Quest Scores and Criteria See also Quest History & Marina Centre
Scores Criteria Examples of Scores from Oadby Quest & Safety
27 April 2010 - Quest's Own Review Raises Concerns
In 2009 Quest conducted a consultation review with five categories of stakeholders - contract operators, site operators, local authority clients, Quest assessors and mystery visitors, and a sample of ex-users or non-users of Quest. A report is available from www.questnbs.info/media/downloads/quest/75EDBE87-FF0B-4E34-364A1FFF54073F41.pdf (If you find the report has been pulled, email me for a copy.)
The executive summary, after saying how wonderful Quest is, gives reasons for dissatisfaction, which include "the process itself". Also mentioned were:
• The scoring system can result in two centres that in reality are performing very differently getting the same score• There is too much focus on scoring points, rather than actual service improvements
• Centres run by large contractors have too much ability to score highly through the use of corporate paperwork when the centre itself does not perform highly
• Scoring is too subjective to the assessor and therefore inconsistent
•The skills, strengths and weaknesses of the assessors vary too much
•The approach of assessors varies too much, with some applying criteria more rigorously than others
• A good score in one area could mask a bad score in another, thus a centre could become accredited despite very poor performance in one or more areas
If the latter applies to Health & Safety, what is the point of the scheme?
Later, it is revealed that Assessors/ Mystery Visitors “felt that the scoring system meant that good systems behind the scenes sometimes led to high scores when the customer experience was probably poor”.
Well done for conducting the research, but that is only the start. Even though the study was completed by August 2009, as yet there is no news of a revamped approach to Quest's so called quality assurance of facilities. How would Quest respond to worrying findings at a centre? Would it wait months before ensuring the defects were corrected? Who is guarding the guardians?
The boss of the sports consultancy that runs Quest, is Graham Farrant, former Chief Executive of Leisure Connection. Does that make you feel safer? PB
20 December 2007
Quest Accreditation can be achieved with a score as low as 60% To be "highly commended" requires 75% and "excellent" requires 85%. Despite starting in 1996 over 2000 leisure facilities have either not applied for or have failed Quest accreditation. One might ask, given the cost of administering Quest, how effective it has been and whether it can do the full job while leisure funding from central and local government is insufficient?
Of the almost 600 accredited centres as of April 2006 only one, Guildford Spectrum has reached an "excellent" rating. To have only one "excellent" facility in the UK after 10 years of Quest concerns me. The Guildford facility, which is managed directly by the council, has had the highest Quest score for three years. Over half of the accredited centres achieve less than 70%, which given the scoring system may mean there are still areas of concern (see highlighted text below and examples of scores).
In February 2006 Chase Leisure Centre got 70% and claimed this meant it was in the top 2% of national leisure centres. An email from the local authority explained "This information was based upon Sport England quoting that there are 50,000 leisure facilities in the country and only 669 are quest accredited." Of course, this presumes that all centres that have not applied for Quest are inferior to those that do have it.
Figures from Quest for April 2006 said 252 centres have scored 70% or more, including 74 that were awarded "Highly Commended" status. While Cannock Council might have gone further than it should in making its claim many local authorities and contractors are quick to trumpet loudly when they get accredited. Most do not say what their scores are. Nor do many publicise the weaknesses identified in the Quest assessment. I encourage council tax payers and centre users to ask their councils and leisure operators, using Freedom of Information if necessary for the former, for copies of the Quest documents. These include Self-Assessment, Inspection and Mystery Visitor reports.
A Quest score involves ratings on a scale from 0 -10 under 20 different headings. Some of the ratings are weighted. to produce the Overall Score.
Quest Accreditation Scores for Facilities
 |
10
= Excellent in all areas examined |
|
9
= Excellent in most areas examined, effective in all |
|
8
= Effective in all areas
examined |
|
7
= Effective in most areas examined, minor omission(s) or satisfactory in one
or two areas |
|
6
= Effective in some areas examined, minor omission(s) or satisfactory in
three/four areas – even split between effective and satisfactory. A
concern may be present |
|
5
= Satisfactory and basic control in most areas, minor omissions in one/two
areas. Concerns possibly noted in delivery |
|
4
= Satisfactory and basic control in most areas but some key omissions or
areas of concern |
|
3
= Less than satisfactory performance and control in most areas, with key
omissions or areas of concern |
|
2
= Less than satisfactory performance and control in most areas, overall poor
control |
|
1
= Poor control and performance in the vast majority of areas examined |
|
0 = Extremely poor or no consideration given. |
FOP = Facilities Operation CR = Customer Relations STAF = Staffing SDR = Service Development & Review
|
Criteria |
Quest
Standard |
| Systems, Standards & Inspection (FOP 1) | Documented
systems are in place to ensure that key elements of service delivery are
under control. Systems are up-to-date, available to and known by all
relevant staff. Services are planned to deliver a safe and enjoyable
experience. |
| Cleanliness
(FOP
2) |
The
level of cleanliness is visibly acceptable, taking due account of customer
expectations. There are high standards of hygiene in critical areas.
