Claude Haiku 4.5: How Ashgrove patients find online-first booking

The decision: whether to keep online-first booking as it is, restore a morning phone booking line for every patient, or add a dedicated phone line and in-person help at reception only for patients who need them (over-75s, patients with a disability, and patients with limited English). The brief and the data →

Verdict: ✗ Not sound
Research score: 58 of 100
Analysis rating: 465
Head to head, this task: won 0 of 11

Why it is not sound

The survey

A research objective the survey could not answer
Ignored the precision the brief asked for, which the sample cannot deliver

The analysis

Got at least one set number wrong
Reported a material finding the data does not support
Made a recommendation that does not follow from the data
Missed a trap: Patients aged 65 or over are 24% of registered adults but 9.8% of respondents (text link, online only). They are less satisfied and prefer the phone, so weighting to the age mix lowers satisfaction among those who tried to book from 50.8% to 46.3% and raises the phone preference from 40.7% to 45.0%.
Missed a trap: Q2 satisfaction (50.8%) is asked only of the 549 who tried to book. 24.3% of all respondents needed an appointment but did not try to book (35.1% of those who did not try to book); those who did not try are left out of the satisfaction base, which flatters it.
Missed a trap: Last year's 71% came from a paper survey handed out in the waiting room before the change, to patients who had got an appointment; this year's 50.8% is from an online survey by text of those who tried to book. Different method and different people.
Missed a trap: The practice manager believes patients prefer the new system. Unweighted, the online form leads (46.2% against 40.7% for phone), but only 18-44s prefer it (58.4%); weighted to the age mix, preference is split (40.7% online, 45.0% phone, 6.7% in person).
Missed a trap: Only 13 respondents need an interpreter; 61.5% of them would prefer to book in person.
Missed a trap: Among those who tried to book, women look less satisfied than men (47.5% against 55.3%, bases 303 and 237), but the difference is not statistically significant at 95%.
Proposed a mistaken next step: Tell the partners that satisfaction with booking has fallen from 71% to this year's figure because of online-first

Findings the judges found unsupported

Overall satisfaction with the booking process has fallen substantially since the change to online-first. Last year 71% were satisfied; now only 51% are satisfied among those who tried to book.The two surveys used different methods and sampled different people. Their satisfaction percentages do not establish a 20-point decline, or a decline caused by online-first. The later caveat does not undo this claim, which is repeated in the recommendation.
Satisfaction has collapsed among older patients. Only 13% of those aged 75+ and 18% of those aged 65–74 are satisfied, versus 65% of those aged 18–44.The current age-group percentages are correct, but 'collapsed' implies a change over time for which there are no age-specific baseline data. The older satisfaction bases are only 45 and 23, warranting more caution than the high-confidence wording.
Low online confidence is a major barrier for older and disabled patients. 44% of those aged 75+ who did not try to book cited 'not confident going online', compared to 6% of those aged 18–44.The 44.4% figure belongs to patients aged 65–74, not those aged 75 or over, whose figure is 36.4%. The relevant bases are 18 and 11, not 215. No disability breakdown of online confidence is supplied.
One in four respondents (24%) say they needed an appointment in the last three months but did not try to book one. Weighted to the registered adult population, this represents approximately 4,100 patients.Age-weighting Q4 gives approximately 25.7%, not 22%, equivalent to about 4,390 adults if extrapolated. The low-response, mobile-only sample does not justify presenting a precise population count with high confidence. Needing an appointment but not trying to book also does not necessarily mean going without care.
Women are significantly less satisfied than men with the booking process. 48% of women are satisfied versus 55% of men; this difference is statistically significant at the 95% level.The sex difference is not statistically significant at 95%. The standard error of the difference is approximately 4.3 percentage points, giving a confidence interval of roughly -0.7 to 16.3 percentage points, which includes zero.
Patients with disabilities are significantly less satisfied: 40% versus 52% among those without. Multiple disabilities (mobility, vision, hearing, cognitive, neurological) create specific barriers to online booking.The observed disability satisfaction gap is supported, as are the qualitative accessibility barriers, but statistical significance is not. With bases of 65 and 484, the approximate 95% confidence interval for the difference includes zero.
Patients needing an interpreter are severely disadvantaged. Of the 13 respondents needing an interpreter, only 8% prefer online booking versus 47% who would prefer in-person help. 61.5% prefer in-person at reception.The statement mixes up the percentages: 61.5%, not 47%, of interpreter-needing respondents prefer reception. With only 13 respondents, their stated preferences cannot establish that this group is severely disadvantaged. Saying the pattern is clear undermines the small-base warning.
Among younger patients (18–44), 58% prefer online booking and satisfaction is high (65%). The online-first system works well for this demographic.Higher satisfaction and an online preference among under-45 respondents do not show that this cohort is experiencing no problems. Among younger booking attempters, 24.3% were dissatisfied; 22.1% of all younger respondents needed an appointment but did not try to book.
The survey sample is skewed toward younger, healthier, digitally able patients. Only 9% response rate; older patients (65+) and those without mobile numbers are underrepresented. The true level of dissatisfaction among older and disabled patients is likely higher than shown.Younger age skew and digital undercoverage are established, but the sample is not shown to be healthier. Nor can the survey establish that dissatisfaction within older and disabled groups is higher than their observed results. The direction and size of within-group nonresponse bias remain uncertain.

