You are here
TGA stakeholder survey 2018
Communications, information and contact with the TGA
Communication and information services - Use
For the range of potential contact methods presented, the TGA website represents the most common channel in all stakeholder groups (Table 10). Less than 2% of respondents to the question highlight that they Never use the TGA website, with just under one in five saying they use the site 'All the time'. Similarly, the business services website is also a commonly used channel, with more than 9 in 10 responses highlighting some use.
Other common information channels include Email subscription services (79% any use; 31% use All of the time or Often), the Consultation forecast (54% any use) and TGA roadshows, information sessions and conference booths (58% any use). The RSS feed and Twitter services are less commonly used, however 35% (RSS) and 20% (Twitter) highlight some use of each service.
Table 10: Information service - Frequency of use (%)
|Service||Never||Rarely||Sometimes||Often||All the time||Any use||N|
|TGA eBusiness services portal||8.6||14.7||29.6||27.8||19.3||91||2099|
|Email subscription information services||21.5||24.2||23.1||19||12.2||79||2098|
|TGA Consultation Forecast||46.4||26.7||17.1||7.5||2.3||54||2091|
|TGA RSS feed||65.2||22.7||8.9||2.3||0.9||35||2091|
|TGA roadshows, info sessions or conf booths||42.5||23.5||23.3||8.5||2.2||58||2097|
The majority of respondents in each stakeholder group use the TGA website Sometimes, Often or All the time (Table 11). Medical products industry and Government groups are the most frequent users, with around one in five of each of these groups using the site 'All the time'. Health professionals and Retailers, while showing high overall usage levels of the site, report less frequent use with a strong tendency to access Sometimes or Rarely.
Table 11: TGA Website - Frequency of use by stakeholder category (%)
|Stakeholder group||Never||Rarely||Sometimes||Often||All the time||Any use||N|
|Medical products industry||1.1||10.2||27.5||38.3||22.9||99||1437|
|Other, please specify||1.5||14.2||40.7||25.8||17.8||99||275|
The eBusiness services portal is accessed by just over nine in ten participants. As expected, use is highest for Medical products industry stakeholders (95%) and generally lowest amongst Health professional (73%), Academic (82%) and Government (89%) stakeholders (Table 13).
Around eight in ten participants in the survey use email subscription services. Use of these services is common for the Medical products industry (82%), with Health professionals, Retailers and Academics all showing similar usage levels (at around 70%).
Retailers report the highest use of both the RSS feed (46%) and Twitter (26%). Similarly, this group reports the highest level of overall engagement with the Consultation forecast (60%), with both Medical products industry (56%) and Health professionals (48%) also showing strong engagement with this channel.
The levels of any use of the identified communication areas show a continued trend toward higher uptake amongst stakeholders since 2016. This trend is consistent across all areas, with notable increases since 2016 in relation to Email subscriptions, Consultation forecast, RSS feed and Twitter (Table 12).
Table 12: TGA information service - Frequency of use - 2016 - 2018 (%)
|TGA eBusiness services portal||91||88||86|
|Email subscription info services||79||68||64|
|TGA Consultation Forecast||54||40||36|
|TGA RSS feed||35||24||22|
|TGA information sessions||48||47|
|TGA conference booth||25||24|
Note: Changes to the question response frame between 2017 and 2018 make comparisons unreliable. Frame moved from specific use levels (e.g. weekly) to 'Never-All the time'.
Table 13: Service use by Stakeholder category (% any use)
|Service||Med prod's ind||Health pro||Retailer||Govt.||Academic||Media||Other|
|TGA eBusiness services portal||95||73||94||89||82||100||89|
|Email subscription information services||82||68||70||60||70||100||75|
|Roadshows/info sess/conf booths||62||45||46||47||44||100||52|
Med prod ind: 1423-1437; Health pro: 198-202; Retailer: 61-64; Gov: 60-61; Academic: 62-63; Media: 1-2; Other: 271-275.
Amongst health professionals there is some variation in the usage patterns. In general, Complementary healthcare practitioners show the highest levels of engagement across a broad range of communication sources, including high engagement with the Website, eBS, email, Consultation forecast and RSS feed (Table 14). Engagement is generally lower amongst Nurses and Medical practitioners for both the eBS and email channels.
