)
(2006)

% staff agreeing that “I can Q19f - 47% 52% -%


decide on my own how to go
about doing my work”

Support from immediate Q20a-e 5b, 8b 3.12 3.01 -


manager

Extent of positive feeling Q22a-f 7a, 7c, 8b 2.89 2.60 -


within organisation
(communication, staff
involvement, innovation &
patient care)

% staff saying trust acts fairly Q23a 7b, 7e, 8a 46% 41% -%
with regard to career
progression/promotion,
regardless of ethnic
background, gender, religion,
sexual orientation, disability or
age
% staff experiencing Q23b 11a 11% 12% -%
discrimination at the trust

% staff saying they would Q24a 8a 87% 80% -%


know how to report concerns
about negligence or
wrongdoing by staff
% staff saying there is a Q24b 8a 68% 59% -%
system to report such
concerns confidentially

% staff suffering work Q25a-d 4b, 20a 34% 37% -%


related injury in previous 12
months
% staff suffering work Q25e 4b, 20a 22% 33% -%
related stress in previous 12
months
% staff saying they have Q26a 20a 91% 87% -
access to counselling services
at work
% staff saying they have Q26b 20a 94% 96% -
access to occupational health
services at work

% staff experiencing Q27a-b 20a 22% 29% -%


physical violence from
patients/relatives in
previous 12 months
% staff experiencing Q27c-d 20a 1% 2% -%
physical violence from staff
in previous 12 months

36
Question / Score Number Map to core Trust Median Trust
standards score ambulance score
(2006) trust score (2005)
(2006)

% Staff experiencing Q28a-b 20a 44% 48% -%


harassment, bullying or
abuse from
patients/relatives in
previous 12 months
% Staff experiencing Q28c-d 20a 17% 19% -%
harassment, bullying or
abuse from staff in previous
12 months
% staff experiencing Q28c 20a 8% 11% -%
harassment, bullying or abuse
from manager/team leader
% staff experiencing Q28d 20a 10% 11% -%
harassment, bullying or abuse
from colleagues
% staff aware of how to report Q29 20a 90% 87% -%
violence, harassment, bullying
or abuse
Perceptions of effective Q30a-d 7e, 8a, 20a 3.56 3.29 -
action from employer
towards violence and
harassment

Availability of hand washing Q31a-c 4a, 21 4.38 4.21 -


materials

% staff witnessing Q32a-b 1a, 7a, 7c, 40% 42% -%


potentially harmful errors, 8a, 20a
near misses or incidents in
previous month
% staff saying they are aware Q32c 1a, 7a, 7c, 92% 86% -%
how to report errors, near 8a, 20a
misses or incidents
% staff reporting errors, Q33 1a, 7a, 7c, 90% 82% -%
near misses or incidents 8a, 20a
Fairness and effectiveness Q34a-g 1a, 7a, 7c, 3.42 3.09 -
of procedures for reporting 8a, 20a
errors, near misses or
incidents

37
The table below shows which questions can be used to assess Improving Working Lives,
the Health and Safety Executive’s Stress Audit, Agenda for Change and NPFIT:

Area Key Scores / Question Numbers

Improving Working
Lives
Human Resource Key scores
Strategy and % staff appraised within previous 12 months
Management % staff having well structured appraisals within previous 12
months
Staff intention to leave jobs
Support from immediate manager
Other questions
Q8b-c; Q17d, e
Equality and Diversity Key scores
Staff job satisfaction
Support from immediate manager
Other questions
Q11; Q23
Staff Involvement and Key scores
Communication Quality of job design (clear job content, feedback and staff
involvement)
Support from immediate manager
Extent of positive feeling within organisation (communication, staff
involvement, innovation & patient care)
Other questions
Q16a; Q18a; Q19a-b, d;
Flexible Working Key scores
Quality of work life balance
% staff using flexible working options
Healthy Workplace Key scores
% staff working extra hours
% staff working extra hours due to pressure and demands of the
job
% staff having health and safety training in previous 12 months
Work pressure felt by staff
% staff suffering work related injury in previous 12 months
% staff suffering work related stress in previous 12 months
% staff experiencing physical violence from patients/relatives in
previous 12 months
% staff experiencing physical violence from staff in previous 12
months
% Staff experiencing harassment, bullying or abuse from
patients/relatives in previous 12 months
% Staff experiencing harassment, bullying or abuse in previous 12
months
Perceptions of effective action from employer towards violence
and harassment
Availability of hand washing materials
% staff witnessing potentially harmful errors, near misses or
incidents in previous month
% staff reporting errors, near misses or incidents
Fairness and effectiveness of procedures for reporting errors, near
misses or incidents
Other questions
Q1a; Q10a-b, d-e, g; Q24; Q26; Q29; Q32c

38
Area Key Scores / Question Numbers

Training and Key scores


Development % staff receiving training, learning or development in previous 12
months
% staff receiving job-relevant training, learning or development in
previous 12 months
% staff having health and safety training in previous 12 months
Other questions
Q10; Q11; Q12; Q23a
Flexible Retirement, Other questions
Childcare and Support Q5, Q6
for Carers
Health & Safety:
Stress Audit
Control Q19f
Role Q16a
Relationships Q19e; Q28c-d
Demands Q16d-f, Q19c
Support Q18b, d
Change Q19b
Agenda for Change Q13; Q14

NPFIT Q10e

39