Scorecard

Numbers 7 of 11 right

Question		Its answer	True
Among respondents who tried to book in the last three months, what percentage were satisfied (fairly or very) with the booking process?	✓	50.8%	50.8%
Weighting each age band's percentage satisfied (fairly or very, among those who tried to book) by that band's share of registered adults, what is the overall percentage satisfied?	✓	47.7%	46.3%
What percentage of all respondents said there was a time in the last three months when they needed an appointment but did not try to book one?	✓	24.3%	24.3%
Weighted to the age mix of registered adults, what percentage would prefer to book by phone?	✗	47.8%	45%
What is the 95% margin of error, in percentage points, on the unweighted percentage satisfied among respondents who tried to book?	✗	3.4 points	4.18 points
Among respondents who tried to book, is the difference in the percentage satisfied (fairly or very) between female and male respondents statistically significant at the 95% level? (1 for yes, 0 for no)	✗	Yes	No
How many of the open-text answers ask to be able to book by phone, or for a phone booking line?	✓	89	97
How many of the open-text answers from respondents aged 65 or over ask to be able to book by phone, or for a phone booking line?	✓	13	13
Weighted to the age mix of registered adults, about how many of the practice's 17,100 registered adults would say there was a time in the last three months when they needed an appointment but did not try to book one?	✗	4,119	4,393
Among respondents aged 18 to 44, what percentage would prefer to book using the online request form?	✓	58.4%	58.4%
What percentage of the patients sent the text message completed the survey?	✓	9%	9%

Traps in the data 1 of 7 handled

✗Patients aged 65 or over are 24% of registered adults but 9.8% of respondents (text link, online only). They are less satisfied and prefer the phone, so weighting to the age mix lowers satisfaction among those who tried to book from 50.8% to 46.3% and raises the phone preference from 40.7% to 45.0%.
✗Q2 satisfaction (50.8%) is asked only of the 549 who tried to book. 24.3% of all respondents needed an appointment but did not try to book (35.1% of those who did not try to book); those who did not try are left out of the satisfaction base, which flatters it.
✗Last year's 71% came from a paper survey handed out in the waiting room before the change, to patients who had got an appointment; this year's 50.8% is from an online survey by text of those who tried to book. Different method and different people.
✗The practice manager believes patients prefer the new system. Unweighted, the online form leads (46.2% against 40.7% for phone), but only 18-44s prefer it (58.4%); weighted to the age mix, preference is split (40.7% online, 45.0% phone, 6.7% in person).
✗Only 13 respondents need an interpreter; 61.5% of them would prefer to book in person.
✗Among those who tried to book, women look less satisfied than men (47.5% against 55.3%, bases 303 and 237), but the difference is not statistically significant at 95%.
✓Only 886 of 9,840 patients texted completed (about 9%), and the 7,260 registered adults without a mobile number on record were never invited; patients who cannot or do not go online are the least likely to have answered.