Standards are in place to prevent injury and minimize customer
dissatisfaction and inconvenience. |
| Housekeeping
(FOP3) |
The
Centre is presented in a fit and tidy state, reflecting general pride in
the provision by the organisation and the staff. |
| Maintenance
of Buildings, Plant & Equipment (FOP 4) |
Maintenance
is based on an effective preventative approach to ensure customer
enjoyment and complete safety. Repair requests are actioned promptly
within an effective system. The Facility is well maintained within the
constraints of its age and structure. |
| Equipment
Criteria (FOP 5) |
Suitable
and sufficient equipment for customer use is maintained in a fit
condition. A range of equipment is provided to allow programming variety.
Safety in use is achieved. |
| Environmental Control
(FOP 6) |
Provision
of appropriate and reasonable temperatures, lighting and ventilation for
sporting and social areas. There is tight control of environment factors
in customer-sensitive areas. Environmental issues are addressed in
relation to the general consumption of energy and water and reduction of
the harmful effects of their waste on the environment. |
| Changing Rooms
(FOP 7) |
Adequate
and appropriate changing provision, with high standards of hygiene.
Emphasis on regular cleaning and replenishment of consumables. |
| Health and Safety
Management (FOP 8) |
Implementation
of a successful Health and Safety management programme, probably based on
the HSE booklet “Five Steps to Successful Health and Safety
Management”. Management and the workforce are aware of and undertake
their responsibilities in Health and Safety. |
| Inspection of Service
(FOP 9) |
There
is a sensible and adequate level of inspection to satisfy statutory
requirements, verify achievement of quality standards and provide
management information for corrective action and improvement. Inspection
should be carried out on activities that are particularly related to the
customer, and records made available. |
| Customer
Relations (CR
1) |
Quality
standards of customer service are defined and implemented in service
delivery. Staff are trained to provide information, advice and assistance
to customers in a helpful manner. Staff are empowered to make on-the-spot
decisions about customer service. |
| Research (CR 2) | Pro-active
research is conducted to identify potential customer and current-user
requirements for service delivery. There is an understanding amongst the
team of the target market, the Centre users, competition and local and national
trends. |
| Customer Feedback
(CR 3) |
Customer
comments and feedback are actively encouraged and acted upon. They are
seen as an opportunity to improve and are the lifeblood of the quality
Facility. The Facility aims to work in partnership with its client (if
applicable), welcoming client feedback to improve customer service. |
| Advertising and Promotion
(CR 4) |
Accurate,
attractive, up-to-date and explanatory information is given to local
community/target market. A variety of promotional methods are used within
the budgetary constraints of the Facility. There is planned advertising
and promotion. |
| Reception (CR 5) |
The
Reception service operates in a smooth manner with skilled, knowledgeable
staff providing prompt attention to customers. |
| One-off Bookings (CR 6) |
The
booking system is customer friendly and provides a range of opportunities
for one-off (non-casual) bookings. Agreed customer requirements are fully
clarified and actioned through to completion of booking. |
| People Management (STAF
2) |
Personnel
involved in service delivery, whether paid or voluntary, are seen as
central to quality service delivery. Training and development are ongoing
with the aim of continually improving standards of service and achieving
business objectives. |
| Management
Style (STAF 3) |
There
is a management style that demonstrates the ability to communicate with
and motivate staff at all levels and to drive the business from the top.
