A Quarterly Review of the eFiles Customer Experience Index (CEI) (Q2)

This review of the CEI data accounts for the data captured between April 1 – June 30, 2025.

318 Completed Surveys April 1 to June 30, 2025

Averages of the CEI question survey results by question:

1. Staff connected with this eFile (e.g., file coordinators, reviewers, senior reviewers, etc.) were helpful and responsive.	4.7/5   Indicating an average response between “Agree” and “Strongly Agree”
2. Comments and suggestions in response letters, calls and messenger were clear and actionable.	4.5/5 Indicating an average response between “Agree” and “Strongly Agree”
3. I felt the review was: 1. Highly inconsistent 2. Somewhat inconsistent 3. Somewhat consistent 4. Highly Consistent 5. I don't know	3.8/4*   Indicating an average response between “Somewhat consistent” and “Highly Consistent”
*This average rating is calculated from Responses 1-4 as including ratings of 5 (or “I don’t know”) would have skewed the average upward. There was 4 ratings of “I don’t know” in this data set.
4. Please provide any other feedback specific to this file: [optional open text field]	See feedback themes below.
5. Please rate your overall experience with this particular review.  1 – highly negative experience 10 – highly positive experience	9.1/10   Indicating a positive average overall experience.

Key Themes and Actions Taken from Open-text Feedback:

Please note that there were minimal comments this quarter.

1. Request for more context behind decisions (n=3). We heard that clients would appreciate more background information on why certain copy or references are not acceptable.

Action Taken: Our review team discussed ways to provide clearer, more detailed explanations when identifying an issue initially. The goal is to support client understanding and strengthen everyone’s knowledge base. This could include outlining the type of reference required to substantiate a claim, pointing to specific guidance documents that explain how the code is applied, or to similar issues raised on the forum.

By offering this added context, we aim to make the review process more collaborative and help you feel confident in how to move forward.

2. Considerations for Code updates (n=4). There were a few comments that focused on elements of the Code which caused frustration during the review process. PAAB would like to remind clients that CEI surveys are about the experience with staff and their services. We have the “Tag” system where we encourage users to use the tag “Consider changing the code/guidance”. While we appreciate that this might feel like it impacts the experience, it’s important to provide feedback in the CEI that helps to improve interactions or reinforce positive interactions. At the end of the day, the Reviewer is still bound by the regulations as they are currently set.

Action Taken: PAAB is looking into the review practices for things like formulary claims. We’re open to exploring areas which could be updated while maintaining the integrity of the Code and advertising pieces.

• “Pending ongoing review” comments (n=1). In one case, we found that using the comment “pending revisions in ongoing review” contributed to delays in the client’s production timeline. While this approach can create efficiencies on the PAAB side, we recognize that it may not always align with the client’s project priorities.

Action Taken: Our Reviewers discussed how and when it’s best to use the “pending resolution in ongoing files” comment. When the same copy appears across multiple pieces, it’s often more efficient to resolve the issue in one file and then apply the change across all related files. However, this works best when we clearly understand which files matter most to you.

To better support client timelines, we’re exploring ways to keep reviews efficient while ensuring files continue to move forward. We also encourage clients to connect with our admin team during the review process to share which pieces are top priority for clients.

 

Key Takeaways:

• Survey Completion Rate is 20.4%, with this data capturing 318 responses out of 1556 surveys sent. Data should be interpreted with this in mind, as this is a relatively low sample size.
• Ratings for all questions, on average, have been positive. This data set is reflective of the complete quarter. Results have remained generally positive and consistent with the data from all quarters of 2023 and 2024.  

A Quarterly Review of the eFiles Customer Experience Index (CEI) (Q1)

This review of the CEI data accounts for the data captured between January 1 – March 31, 2025.

81 Completed Surveys January 1 to March 31, 2025

Averages of the CEI question survey results by question:

1. Staff connected with this eFile (e.g., file coordinators, reviewers, senior reviewers, etc.) were helpful and responsive.	4.7/5   Indicating an average response between “Agree” and “Strongly Agree”
2. Comments and suggestions in response letters, calls and messenger were clear and actionable.	4.6/5 Indicating an average response between “Agree” and “Strongly Agree”
3. I felt the review was: 1. Highly inconsistent 2. Somewhat inconsistent 3. Somewhat consistent 4. Highly Consistent 5. I don't know	3.8/4*   Indicating an average response between “Somewhat consistent” and “Highly Consistent”
*This average rating is calculated from Responses 1-4 as including ratings of 5 (or “I don’t know”) would have skewed the average upward. There was 4 ratings of “I don’t know” in this data set.
4. Please provide any other feedback specific to this file: [optional open text field]	See feedback themes below.
5. Please rate your overall experience with this particular review.  1 – highly negative experience 10 – highly positive experience	9.1/10   Indicating a positive average overall experience.