Medical products industry participants show universally high engagement with the Website, eBS and email subscription service. Strong growth across this sector has also been observed in relation to use of the Consultation forecast, RSS feed and Twitter channels.
Table 14: Service use - Health professionals (% any use)
|Service||Pharmacist||Medical practitioner||Nurse||Comp healthcare prac||Dental practitioner||Other|
|TGA eBusiness services portal||71||49||62||87||89||83|
|Roadshows/info sess/conf booths||52||44||40||63||33||36|
Pharmacist: N=30-31; Med prac: N=40-41; Nurse: N=20-21; Comp health: N=38; Dental: N=9; Other: N=59-61.
Table 15: Service use - Medical products industry (% any use)
|Service||Product sponsor||Product manufacturer||Reg affairs consultant||Ind assoc'n rep||Other|
|TGA eBusiness services portal||96||90||99||89||96|
|Roadshows/info sess/conf booths||63||55||76||56||57|
Sponsor: 881-884; Manufacturer: 379-387; Reg Affairs Con: 100-101; Ind Assoc Rep: 9; Other: 48-52.
Usefulness of information
There is large variation in the perceived usefulness of the range of TGA service offerings for stakeholders (Figure 26). Most commonly, TGA guidelines (74% Very useful) and Latest news and updates (71%) are the most likely information services to be viewed as Very useful . TGA update (65%), TGA safety information (58%) and TGA eBS notices (53%) are also generally viewed as Very useful by users of these services, with very few highlighting that they are not useful. These results are generally consistent with those observed in previous years of the survey. SME assist, Medicines shortages alerts and Prescription medicine NCE registrations also continue to show lower levels of usefulness for users, with relatively high numbers of participants highlighting that these are not at all useful. These outcomes reflect the targeted focus of these service areas.
|Service||Not at all useful||Moderately useful||Very useful|
|TGA Safety information||5||37||58|
|TGA eBS Notices||6||40||53|
|Medicines Safety Update||16||40||44|
|Medical Devices Safety Update||12||39||49|
|Scheduling of Medicines and Poisons||17||39||43|
|Medicines Shortages Alerts||35||39||26|
|Prescription medicine NCE registrations||36||35||29|
|TGA Latest news and updates||2||27||71|
N=701-1,947 Note: previous year included Not applicable measure
Tables 16-18 show variation in usefulness across major stakeholder categories. Overall, Medical products industry participants tend to view the range of information services positively, with this group commonly rating TGA update, Consultations, Guidelines eBS notices and Latest news and updates as Very useful more often than most other groupings in the survey.
Health professionals, Retailers and (to a lesser extent) Government stakeholders also show a strong tendency to find a broad range of information services useful. In the case of Health professionals, a high level of usefulness and a particularly low level of Not at all useful responses are observed in relation to Latest news and updates, TGA guidelines, TGA safety information and TGA updates. Government stakeholders and retailers show strong interest in the Guidelines as well as Safety information and the Latest news and updates.
Table 16: Usefulness of information services by stakeholder category (%)
|Information service||Rating||Med products ind||Health pro||Retailer||Gov||Academic||Media||Other|
|TGA Update||Not at all useful||2.4||2.4||2.3||0.0||2.6||0.0||0.5|
|TGA Safety information||Not at all useful||5.5||2.4||7.3||2.9||9.8||0.0||3.9|
|TGA Consultations||Not at all useful||7.2||9.7||7.5||0.0||8.3||0.0||4.7|
|TGA AusPAR||Not at all useful||23.4||37.4||32.5||16.0||44.8||0.0||28.8|
|TGA Guidelines||Not at all useful||2.2||4.0||10.2||3.8||5.3||0.0||1.2|
|TGA eBS Notices||Not at all useful||5.5||13.3||13.2||0.0||18.9||0.0||6.3|
|Medicines Safety Update||Not at all useful||17.0||11.9||21.6||7.1||14.7||0.0||12.9|
|Medical Devices Safety Update||Not at all useful||11.4||10.8||13.2||6.9||22.9||0.0||14.0|
|Scheduling of Medicines and Poisons||Not at all useful||18.2||15.5||17.8||13.2||19.1||0.0||13.2|
|SME Assist||Not at all useful||28.5||40.6||35.6||29.2||30.0||0.0||27.7|
|Medicines Shortages Alerts||Not at all useful||34.6||27.1||50.0||18.2||37.9||0.0||40.0|
|Prescription medicine NCE registrations||Not at all useful||33.4||37.9||55.6||34.8||40.0||0.0||44.3|
|TGA Latest news and updates||Not at all useful||1.6||1.7||6.9||0.0||0.0||0.0||2.4|
|Very useful 70% or more||Very useful 60%-69.9%||Very useful 50%-59.9%|
Med prod ind: N=495-1345; Health pro: N=58-176; Retailer: N=29-59; Gov: N=14-53; Academic: N=16-57; Media: N=1-2; Other: N=83-249.
