Background: Program Administrators (PAs), Program Directors (PDs), and residents are key to the success of postgraduate medical education (PGME) programs. The PGME office at the University of Ottawa invited PAs, PDs, and residents from approximately 80 programs in the Faculty of Medicine to provide  feedback on the customer service provided by the PGME office team.

Purpose: The purpose of this customer service survey was to assess the PGME office's performance and gather information to advise them on how they can support PAs, PDs, and residents in their roles and improve customer service with regard to Communication; Admission and Registration; Awards and Electives; Maintenance of Trainee Files; Accreditation; Evauluation; IT Project Coordination; Continuing Professional Development and Competency Based Medical Education.

Methodology: All PAs, PDs, and residents were emailed a link to complete an online surey in Fluide Systems. The survey contrained both quantitative questions and complimentary open-ended qualitative quesions on each of the topics. The information gathered was pooled for analysis. The ultimate goal of this project was to gather information so that the PGME office could identify strengths and areas to improe, and to take positive action to increase satishfaction to maximize the PGME office's service excellence and resources.

Findings: Wtih regard to customer service, PAs, PDs and residetns had both positive comments and suggestions for improvement. Recommendations for improving communications including increasing office staff's understanding of roles so phone calls and emails can be redirected to the most qualitified individual and response time, redundancies, errors and extra work for administration and residents can be reduced. There was concern that the PGME website is not being kept up-do-date and is difficult to navigate. There should be one username and password for all residents modules.

PAs siuggested getting copied on PDs' emails to improve communication. There are too many emails during registration period from too many different team members and departments. Emails going to residents informing them they had not completed manditary online modules when indeed they had, caused confusiton and frustration. There was poor instruction and communication with respect to new photo requirements, and reminders should be sent through the hospital mail, which residents use daily, as opposed to their university mail.

PAs pointed out that attendance at their meetings was dwindling because the information presented was not that useful. They recommended providing new information, opportunities to ask questions, and making the meeting information available to those who cannot attend.

There was both praise and suggestions for improving the PGME offices's adminitration and registration process. There was an expressed need for better clarity to prevent residents from repeatedly asking to be emailed kits that haven't been available since the factuly went electronic. Emails sent to residents sometimes came across as aggressive and threatening and accused residetns of not doing things that they had actually done. Several stakeholders pointed out issues with the portal not being updated in a timely fashion causing a domino effect and futher delays. Residetns think the registration process is too costly, that there are too many time-consuming technical problems saving and documenting participation and that there are too many required course changes.

Several residents, PAs and PDs reported that they were unaware there are awards available and support provided for electives from the PGME office. There was confusion in the PGMe offiec with regard to electives, and there was concern updates on the applicant status are slow. PDs find the visiting student electives program generates a lot of work. There was also concern over the change in position to not accept foreigh residents to do electives and the timeing of producing resident certificates.

There were issues with repard to the effectiveness of the PGME offie's management of compliancy issues, including communicatio and ownership overseeing The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPS0) licensure (or registration), and the timing and coordination of legar requirement to work across partner affiliatied teaching hospitals.

PAs do not feel they get enough support when it comes to accreditation and suggested the PGME offie's policy of responding to questions within two business days is not satishfatory. Residents didn't feel that being interveiwed for accreditation was a safe place to voice concerns. More consistency and standards in completing Patient Satishfaction Questionnaires (PSQs) is needed for resident safety and appeals. Several concerns were raised regarding the time and accuracy for monitoring Pulse data.

Criticism regarding the PGME office's effectiveness in managing resident training included complaints regarding the website and the value of first year symposia. More clarity was needed with regard to sessions residents are required to complete. Residents indicated that requiring a username and password for each course seemed unnecessary. Mandator symposia should be offered more than once a week.

Concernes related to using ONE45 included the need for more support, increased training, providing a contract person to immedicately respond to questions, and eliminating or improving the ticket system which is only functional if you are a University employee. The most criticized aspect of the PGME office was related to perception of the effectiveness of information technology support and getting technology related questions answered in a timely manner. PAs pointed out they often need a quick response and want to be anle to talk to a person to have questions answered more expedienty. There was agreement that the Medtech ticket sustem is confusing, inconvenient and inefficient. PAs and PDs reported there has been no communicatio about the Medical Training Day (MTD) reporting process and there is frustration amongst the PAs regarding this process. PAs reported that they enjoyed and appreceiated the annual retreat and would like more flexibility with regard to the dates in which the PGME offers professional development. There was little awarement of where the PGME office stands with regard to Competency Based Medical Education (CBME) and the perception that the CBME organization is unclear.

Conclusion: Several recommendations for change and improvments emerged from these findings. Some of the recommendations have already been implemented, some are underway and others will be addressed in the near future. Needs analysis provides essential imformation for program improvement and customer satishfaction. Being asked for their feedback was very much appreciated by stakeholders. Implementing the changes and seeing their voices heard with be essential for ongoing satishfaction among PAs, PDs, and residents wtih regard to satishfaciton with the PGME offices performance.