1. HRA User Satisfaction Report

2. Findings from the online user satisfaction survey October 2017 – March 2018
The following graphs present quantitative data collected between October 2017 and March 2018 using the HRA online user satisfaction survey. This report does not include the free text qualitative comments - these are reported to the management teams in monthly reports.
For the last reporting period 211 respondents completed the survey. Response rates remain consistent with previous reporting periods (226 responses for April 2017 to September 2017 and 221 responses for October 2016 to March 2017).

3. Percentage of those surveyed who answered each question

4. Location of Study Sites

5. Overall service rating

6. Overall service rating

7. Queries Line

8. Queries Line

9. Website rating

10. Website rating

11. IRAS usability rating

12. IRAS usability rating

13. IRAS guidance rating

14. IRAS guidance rating

15. Online guidance rating

16. Online guidance rating

17. Decision Tools rating

18. Decision Tools rating

19. Staff rating

20. Staff rating

21. Meeting rating

22. Meeting rating

23. Information rating

24. Information rating

25. Review and action taken in respect of the issues raised in the User Satisfaction Feedback Report for the period October 2017 to March 2018
The following section outlines the review and action taken by the HRA functions in respect of the issues raised by applicants through user feedback
HRA Approval
Trend
Response
Time consuming and complicated process
The process is being reviewed to see if it can be made more integrated and proportionate than it is currently. This should help reduce the time that approvals take and will lead into clear guidance for applicants
Positive feedback for team members on how they communicate complex information
Positive feedback from applicants is (personally where possible)delivered to our team to both motivate them and to demonstrate best practice communication skills during training
Lack of clarity on who to contact in the HRA for study specific queries
The integration of the approval process within the SIP will be supported by a more integrated team structure which should simplify the routes that applicants take to gain updates on their studies

26. IRAS
A number of comments referred to the IRAS user interface (UI), stating that the system looks dated / outmoded and that the technology that renders answer fields should be dynamic ( i.e. field size should change in response to user input). A number of comments also referred to difficulties in navigating around IRAS.
The applicants’ experience in how they interact with IRAS links to both the UI and navigation and so both areas will need to be carefully assessed to determine simpler ways in which information and controls can be presented. Implementing new UI technologies in IRAS will give applicants a more dynamic experience when entering data and will be a prime consideration in new developments.
Comments were also received that linked to the IRAS document upload, stating that the functionality is cumbersome and slow. The document upload has recently been improved, providing multi-document upload functionality. Further efforts to improve the user experience will be investigated with new developments.

27. Guidance & Advice
For most months respondents have stated that they found they phone and query services helpful. Whilst it is not possible from the feedback to be completely clear, which channel(s) an individual respondent has used it is good to see consistent positive feedback about these areas of our business.
With respect to guidance, in IRAS and HRA website the free text feedback is mixed. Some respondents have said there is too much content, others have said it assumes too much prior knowledge and others have asked for content to be expanded. It is helpful to consider these responses in the context of feedback about current systems and processes, which often reflects that these are complex, repetitive and not user-friendly. The guidance as it currently exists is attempting to support users through these current, often complex and evolving arrangements, which can lead to the guidance itself becoming overly complicated and/or not satisfying all audiences. Work has been done, and is continuing, to improve existing content, link and distinctions between IRAS and HRA websites and respond to specific feedback. However, it is unlikely that true substantive improvement to guidance cannot be expected until there is further simplification of requirements and processes and the systems that support them.

28. REC/CAG Chairs and Members’ feedback
For the reporting period;
Twenty three Chairs/Members submitted completed feedback forms to the QA department for the reporting period; all were forwarded to HRA staff for consideration and response;
The comments received highlighted a range of topics including issues in relation to the increasing time commitment for members (mainly for Proportionate Review applications), the running of committee meetings plus some complimentary comments in relation to being a member of a REC/CAG and the HRA staff and
Nineteen responses, to feedback, were sent out during the reporting period with four outstanding and requiring a response.

29. Stakeholder Register
With the agreement of Senior HRA Management feedback is also obtained by targeting specific groups of users/stakeholders of the HRA. During the reporting period 6 surveys were launched, 5 of which were completed during the reporting period. A copy of the stakeholder register is available on the HRA Hub and details of each survey are reviewed by members of the HRA Transformation Board.