Within the Health professionals grouping (Table 17) interest and use of the various information products varies markedly across service areas. Consistent with 2017, Pharmacists are most positively engaged with a broad range of information channels and resources. Dental practitioners show strong engagement with Updates, Consultations and Scheduling of medicines and poisons information. Somewhat similar to Pharmacists, Nurses show strong interest in targeted information such as TGA guidelines, Medicines safety updates and Medical devices safety updates.
Medical practitioners show relatively strong interest in Medicines shortages alerts and Scheduling of medicines and poisons information and report generally moderate levels of usefulness across the range of information sources available.
Complementary healthcare practitioners, while generally less engaged with the range of information services presented, highlighted moderate levels of usefulness in relation to Safety information, Updates and Latest news and updates services.
Among Medical products industry participants, Regulatory affairs consultants report strong levels of usefulness across a broad range of information services (Table 18). This includes relatively high levels of use for Updates, Safety information, Consultations, Guidelines eBS notices, Scheduling of medicines and poisons, Prescription medicines NCE registrations and Latest news and updates.
Product sponsors and product manufacturers show similar patterns in relation to the ratings of usefulness of various information services. This includes strong usefulness ratings for Updates, Safety information, TGA guidelines, eBS notices and Latest news and updates.
Table 17: Usefulness of information services - Health professionals (%)
|Information service||Rating||Pharmacist||Medical practitioner||Nurse||Comp healthcare prac||Dental practitioner||Other|
|TGA Update||Not at all useful||0.0||4.8||11.1||0.0||14.3||0.0|
|TGA Safety information||Not at all useful||0.0||10.0||0.0||0.0||14.3||0.0|
|TGA Consultations||Not at all useful||0.0||5.3||0.0||16.1||16.7||11.4|
|TGA AusPAR||Not at all useful||22.2||37.5||42.9||40.7||20.0||45.5|
|TGA Guidelines||Not at all useful||4.2||0.0||0.0||8.1||14.3||3.8|
|TGA eBS Notices||Not at all useful||7.7||17.6||0.0||11.5||16.7||16.7|
|Medicines Safety Update||Not at all useful||0.0||9.1||0.0||9.7||14.3||26.7|
|Medical Devices Safety Update||Not at all useful||0.0||10.5||0.0||18.5||14.3||11.8|
|Scheduling of Medicines and Poisons||Not at all useful||0.0||8.8||6.3||11.4||14.3||44.1|
|SME Assist||Not at all useful||18.8||40.0||28.6||38.5||20.0||63.0|
|Medicines Shortages Alerts||Not at all useful||15.8||10.0||16.7||40.9||0.0||47.8|
|Prescription medicine NCE registrations||Not at all useful||5.3||32.1||37.5||50||0.0||63.3|
|TGA Latest news and updates||Not at all useful||0.0||0.0||0.0||5.3||0.0||0.0|
|Very useful 70% or more||Very useful 60%-69.9%||Very useful 50%-59.9%|
Pharmacist: N=7-28; Med prac: N=10-38; Nurse: N=5-17; Comp health: N=19-37; Dental: N=3-7; Other: N=14-53.