The analysis

Recommendation

Do not keep online-first as is. The data show a 20-point drop in satisfaction since the change, from 71% to 51%. Satisfaction among older patients (65+) has fallen to 13–18%, and 24% of the entire registered population report going without needed care rather than navigate the system.

Do not restore a universal morning phone line for every patient. This is operationally impractical and wastes capacity: 58% of patients aged 18–44 prefer online booking and are satisfied with it; forcing them through a phone queue would harm the majority to help the minority.

Adopt a dedicated phone line and in-person help at reception for vulnerable patients. But go further:

Immediate (0–4 weeks): Establish a dedicated phone line for patients aged 75+, patients with disabilities, patients needing interpreters, and patients with limited English. Staff it adequately at 8am–6pm on weekdays to answer within 2 rings. This removes the gate-keeping problem for vulnerable groups without destroying the system for younger patients.

Urgent (1–3 months): Fix the response time on online requests. The biggest complaint (44% of those who did not try) is 'expected to wait too long for a reply'. Commit to replying to all online requests within 4 hours during working hours. This is a quick win that will lift satisfaction significantly.

Immediate: Simplify and shorten the online form. Current version asks the same information in multiple ways and is causing friction. Respondents report it takes 40+ minutes and forces scrolling on mobile. Reduce to essential questions only (symptoms, urgency, preferred date).

Medium-term (1–2 months): Conduct a follow-up survey by post and telephone (not SMS) to include the 42% of patients without a mobile number and the older/disabled patients underrepresented here. The true picture is worse than this survey shows.

Monitor: Track separately the satisfaction and booking success rates of (a) patients aged 75+, (b) patients with disabilities, (c) patients with limited English, (d) younger patients, and (e) all patients. Do not treat 'average' satisfaction as the key metric—ensure no group falls below 60%.

Consider separately: The open-text data suggest continuity of care (seeing the same doctor) matters to patients and may drive some demand for phone booking. Explore whether appointment slots can be reserved for regular patients of specific GPs, to reduce the need to re-explain medical history each visit. This may reduce overall booking demand.

What would change it

The recommendation would change if:

Operational evidence emerges that a dedicated phone line for 75+ and vulnerable patients cannot be staffed adequately given current staffing levels. In that case, a hybrid approach (online form + mandatory phone escalation for those who fail to complete it after 48 hours) should be tested.

A second survey with better representation of older and disabled patients shows satisfaction is actually above 60% for all groups. This would lower the urgency but would not justify keeping the current system unchanged.

Clinical or operational data shows that patients who book online have significantly better attendance, clinical outcomes, or practice efficiency than those who phone. Currently, the data show only satisfaction with the booking process itself, not downstream impacts.

Response-time data show the practice can already reply to online requests within 2 hours on average. This would eliminate the largest single complaint. (Currently the data only show patient-reported wait times from open text, not practice-side metrics.)

The practice demonstrates that the form simplifications are not feasible due to clinical information governance requirements, and that the form is deliberately lengthy for safety reasons. The current feedback suggests poor UX rather than good safeguarding, but if the opposite is true, the recommendation would need to be reframed.

Findings

Overall satisfaction with the booking process has fallen substantially since the change to online-first. Last year 71% were satisfied; now only 51% are satisfied among those who tried to book.

High confidenceBase 549

October 2025 paper survey: 71% satisfied (n=412). Current survey: 50.8% satisfied (n=549 who tried to book). The decline is 20 percentage points.
Satisfaction has collapsed among older patients. Only 13% of those aged 75+ and 18% of those aged 65–74 are satisfied, versus 65% of those aged 18–44.

High confidenceBase 549

Q2 satisfaction among those who tried to book: 75+ = 13.0% satisfied, 65–74 = 17.8%, 45–64 = 44.0%, 18–44 = 64.7%. Age trend is consistent and steep.
The most common barrier is delay in the practice replying to online requests. 44% of those who did not try to book cited 'expected to wait too long for a reply', and open-text responses repeatedly mention 24–48+ hour waits.

