User Perception of the Veterinary Poisons Information Service

• Published in: Clinical toxicology (Philadelphia, Pa.) Vol. 46; no. 5; p. 385
• Main Authors: Sutton, N M, Campbell, A
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 01.06.2008
• ISSN: 1556-3650

Objective: The Veterinary Poisons Information Service (VPIS) is a 24-hour emergency telephone service for veterinary professionals and staff of animal welfare organisations. The VPIS operates from two centres, London and Leeds, giving advice on poisoning in animals. In 2006 the VPIS received 17,292 enquiries (London 14,346, Leeds 2,946). The study aimed to examine how users rated the service provided by the VPIS. Method: Data was prospectively gathered from user satisfaction questionnaires sent out to all users in early 2007, and also retrospectively from 3,230 returned follow-up questionnaire sent out after enquiries received by the London centre in 2006. Results: Prospective data from user satisfaction questionnaires showed that 63% (359/571) of respondents exclusively called VPIS London, 13% (72/571) exclusively called VPIS Leeds and 18% (102/571) called both centres. Both centres were rated highly for, call waiting time, providing answers and friendliness of staff. Users rated London and Leeds positively in >90% and >85% of questionnaires respectively. When asked to comment on how the service could be improved 50% (82/186) of users said that the service was already good, or that no improvement was required. The majority of suggested improvements were concerned with providing courses, leaflets, newsletters etc. Retrospective data gathered from the London centre's follow-up questionnaires showed that 99.69% (3,220/3,230) of respondents found the information given by the VPIS to be useful. Respondents were invited to comment on the service given by the VPIS, 95.43% (1,106/1,159) of users gave a positive review, suggesting that the VPIS; was "helpful" (381), "provided a good service" (273), was "prompt" (150) and "reassuring" (61). 25 Negative comments were received and mostly concerned lack of information (11) and call waiting time (4). Conclusions: Users are satisfied with the service provided by both London and Leeds centres. Improvements to the service could be made by increasing telephone capacity, as well as providing additional training, such as courses, and literature e.g. regular newsletters and leaflets.