First of all, many thanks to those who completed the survey, whether you did so online or using the flyers. The survey was an attempt to find out your views about the new health clinic, so that these could be passed on to 'the powers that be', i.e. those who are responsible for the provision of health services to the town, and for transport.
We know that the new health clinic on the perimeter of the town is here to stay and will be the main centre for primary healthcare provision in the town for many years to come. It has the potential to be a big improvement, but it was clear from the town meeting earlier in the year that many residents had concerns that could not be answered at the meeting (mainly due to the absence of the relevant authorities.)
These concerns were about its location, the ease of access to the site and whether the wants and needs of the residents of the town, in particular the requirements of the frail and elderly and those with mobility problems, had been properly taken into account.
Whilst no one claims the survey is particularly scientific, large numbers of people responded on behalf of themselves and their families. The feedback received indicates that there are significant concerns about access to the centre, and that new building needs to be considered as one constituent of an integrated and well thought out plan for the future, rather than a 'like it or lump it' standalone facility. The survey confirms that retaining some services in the town centre is seen as the overwhelmingly popular answer to the access problems. There is also a call for a variety of new services to be provided in the new facility and for details of these to be provided.
These results and your comments (suitably anonymised) will now be passed on to the relevant bodies. It is to be hoped that these views and concerns will be taken into account by all those responsible for revising the structure of healthcare in the town and providing access to the new centre.
The following graphs, most of which are self explanatory are a combination of the responses to the online and paper based/handwritten surveys.
Click here to view the comments received with the responses to the survey.
Click here to view the emailed responses to the survey.
There was additionally a small initial pilot survey to get feedback on the questions to be incorporated into the final version of the survey. This differed from the final version of the questionnaire in that for question 5 the wording in the pilot did not contain the choice Fundamental rethink needed.
Click here to view the results from the initial survey.
The analysis of the original mini-survey show that the responses to all the questionnaires were along similar lines.
Click here to view a list of contacts you may wish to write to.
Here are the results broken down into their individual components:
There were three surveys conducted simultaneously. The first was a pilot, the objective being to test out the questions. (See above)
The second version of the survey was printed in Focus and was additionally sent out on flyers. This had the advantage that the people who completed it seem to find it satisfactory and the results we received were consistent which led us to believe that they are an accurate reflection of what the residents feel about the subject.
Click here to view the results of the paper-based survey.
A third version of the survey was published online. From the organisational standpoint this had advantages as the responses were analysed at the push of a button. There was criticism from those who completed the summary that the choices to questions 6 and 10 were limited, only one response being allowed. There was however the possibility of sending further suggestions by email and several respondents advantage of this facility.
Here is the final analysis of the online responses.
Click here to view the results of the online survey.
Tracking the online responses over time
We tracked the responses to the online survey which initially closely resembled the handwritten responses to the printed questionnaire. Latterly however there appeared to be a change in the voting pattern. We noted that, in the past, online surveys have been criticised on the basis that it is difficult to establish which replies come from residents and which come from outside agencies. For example, we believe that in a previous online survey somebody living abroad had been found to have filled in an online questionnaire.
Here are the previous analyses of the online responses showing a shift in voting pattern.
The online survey results were analysed on 1st, 12th, 15th and 17th of June.
Here are the first and the last of these to demonstrate that, although the original responses were similar to the paper based survey results, there was a change in the nature of the responses between 1st June and 17th June.
1st June Survey Analysis
17th June Survey Analysis
We leave you to draw your own conclusions.
Despite this occurrence we did not feel that the overall result of the survey had materially changed so we are content to publish the final version of the online survey.
LESSONS LEARNED
We felt that a traditional (paper based) survey has advantages and disadvantages. It has the advantage that it is ideal for those who are not comfortable with IT and it makes it much harder for any outside agency to manipulate the results. Collating the results does, however, involve a lot of hard work.
Online surveys that do not provide a facility for free text comments are much easier, both for the organisers of the survey and, in the case of well constructed surveys, for those who complete them. The disadvantage is that it is relatively easy for outside agencies who want to manipulate the results to achieve that goal.
A combination of both methods appears to be the ideal solution.
This shows numbers of votes, percentages, and the number of respondents who did not answer questions.
Click here to view speadsheet analysis of survey results.
Map of South Woodham Ferrers
The new health clinic is on the perimeter of the town, north of the Burnham Rd.
The existing health clinic is in the centre of the town and overlooks the ASDA Superstore. It is close to the residential facilities for the elderly.
Final Thoughts
The survey was constructed on the basis that the new health clinic on the perimeter of the town is here to stay and will be the principle centre for primary healthcare provision in the town for years to come. Since the decision was announced, however, there has been considerable criticism of the location of the new clinic and there was a suspicion that those who made the decisions had not taken account of the wants and needs of the residents of the town. In particular the needs of the frail and elderly and those with mobility problems do not appear to have been taken seriously. The feedback received confirms that the new building needs to be considered as one constituent of an integrated and well thought out plan for the future, rather than a 'like it or lump it' standalone facility.
The results of the survey, which will be widely disseminated, will have to be taken seriously by the decision makers. It would help if they were to acquaint themselves with the views of the residents in the hope that they can formulate a plan which has some chance of success here.
It is now mandatory that all concerned in the revision of the structure of healthcare in the town act swiftly and decisively on the basis of the findings of this survey.