The decision-making processes skillfully balance business goals with
customer needs and staff involvement. There is a commitment for continuous
service improvement through the empowerment of staff. |
|
Policy and Strategy (SDR 1) |
The Facility has clearly
identified its mission, established overall aims and set specific objects
that reflect appropriate policies. The Facility has implemented a strategy
to achieve its objectives. A commitment to continuous improvement is
clearly demonstrated. |
| Activity Programming and Sports (SDR 2) | The
programme of activities is designed to meet the Facility’s aims and
objectives. The programme is dynamic, innovative and responsive to the
requirements of the customers and potential customers. The programme
considers the various types of user and use to ensure that it is balanced. |
| Measurement and Review |
The
Facility measures and reviews the effectiveness of its progress in
pursuing its mission and aims. The measurements and reviews are used as a
basis for improvement. There is a track record of improvements to the
service and a creative approach to meeting and exceeding customer needs
and expectations. |
|
Usage
and Finance (SDR 4) |
The
Facility attracts levels of usage appropriate to its location and nature
of use. Usage targets are realistic. The Facility operates effectively
within financial targets and limitations. |
Examples of Scores from Oadby Swimming Pool - Assessment Improvement Report 2003 Overall Score = 67%
This section give some examples of issues that brought down scores..
FOP 1 "Systems" Score = 6. "By regular review of the inspections carried out , the management team may be able to respond to non conformance before it becomes a service issue."
FOP 2 "Cleanliness" Score = 6 Pool - "no opportunity to pass on incompleted (sic) cleaning tasks" and "lack of definition of who cleans what". "As confirmed by the MV (Mystery Visitor) there is a lack of actual cleaning against the weekly and monthly programme, this should be addressed as a matter of urgency." "The management team may wish to carry out reviews of all aspects of cleaning to include the number of customer comments related to this area."
FOP 6 "Environment" Score = 6 "The pool could benefit from a default process that would remind management that a backwash is due, rather than relying on a team member to remember."
FOP 7 "Changing Rooms" Score = 6 . "...customers may experience better service if all inspections occurred as planned." "...approximately 50% of the lockers were unserviceable."
FOP 8 "H&S" Score= 6 "The pool and its team members may benefit from updating COSHH (Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations)
CR4 "Marketing" Score = 7 "...the website for the pool... uninspiring and a little difficult to understand."
STAF 1 "Staff Supervision" Score = 6 "The management team as a matter of urgency should ensure that a 'First Aid at Work' qualified team member is present at all opening times." "...the pool and customers may gain benefit from formal Pool Plant Operators Qualifications". "...consider ensuing that the Working Time Directive is complied with for all shifts."
STAF 2 "People Management" Score = 7 "...consider a 'step up' trainer to ensure that if the nominated trainer leaves, training can continue. The new incumbent of the training role is very keen to get training back in place, and this should be assessed at the next visit."
The Mystery Visitor noted "considerable amounts of dust and litter on the top of lockers", "dust on top of cubicle walls and ledges", "dust on the top of the vending machines...", "tissue paper and hair on the floor of the Male Changing Room",, "stains and watermarks on the mirrors", "the amount of dust suggested very little high level cleaning had taken place for some time", "noticeable amounts of fluff in extract grills", "Overall the building did not give the impression of being particularly well maintained", "...smell of urine..." Is this your idea of 6 out of 10 for cleanliness?
Is Safety Being Properly Considered by Quest?
In swimming and many other leisure activities customers put a high value on safety, especially when children are involved. Is Quest matching up to these user expectations?
The Mystery Visitor may only be there for a limited time but it seems relatively little attention can be paid to what the MV observes in terms of health and safety practices. None of the comments below are reflected in the main body of the Oadby Assessment Report. I wonder how a centre can get a score of 6 for H&S after such observations and why there is nothing to require management to review Lifeguard behaviour. Is Quest paying too much attention to what exists on paper and not what is happening on the ground?
"Although the Pool was very quiet, lifeguarding standards during the period of the MV were poor. There were occasions when the single Lifeguard as undertaking other duties, including dealing with the lane ropes and completing administration; the latter appeared to relate to pool numbers.
"The member of staff also had their back to the Pool on some occasions and even left Poolside briefly at one point, leaving no Lifeguard cover.
"I also noted the supervision of the 'splash' session (usually run for toddlers), which consisted of two Lifeguards sitting on the walled area at the shallow end engaged in conversation, but not observing the Pool in a particularly vigilant way, and one Lifeguard at the deep end of the pool."
Would you call this a "minor omission"? If it is a "key omission or area of concern" then the rating should have been no more than 4. What faith can the public have in Quest if standard safety practices are observed to lapse and not included in the scores? PB