Table 18: Usefulness of information services - Medical products industry (%)
|Information service||Rating||Product sponsor||Product manufacturer||Reg Affairs Consult||Ind Assoc||Other|
|TGA Update||Not at all useful||3.0||2.3||0.0||0.0||0.0|
|TGA Safety information||Not at all useful||5.5||6.7||3.4||0.0||2.9|
|TGA Consultations||Not at all useful||7.2||9.2||3.4||0.0||5.9|
|TGA AusPAR||Not at all useful||22.3||30.9||10.8||0.0||36.0|
|TGA Guidelines||Not at all useful||2.9||1.4||0.0||0.0||2.2|
|TGA eBS Notices||Not at all useful||5.4||7.4||1.1||0.0||3.2|
|Medicines Safety Update||Not at all useful||18.3||16.8||8.8||0.0||21.4|
|Medical Devices Safety Update||Not at all useful||11.8||10.1||10.5||0.0||16.7|
|Scheduling of Medicines and Poisons||Not at all useful||19.7||19.7||7.2||0.0||12.5|
|SME Assist||Not at all useful||27.6||29.7||36.2||0.0||25.0|
|Medicines Shortages Alerts||Not at all useful||33.4||41.6||30.3||0.0||36.4|
|Prescription medicine NCE registrations||Not at all useful||32.3||44.6||15.5||0.0||38.5|
|TGA Latest news and updates||Not at all useful||1.9||1.7||0.0||0.0||0.0|
|Very useful 70% or more||Very useful 60%-69.9%||Very useful 50%-59.9%|
Sponsor: 321-836; Manufacturer: 117-353; Reg Affairs Con: 38-99; Ind Assoc Rep: 4-9; Other: 12-45.
Frequency of contact
Just over four in ten participants highlight being in contact with the TGA About once a year (42%; Table 19). The lower level of response in this category compared to 2017 is likely a reflection of a wording change across surveys, with a shift in the current year toward more responses in the About once a month category (29% in 2018 vs 15% in 2017). Just over one in ten (12%) participants are in contact with the TGA on a regular basis (About once a week 7% or More than once a week 5%).
Table 19: Frequency of contact with the TGA (%)
|Year||Never||About once a year*||About once a month||Two or three times a month||About once a week||More than once a week||Not sure*||N|
Note: Scale change for 2018 questionnaire: (a) "Less than once a month" changed to "About once a year" and (b) Not sure option excluded.
Medical products industry (68% in contact Monthly or more often) and Government (66%) stakeholders show higher frequency of contact than other broad groups in the survey (Table 20 and Figure 28). Health professionals (34%), Retailers (33%) and Academics (40%) all show regular (monthly or more often) contact at relatively low levels compared to other groups. In particular, very few of these stakleholders are in contact About once a week or More than once a week. The overall pattern here is similar to the pattern in 2017 (Figure 29). It is notable that there is a marked increase in the proportion of stakeholders in all categories who report being in contact monthly or more often. This may be attributable to the adjusted scale employed for this question.
Within the Medical products industry, frequency of contact is highest for Regulatory affairs consultants (79% Monthly or more often) Product sponsors (63%) and Industry association representatives (67%; Figure 30). Product manufacturers are less frequently in contact (41%). This pattern is similar to that observed in 2017, however the proportion of those in contact monthly or more often has increased across all groups.
Table 20: Frequency of contact by stakeholder category (%)
|Stakeholder group||Never||About once a year||About once a month||Two or three times a month||About once a week||More than once a week||N|
|Medical products industry||3.5||38.4||30.4||14.3||7.9||5.4||1423|
|Category||Monthly or more often|
|Medical products industry||58|
Med prod ind: 1423; Health pro: 197; Retailer: 63; Gov: 59; Academic: 63; Media: 2; Other: 269.
|Medical products industry||58||50|
|Category||Monthly or more often|
|Reg affairs consult||79|
|Ind assoc rep||67|
Sponsor: N=878.Manufacturer: N=382; Reg Affairs Con: N=100; Ind Assoc Rep: N=9; Other: N=50.