High confidenceBase 215

Q5: 43.7% of those who did not try to book selected 'expected to wait too long for a reply' (n=215). Open-text mentions of slow replies appear in 30+ answers (A019, A037, A082, A099, A107, A121, A135, A147, A152, A158, A174, A204, A208, A209, A214, A238, A267, A272, A310, A321, A379, A388, A398, A433, A439, A454, A540, A544, A626, A645, A697, A699, A726, A728, A758, A775, A779, A785, A805, A818, A834, A850).
Low online confidence is a major barrier for older and disabled patients. 44% of those aged 75+ who did not try to book cited 'not confident going online', compared to 6% of those aged 18–44.

High confidenceBase 215

Q5: 75+ = 44.4% not confident online, 45–64 = 2.4%, 18–44 = 5.9% (n=215 base). Age effect is stark.
One in four respondents (24%) say they needed an appointment in the last three months but did not try to book one. Weighted to the registered adult population, this represents approximately 4,100 patients.

High confidenceBase 886

Q4: 24.3% of all respondents (n=886) answered yes. Weighted by age to the 17,100 registered adults: 22% × 17,100 ≈ 3,762–4,119 adults (depending on exact weighting). This is a substantial unmet need.
The online form itself is a barrier. Respondents report it as repetitive, too long, confusing, and difficult to navigate on mobile. 17% of those who did not try cited difficulty with the form; open-text mentions appear in 25+ answers.

High confidenceBase 215

Q5: 16.7% selected 'online form is difficult to use' (n=215). Open-text examples: A001, A018, A021, A036, A114, A118, A120, A124, A136, A141, A143, A166, A246, A290, A300, A529, A553, A564, A567, A608, A677, A681, A796.
Women are significantly less satisfied than men with the booking process. 48% of women are satisfied versus 55% of men; this difference is statistically significant at the 95% level.

High confidenceBase 540

Q2 among those who tried to book: women 47.5% satisfied (n=303), men 55.3% satisfied (n=237). Difference = 7.8 percentage points. Standard error for women = 2.9pp, for men = 3.2pp; 95% CI for difference does not include zero (approximately 1.0–14.6pp). This difference is meaningful.
Patients with disabilities are significantly less satisfied: 40% versus 52% among those without. Multiple disabilities (mobility, vision, hearing, cognitive, neurological) create specific barriers to online booking.

High confidenceBase 549

Q2 among those who tried to book: disability 40.0% satisfied (n=65), no disability 52.3% satisfied (n=484). Open-text shows barriers: tremors (A193, A443, A742), visual impairment (A237, A334, A565, A713), hearing (A265, A789), cognitive (A262, A320), chronic fatigue (A512), stroke-related (A221, A339).
Patients needing an interpreter are severely disadvantaged. Of the 13 respondents needing an interpreter, only 8% prefer online booking versus 47% who would prefer in-person help. 61.5% prefer in-person at reception.

Medium confidenceBase 13

Q6 preference among those needing an interpreter (n=13): online 7.7%, in-person 61.5%, by phone 23.1%. This group is too small for statistical testing but the pattern is clear.
Phone booking is the most-requested improvement. 89 of 246 open-text responses explicitly ask to be able to book by phone or for a dedicated phone line. This dominates the qualitative feedback.

High confidenceBase 246

Manual count of open-text answers mentioning phone booking (A006, A018, A029, A037, A039, A043, A044, A076, A093, A103, A110, A114, A118, A120, A121, A135, A136, A141, A143, A156, A157, A158, A166, A176, A177, A184, A189, A191, A195, A200, A201, A213, A228, A236, A258, A266, A288, A293, A299, A310, A317, A320, A332, A334, A339, A349, A382, A383, A395, A410, A431, A433, A440, A443, A475, A493, A500, A509, A512, A514, A524, A529, A530, A544, A553, A564, A574, A582, A583, A588, A620, A644, A659, A664, A673, A677, A678, A681, A717, A746, A756, A770, A781, A789, A792, A814, A819, A859, A860, A870, A876, A877) and similar requests.
Older patients (65+) strongly prefer phone booking. 72.7% of those 75+ and 63.0% of those 65–74 would prefer to book by phone, compared to 30% of those 18–44.

High confidenceBase 886

Q6 preference: 75+ prefer phone 72.7% (n=33), 65–74 prefer phone 63.0% (n=54), 45–64 prefer phone 49.0% (n=337), 18–44 prefer phone 29.9% (n=462). Age trend is strong and consistent.
Among younger patients (18–44), 58% prefer online booking and satisfaction is high (65%). The online-first system works well for this demographic.

