|
The day Mom was diagnosed with ALS, it hit us from out of the blue.
There is one thing I remember vividly about that day.
The neurologist pulled me aside and said, ”Get her to someone doing clinical
trials because the only thing the least bit “promising” would be
experimental.
We were fortunate.
We had an action plan on day 1.
|
|
You see, the ice didn’t cure ALS.
There is no effective treatment.
It’s a difficult disease.
|
|
That’s EXACTLY why clinical trials are so important to those with
ALS.
1. They are a legit Hail Mary
2. They advance the science for others.
|
|
You who do clinical research RECRUIT for trials.
|
|
But wait. You are
RECRUITING. They are SHOPPING.
People looking for a clinical trial are doing what we all do every day when
we look for a new car or a great, affordable restaurant in Palo Alto.
They do not seek to be recruited.
They seek the best trials for them.
|
|
Businesses use Customer Journey Maps to show the complexity their
customers experience to do business with them.
Complexity is never good in customer service. They journey should be easy for
the customer.
|
|
There are some basic elements of most Customer Journey Maps –
Awareness, Research, Purchase, OOBE (WOW) Disney Apple.
Lets back up to Awareness. A lot of
money is spent on making people aware of clinical trials. Great.
|
|
Based on personal experience, I suspect that we are losing people who
are already aware of clinical trials in the Research part of their journey,
and the problem is poor customer service.
|
|
Am I all wet? How could I put some data behind my suspicion? Meet our secret shopper, Elizabeth Cosby.
|
|
Elizabeth is a fictitious woman who came to life a few months ago in
a new gmail account. Elizabeth has a
fictitious aunt who was recently diagnosed with ALS.
Elizabeth tried to help her find a clinical trial.
|
|
The first part of the journey was to find all recruiting,
interventional ALS trials.
Elizabeth wanted to organize the information for comparison shopping.
That was terribly time-consuming.
|
|
Finally on the evening of April 4, Elizabeth emailed inquiries about
39 trials.
There were 5 simple questions in each email – things like is it still
enrolling, time commitment, reimbursement…
|
|
The first response came back that very evening. It answered all the questions and was
encouraging. Was I all wet about poor customer service?
Unfortunately time told the tale.
Of the 39 trials, Elizabeth got absolutely no response (not even an
autoresponder) regarding 11 of them.
Crickets.
|
|
39 clinical trials.
28 responses.
11 crickets.
From the 28 responses we a variety of data on the five questions.
Please read my paper at www.alsadvocacy.com for the full scoop.
|
|
This project was as much about the journey as the five questions.
Elizabeth assigned a completeness score to each response.
If you answered all 5 questions, you got a 5.
If you punted or simply referred Elizabeth to a consent document, you got 0.
Average completeness score was 3. On
average, Elizabeth had 3 of her 5 questions answered.
|
|
Elizabeth assigned a tone score to the responses (respectful,
collaborative, encouraging). Sure,
it’s subjective, but that doesn’t mean it’s not important.
Average 4
|
|
It really got interesting when we added the scores together for each
response.
13 of the 28 responses got perfect scores of 10.
What we saw was that
when they were good, they were very, very good, and when they were bad, they
were horrid.
|
|
Good customer service.
It’s not rocket science. It’s not
neuroscience. It’s common sense.
|
|
If we fix some easy customer service problems that Elizabeth
uncovered, the clinical trial path will be faster and easier. Everybody will win!
|
No comments:
Post a Comment