Within the medical products industry, contact frequency is generally higher for larger organisations with a higher number of employees (Figure 31). Less than 4 in ten of those with 1-19 employees are in contact monthly or more, often rising to three in four or more amongst large employers with 600 employees or more.
|Employees||Monthly or more often|
1-19: N=554; 20-199: N=399; 200-599: N=211; 600-999: N=49; 1000-1499: N=25; 1500+: N=18.
Within the Health professionals category, contact levels are highest amongst Pharmacists (47% monthly or more often), Medical practitioners (34%) and Complementary healthcare professionals (34%; Figure 32).
|Category||Monthly or more often|
|Complementary healthcare practitioner||34|
Pharmacist: N=30; Med prac: N=41; Nurse: N=20; Comp health: N=38; Dental: N=8; Other: N=59.
Reasons for contact
The most commonly selected reasons to contact the TGA are to lodge an application and to check the progress of an application with the TGA (Table 21 and Figure 33). Medical products industry stakeholders are most likely to nominate these application focussed contact reasons.
Understanding a regulatory process, information about manufacturing products or about specific products, responses to consultation activities and issues related to importing and exporting are all commonly identified reasons for contact.
Table 21: Reasons for contact
|Lodge an application with the TGA||1350|
|Check on the progress of an application with the TGA||1079|
|Information about manufacturing products||591|
|Report, or enquire about, a problem with a medical device or medicine||420|
|Information on product recall(s)||324|
|Information on specific product(s)||587|
|In response to TGA consultation activities||570|
|Feedback on TGA service delivery||201|
|To understand the regulatory process||1013|
|Other, please specify||189|
* Note: 101 respondents highlighted at that they Never have contact with the TGA in the previous question. This group was not presented with the current question in the survey.
Most stakeholders nominate a number of categories when highlighting the reasons for contacting the TGA, with the most common number of selections falling at 3 and the average at 3.5 selections (Table 22).
|Number of selections||N|
In addition to the reasons provided in the survey, a range of Other reasons are identified in open ended options for this question. These include:
- Accounts, Fees and Payments.
- ACE scheme.
- Adverse event reporting.
- Advertising/Advertising compliance.
- Audit and audit issues.
- Clinical trials.
- Complaints - including seeking information to respond to a complaints and lodging complaints.
- Compliance updates and notifications.
- Ethics/Ethics committee.
- External evaluations.
- General advice/communication.
- Inspections - responses and reviews.
- IT issues including general website, forms submissions and other EBS Queries and assistance.
- Licensing and inspections.
- Meeting reporting requirements.
- Product registrations.
- Product scheduling.
- Regulatory safety and efficacy requirements.
- Response to TGA communications.
- Tender processes.
The most common contact channel is email, followed by phone (Table 23 and Figure 34). Website contact is also a common channel. Together these three channels represent 96% of the total number of selected contact methods, highlighting their overall importance as key communication and contact points. Overall, respondents selected an average of two contact methods, most commonly involving a combination of email, phone and web channels (Table 24). The pattern is consistent with that observed in 2016 and 2017. It is notable that the trend observed in 2017 for the website to represent a rising proportion of total contact method selections has continued in 2018. The website now accounts for 20% of overall selections, up from 16% in 2016 and continuing the rise from 2017, where it represented 18% of selections. This pattern of contact methods is similar across all groups and sub-groups in the survey.
As noted in previous surveys, Letter and Fax contact methods are still utilised by a small proportion of people and will continue to need some monitoring and resourcing. These methods continue to be most commonly used by those in the Medical products industry and Health professionals. As noted in 2017, both methods appear to be in decline, with the proportion of selections represented by fax contacts halving between 2016 and 2017 (1% down to 0.5%) and almost halving again in 2018 (0.3%) and the proportion of Letter selections falling from 6% in 2016 to 4.5% in 2017 and then to 2.8% in 2018. In the case of fax contacts, only 11 people nominated this method, down from 22 in 2017.
Table 23: Contact channels (N)
Other contact methods identified in free text responses are:
- Through the eBS or online portal.
- Face to face.
- Via a sponsor, consultant or other intermediary.
