1. 2010 Annual Satisfaction Survey Medical Staff & Allied Health

2. What was different in 2010? Immediately preceded by an EPIC specific survey Included MHC, AKH, and AOH, in addition to AWH and ACI/ASI/ADC/AGC Included an overall Aspirus Affiliation perception question What was going on in March/April when we conducted the survey?

3. Questions Top 3 areas that, if improved in some way, would most enhance your satisfaction. Rate: Place to Practice Medicine Rate: Quality of Care Rate: Responsiveness Note: Rating Scale Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair & Poor

4. Questions, Continued Each entity could also include a few questions specific to their organization. AWH: Medical staff organization restructure; Treated with respect by colleagues ACI/ASI: Would you recommend to others; Treated with respect by colleagues MHC: Would you recommend; Would like to be working here 2-3 years from now; Level of positive-ness compared to two years ago. AKH: How help facilitate volume; Single most important specialty to pursue; Prioritize replacing facility. AOH: Recruitment/retention ideas; Single most important specialty to pursue.

5. Results: “I believe Affiliation with Aspirus is Beneficial” 98.0% (Range from 88.8% to 100%) (% Strongly Agree and Agree)

6. Participation ASPIRUS AS A PLACE TO PRACTICE MEDICINE All AWH Med Staff 34.1% ACI/ASI Med Staff AWH Allied Hlth 23.4% ACI/ASI Allied Health AKH 58.3% AOH 30% MHC 50% Excellent43.8%44.7%13.3% 20%0%13.3% Very Good45.2%36.8%46.7% 73.3%0%46.7% Good8.2%15.8%40% 6.7%50%40% Fair2.7%2.6%0% 50%0% Poor0.0%0% QUALITY OF CARE Excellent52.1%N/A20%N/A46.7%0%26.7% Very Good45.5%N/A53.3%N/A46.7%0%40% Good4.1%N/A26.7%N/A6.7%50%33.3% Fair1.4%N/A0%N/A0%50%0% Poor0%N/A0%N/A0% RESPONSIVENESS Excellent23.3%39.5%13.3%22.7%20%0%13.3% Very Good49.3%23.7%46.7%59.1%40%50%40% Good15.1%18.4%26.7%13.6%20%0%40% Fair8.2%13.2%13.3%4.5%13.3%50%6.7% Poor4.1%5.3%0% 6.7%0%

7. AWH Medical Staff Structure Evaluation MEC Evaluation: Upper Level of Structure working well; Priority to focus on engagement and visibility of specialty reps. Medical Staff Evaluation: One quarter of members experienced an issue; Of those a majority knew where to go with it (cited both medical staff leadership and administration) Of those, the majority felt that their issue was adequately addressed. 29.2% (7) did not. 83% believe communication has improved or stayed the same since November 2008. (40% Improved, 42.9% Same, 17.1% Declined) 97.3% are usually or always treated by colleagues with courtesy and respect. Note: Allied Health = 78.5%

8. Results – Place to Practice Medicine (% Exc + Very Good)

9. Results – Quality of Care (% Excellent + Very Good)

10. Results – Responsiveness (% Excellent + Very Good + Good)

11. Sorting Out Top Areas Priorities were more difficult to sort out due to lower participation – other than top one. Became clearer when reviewed by Specialty. Will be reviewed and discussed in greater detail in meetings with each specialty.

12. Observations by Specialty AWH TOP BY SPECIALTY (includes both Medical Staff & Allied Health) Specialty must have at least 3 participants Anesthesiology (7)Cardiology (5)Emergency Medicine (4)Family Medicine (16) SCHEDULINGHOSPITALIST PROGRAM SURG SERV/ORSPACE & FACILITIEISPHYSICIAN COMPENSATION (for hospital work) General Surgery (6)Internal Med (not Hospitalists)Ortho Surgery (6)Otolaryngology (ENT) (3) HOSPITALIST PROGRAM SURG SERV/ORMARKETING “DUMPING”REGIONAL GROWTH Pathology (4)Pediatrics & Subspecs (4)Pulmonology/Crit Care (3)Radiology (3) SPACE & FACILITIESACCESS TO SPECIALISTSHOSPITALIST PROGRAMEQUIPMENT INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT GROWTH

13. Proposed AWH Priority Areas for FY2011 EPIC/EMR Hospitalist Program Hospital Leadership to improve provider efficiency (and decrease impact of regulations/bureaucracy/ etc.) Medical Staff Leadership to focus on engaging specialty rep level of the medical staff structure. Note: Jennifer & Sheri will assist ACI with a breakout presentation and action plan. Marita will work with MHC, AKH and AOH as needed.

14. Recommendations: Distribute and discuss information via practice meetings as usual (ask about low participation this year). Forego major survey until Spring 2012, as the themes we are now identifying are significant and not kinds which would change dramatically in a single year. Consider simple survey around “efficiency”, and develop action plans, in the interim.