Key Themes and Actions Taken from Open-text Feedback:

Please note that there were minimal comments this quarter.

• Early feedback on layout (n=1). A client reported that feedback could have been provided earlier in the review process to help expediate approval. 

Action Taken: Reviewers have been reminded to open all versions of the layout provided, even if copy revisions are still required, and provide comments as early as possible to not hold up the review.

• Appreciation for quick reviews and helpful interactions with reviewers (n=7). Comment highlighted positive experiences with the speed of the review process as well as helpful interactions with reviewers and file coordinators. This is extremely helpful for providing positive feedback to the team about what clients are finding particularly helpful.

Action Taken: Reviewers were provided a summary of key features that resulted in a positive experience for clients with the goal of reinforcing these behaviours. 

Key Takeaways:

• Survey Completion Rate is 21.6%, with this data capturing 81 responses out of 294 surveys sent. Data should be interpreted with this in mind, as this is a relatively low sample size.
• Ratings for all questions, on average, have been positive. This data set is reflective of the complete quarter. Results have remained generally positive and consistent with the data from all quarters of 2023 and 2024.  

---

Did you know? Now you can forward your CEIs to non-eFiles users for completion. In response to feedback that not all team members have eFiles accounts, we have updated our systems to allow the most appropriate team member to complete the CEI regardless of whether or not they have an eFiles account. Simply forward the CEI invitation to the appropriate team member and they can complete it. Please note that the survey can only be completed once.

---

We continue to encourage you to be as specific as possible when providing feedback in order to help us best understand your experience with PAAB and create a meaningful action-plan to improve or disseminate best practices. Thank you for your continued participation in the CEI surveys!

How to make your feedback count! *Management provided variations on comments received to ensure no identifiers Please be specific!  “All staff involved were very responsive. However, the reviewer assigned to the file was not very helpful during the review.” TIP: Add detail! If you were happy with most of the staff, but didn’t find the reviewer particularly helpful, tell us what happened. What made you feel that way? What part of the review was unhelpful?   “N/A” or similar (accompanied by a rating with an asterisk denoting a lower score) TIP: Put yourself in our shoes. If you received a low score on your performance rating, but were not told why, would you know how to improve to better your score in the future? CEI scores are part of our team’s performance evaluations and are used to guide company-wide process improvement and best-practice sharing. The more detail we have, the better we can guide these initiatives! Most of the staff involved in my eFile were very responsive. The file coordinators noticed A PM update was missing and worked with me to quickly get the proper file uploaded and into the queue. However, in the second round of review, I requested a call with my reviewer to discuss Comment 2 of their letter, and the only availability they provided was 4 days after my initial request. It’s my understanding that reviewers are to at least provide options for a return-call within 24 hours, so I was disappointed by this as it impacted my overall timeline. Why this works: It’s detailed! We now understand what the issue is that caused the responder to feel that the reviewer was not helpful and can dig into why this ticket call took so long to book and return. Both positive and constructive feedback was provided. We appreciate that not all cases will have both positive and constructive feedback, but this was particularly helpful to understand the ranking and identify areas for improvement. Where there is positive feedback, it helps us amplify these best practices since we know what is helpful to you. Constructive feedback helps us understand what the challenges were and improve on an individual level and a systems level.

 

Confidence in confidentiality As a reminder, client tags trigger internal audits for validation by PAAB’s Director of Pre-clearance Services, Yin Man. Any tags pertaining to Yin are validated by the Commissioner and removed from the report provided to Yin. No Reviewer, Senior Reviewer, or Director is EVER aware of tags generated by clients. You can be confident in the confidentiality of the tagging system. For additional reassurance, the tagging system, tag assessments, and documented actions taken will periodically be reviewed by an external auditor. What does PAAB use the tags for? Staff and system performance metrics To identify trends and training opportunities To stay inform on what is going well (best practices) and areas for improvement If you’d like to learn more about the client tagging system, check out the Client Tagging System Advisory. You’ll also find links to useful videos on  tagging a review and tagging phone calls.