- Other online - e.g. skype.
|Number of selections||N|
Participants were asked to highlight how long it took to receive a response from the TGA in relation to various contact methods (Table 25 and Figure 35). In line with the direct format it represents, phone enquiries continue to provide the most immediate response times, with one in four responses provided immediately and more than eight in ten provided in 2 days or less. This outcome is consistent with the experience of phone contact in previous years of the survey (2018 82% 2 days or less; 2017 83%; 2016 83%; Table 26 and Figure 36).
Contact via the TGA website highlights generally fast response times of less than 2 days for 60% of those in contact via this method. Email contact shows generally strong response times with more than half resolved within 2 days and over 90% within 10 days. Despite the generally strong results here, both website and email contacts present ongoing opportunities to minimise the number of responses in the 3-10 day response time category, which still account for around 3 in 10 responses across these common contact methods. This will increase the likelihood of satisfaction with communications experience and also minimise the propensity for contact via phone.
Table 25: Response times by contact category (%)
|Contact method||Immediately||<1 day||1-2 days||3-10 days||11-20 days||>20 days||N|
|Contact via the website||8.8||16.1||34.9||29.9||4.8||5.5||750.0|
|Other enquiry method||25.0||10.0||25.0||25.0||5.0||10.0||20.0|
Overall trends across the three years of the survey highlight generally consistent performance across the main contact channels (Figure 36 and Table 26). The only identifiable trends are in relation to low traffic channels (letter and fax), where the proportion of 2 day or less response times has increased. In both of these cases the numbers involved are small and diminishing over time, highlighting the increasingly small impact these changes will have on overall perceptions and experiences.
|Contact via the website||60||60||58|
|Other enquiry method||60||67||41|
Table 26: Response times 2016-2018 (%)
Satisfaction with response
Satisfaction with responses is highest for those methods that offer the fastest response times. Phone (70%), email (68%) and website (64%) contacts all show Nett satisfaction levels well above other contact methods (Figure 37). These levels are generally in line with 2016 and 2017 outcomes. Continued focus on ensuring fast response times, providing clear and accurate responses and ensuring web and call architecture provides a seamless, logical and easily navigated experience for users will encourage ongoing use of and satisfaction with these channels.
Less utilised Letter, Fax and Other methods show generally lower levels of satisfaction, with around half of those who use these channels expressing satisfaction with the experience. Ongoing work to maximise the use of more responsive and interactive channels (such as the website) should be a focus for the small number of people who continue to make written or fax based contact.
|Contact method||Nett dissatisfied||Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied||Nett satisfied|
|Contact via the website||10||25||64|
|Other enquiry method||18||27||55|
Phone: N=1291; Email: N=1692; Letter: N=111; Fax: N=8; Website: N=765; Other: N=8
Trends across 2016-2018 show generally consistent results (Figure 38). Nett satisfaction shows some variation across years in relation to Letter and Fax contacts; however, the small numbers involved here make interpretation difficult and mean there is minimal impact from these fluctuations on overall communications satisfaction.
|Contact via the website||64||65||63|
|Other enquiry method||55||57||67|
Across stakeholder categories there is some variation in satisfaction with the experience of the most common communication channels (Figure 39). Medical products industry and Government stakeholders provide generally positive ratings, while there is some fluctuation amongst Retailers and generally (although in some areas only slightly) lower outcomes amongst Health professionals.
|Med prod ind||69||68||65|
Med prod ind: N=516-1210; Health pro: N=76-128; Retailer: N=22-42; Gov: N=16-40; Academic: N=33-50; Media: N=0-1; Other: N=99-216.
For Health professionals the most notable outcome is a lower level of satisfaction with communication via the website (54% Nett satisfied). This reflects generally lower levels of satisfaction among all healthcare practitioner categories, although it is notable that there is a markedly lower level of satisfaction amongst Medical practitioners (40%; Figure 40; Noting that the sample sizes are small). To address this, further investigation may be required to ensure there are clear and logical pathways for these groups to identify and access the information they are seeking on the site.
Pharmacist: N=8-18; Med prac: N=12-25; Nurse: N=8-10; Comp health: N=13-24; Dental: N=3-5; Other: N=26-47.
