Well-Being at Work PartnershipASSET Pulse Survey 2013

Initial Results Summary

Gordon Tinline & Matt Smeed

Response Rate• Pulse questionnaire launched on 15th March• Open for 6 weeks with a deadline of 26th April• Overall response rate 2171/4485 = 48.4% Response Breakdown by BDU

District Headcount Responses Response Rate

Calderdale 369 199 53.9%

Wakefield 913 469 51.4%

Kirklees 617 291 47.2%

Support Services 746 316 42.4%

Forensic Services 424 168 39.6%

Barnsley 1696 592 34.9%

Response Rate• Response rates within SWYPFT:

• 2009: 49.0% (smaller Trust in partnership with BDCT)• 2011: 49.6%• 2013: 48.4%

• The typical response from larger NHS Trusts (larger than 4,000 employees) is 34%

• Typical main drivers of lower response rates:• ‘Nothing ever happens’• Confidentiality at risk• Clear communications• Paper surveys hard to distribute and collect • Survey fatigue

The ASSET Model of Well-Being

ASSET: ‘Full’ vs. ‘Pulse’Scales Items in Full ASSET Items in Pulse ASSET

6 Essentials 37 10

Physical Health 6 4

Psychological Health 11 5

Positive Psych Well-Being 7 3

Sense of Purpose 4 3

Engagement 5 5

Perceived commitment from Trust

2 1

Commitment towards Trust

2 1

TOTAL 74 32

2013 ResultsCompared to General Working Population

(n=2075)

6 Essentials(compared to general working population)

All online respondents (n=2075)

Note: the higher the score the greater the extent to which the area is considered a stressor; black bars represent 2011 results

Enablers and BarriersRaw Score Trends

Mor

e Tr

oubl

ed

Your Health(compared to general working population)

All respondents (n=2075)

Note: the higher the score the greater the extent to which the area is considered a stressor; black bars represent 2011 results

Your HealthRaw Score Trends

Poor

er H

ealth

Psychological Well-Being(compared to general working population)

All respondents (n=2075)

Note: the higher the score the more positive the area; black bars represent 2011 results

Psychological Well-BeingRaw Score Trends

Positive Psychological Well-Being

Sense of Purpose

Note: A higher score is more positive

Engagement & Related Scales(compared to general working population)

All respondents (n=2075)

Note: the higher the score the more positive the area; black bars represent 2011 results

Engagement & Related ScalesRaw Score Trends

Mor

e En

gage

d/Co

mm

itted

Snapshot Results• The following slides show the ASSET results for groups at a glance• There are two ways to read the results:

– From left to right: see the results for a specific group across all ASSET measures– From top to bottom: see how each ASSET measure differs between the groups

• Use the key below to see how each group scored:

• All results are in comparison to the General Working Population.

• The number of respondents for each group is shown in brackets. Minimum group size = 8

Positive finding in relation to the general working population, e.g Sten 1-3 Enablers and BarriersFinding that is typical of the general working population, e.g. Sten 4-6 for Enablers and Barriers

Area for Improvement in relation to the general working population, e.g. Sten 7 for Enablers and Barriers

Risk in relation to the general working population, e.g. Sten 8-10 for Enablers and Barriers

Results Snapshot: BDU

Positive finding in relation to the general working population, e.g Sten 1-3 Enablers and BarriersFinding that is typical of the general working population, e.g. Sten 4-6 for Enablers and Barriers

Area for Improvement in relation to the general working population, e.g. Sten 7 for Enablers and Barriers

Risk in relation to the general working population, e.g. Sten 8-10 for Enablers and Barriers

BDUResources & Communication

Control Balanced workload

Job Security and Change

Work Relationships

Job Conditions

Positive Psychological Well-Being

Sense of Purpose

Engagement

Perceived Commitment from Organisation

Commitment towards the Organisation

Kirklees (307)

Barnsley (666)

Corporate Services (223)

Calderdale (208)

Forensic Services (161)Wakefield (417)

Workplace Bullying2009 2011 2013

Bullied at work 23.4% 19.8% 23.1%

Bullied in last 6 months 40.1% 31.9% 36.9%

Reported bullying 34.7% 39.1% 39.9%

Bullying resolved 39.3% 42.3% 34.5%

Manag

er/supervi

sor

Colleag

ue/same le

vel p

eer

Colleag

ue you lin

e man

age

Patient

Patient's

relati

veOth

er0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

Productivity & Presenteeism

• Average productivity: 82.3%

• 57% have come to work whilst ill at least once in the last 3 months

• 7% have worked more than 10 days whilst ill in the last 3 months

• Average productivity on the days: 64.9%

Well-Being SupportWell-Being initiative Aware of

initiative?Involved in initiative?

Occupational health and well-being services 91.2% 28.8%

Well-being at work intranet pages 56.4% 9.4%

Staff retreat 71.9% 3.3%

Mental well-being and resilience policy 28.1% 2.8%

Staff counselling 84.6% 13.8%

As an employee of the Trust, who do you feel is primarily responsible for your well-being?

You:89%

The Trust:11%

Analysis: Next Steps• Add paper data to analysis• Further detailed hotspot analysis

– Demographic trends– Division comparisons

• Build driver analyses• Qualitative analysis

– Bullying actions– Additional comments– Well-Being activities

• Access to results via ASSET software