Product sponsors show satisfaction levels generally in line with or just above the overall average. Product manufacturers show levels slightly below the overall average, whilst Regulatory affairs consultants are generally in line with the average experience across Email, Website and Phone contacts (Figure 41).
|Reg aff consult||70||66||64|
|Ind assoc rep||67||63||100|
Sponsor: N=323-764; Manufacturer: N=144-308; Reg Affairs Con: N=28-88; Ind Assoc Rep: N=3-8; Other: N=16-41.
As noted in 2017, the major driver of satisfaction across all contact channels is the response time. Figure 42 demonstrates the strong association here, with immediate and single day response times resulting in satisfaction levels of above 80% coupled with very low levels of dissatisfaction. As response times increase, the overall level of satisfaction falls and a commensurate rise in the levels of dissatisfaction is observed. Continued focus on achieving streamlined processes for responding to contacts is recommended as a method to achieve and maintain high level of satisfaction. To achieve this, a focus on ensuring each channel provides a seamless experience for users will be required. Website optimisation, web architecture, efforts to quickly identify specific tools and resources for particular stakeholders (e.g. health professionals), call architecture and call response outcomes, email handling processes (including acknowledgement, updates and follow-up) and efforts to drive down use of less responsive channels such as fax and letter all offer relevant strategies that will play a role in the final user experience and resolution times.
|Response time||Nett dissatisifed||Nett satisfied|
|Less than 1 day||4||86|
|Greater than 20 days||72||7|
Communications - Overall satisfaction
Overall nett satisfaction with the experience of communicating with the TGA is observed at 68%, with 12% highlighting some level of dissatisfaction (Table 28). This level is consistent with 2017 and maintains the improvements made on this measure since the 2016 survey (Table 27 and Figure 43).
Table 27: Communication- Overall satisfaction - 2016 - 2018 (%)
|Year||Nett dissatisfied||Neither||Nett satisfied|
Government (70%) and Medical products industry (68%) stakeholders show high Nett satisfaction levels, with Health professional, Retailer and Academic groups all showing slightly lower than average Nett satisfaction (Table 28). These results show some variation for Health professionals and Government stakeholders based on the previous year. Health professionals Nett satisfaction is down 9% (from 70% in 2017) and Government stakeholders Nett satisfaction rose from 49% in 2017 to 70% in 2018. The result for Retailers is also of interest for a trend toward higher dissatisfaction. Nett satisfaction for Retailers remains similar across years; however, the level of Nett dissatisfaction rose to more than one in five respondents (22% up from 16% in 2017). Monitoring and identification of specific communication needs for this group may be warranted to identify any specific communication challenges and needs. Other stakeholder categories remain consistent with previous years.
Within the Medical products industry category there is a consistent level of satisfaction, with all sub categories showing Nett satisfaction of between 65% and 70%. Consistent with other areas of the survey, Product sponsors (70%) and Regulatory affairs consultants (71%) appear slightly more likely than other groups to provide a positive rating. Despite the very small numbers involved, Industry association representatives satisfaction levels are in line with other groups in this category (67%). This is in contrast to previous years in the survey where outcomes amongst Industry association representatives were consistently lower than amongst the broader group of Medical products industry participants (e.g. in 2017 Industry association reps showed 42% Nett satisfaction).
Within the small sub samples of healthcare professionals there are large variations in the level of Nett satisfaction with communication outcomes (Table 28). Pharmacists (73%), Nurses (69%) and Dental practitioners (71%) show relatively strong levels of nett satisfaction. In contrast, Medical practitioners (53%) and Complementary healthcare practitioners (44%) show lower levels of satisfaction.
Table 28: Communication - Overall satisfaction by Stakeholder category, Industry, and Health professional categories (%)
|Category||Nett dissatisfied||Neither||Nett satisfied||N|
|Medical products industry||11||20||68||1344|
|Medical products industry|
|Regulatory affairs consultant||8||21||71||91|
|Industry association representative||11||22||67||9|
|Complementary healthcare practitioner||25||31||44||32|
|Other health professional||11||23||67||57|
Participants were provided with an opportunity to comment on their experience communicating with the TGA.