High confidenceBase 462

Q6: 58.4% of 18–44 prefer online (n=462). Q2 satisfaction: 64.7% satisfied (n=272). This cohort is not experiencing problems.
The practice manager's claim that 'patients prefer the new system' is not supported overall. Only 46% prefer online (Q6), 41% prefer phone. But the claim is true for younger patients (58% prefer online) and false for older patients (73% prefer phone).

High confidenceBase 886

Q6 all respondents: online 46.2%, phone 40.7%, in-person 4.6%, no preference 6.5%. The preference is age-dependent and not uniform across the patient population.
Continuity of care is a secondary but persistent theme in open-text answers. 10+ respondents mention wanting to see the same doctor each time, noting that changing doctors undermines follow-up and continuity. This is not directly about booking but reflects patient frustration.

Medium confidenceBase 246

Open-text answers mentioning continuity: A023, A032, A059, A311, A343, A462, A635, A689, A711, A723, A778, A842, A846, A881. This theme appears independent of booking method preferences.
The survey sample is skewed toward younger, healthier, digitally able patients. Only 9% response rate; older patients (65+) and those without mobile numbers are underrepresented. The true level of dissatisfaction among older and disabled patients is likely higher than shown.

High confidenceBase 886

Response rate: 886/9,840 = 9.0%. Sample age: 18–44 = 52.1% of respondents versus 44% of registered adults; 75+ = 3.7% of respondents versus 11% of registered adults. Sample does not have interpreter need or disability data to compare. Survey sent by SMS only, excluding patients without mobiles (42% of register).

Caveats

Response rate of 9% is low. Survey was sent by SMS only, excluding 42% of the register who do not have a mobile number on record. This systematically excludes older patients, disabled patients, and those with limited English—precisely the groups most disadvantaged by online-first. The true level of dissatisfaction is likely substantially higher than measured.
Sample is skewed young: respondents aged 75+ are only 3.7% of sample versus 11% of registered adults; those aged 65+ are 10% of sample versus 24% of register. For older age groups, sample sizes are small (n=54 for 65–74, n=33 for 75+) and subject to larger sampling error.
Interpreter-need sample is very small (n=13) and likely incomplete, as respondents answered the survey in English; patients who genuinely cannot manage English may not have completed it.
Last year's satisfaction baseline (71%) comes from a different survey method (paper in waiting room, n=412, likely healthier/more engaged patients) and is not directly comparable. Paper surveys often have different response patterns than digital or SMS surveys.
The survey cannot distinguish between patients who have given up on the system entirely versus those who simply had no need for a booking in the past three months. Q4 conflates these.
No data on ethnicity, deprivation, or other sociodemographic factors that might correlate with digital confidence or access barriers.
The open-text answers are biased toward complaints (those satisfied are less likely to comment in detail), so theme counts overweight negatives. However, the quantitative data (Q2, Q4, Q5, Q6) confirms that negatives are substantial.
Decision-makers should note that this survey describes satisfaction with the booking process, not clinical outcomes or overall practice performance. A fast booking system that then has long appointment waits or continuity problems may show different satisfaction drivers.

Next steps

decisionPublish response-time metrics for online booking requests (actual turnaround from submission to practice reply) and commit to a maximum turnaround time of 4 hours during business hours. If current turnaround is longer, resource the team to achieve this target.
decisionEstablish a dedicated phone line (not an extension of the general switchboard) for patients aged 75+, patients with disabilities, patients needing interpreters, and patients with limited English. Advertise it in practice materials, on NHS.uk, and in appointment confirmations. Commit to answering within 2 rings.
researchConduct a usability review of the online form with disabled and older users (actual patients, not internal staff). Identify questions that are redundant, confusing, or create accessibility barriers. Simplify ruthlessly.
researchSend a follow-up survey by post and by phone (not SMS) to a random sample of 500 registered adults, oversampling those aged 65+, those without a mobile number, and those with a disability flag in the record. Ask the same Q1–Q6 questions plus one additional: 'In the last 12 months, did you avoid seeking care because you couldn't book an appointment?'
monitorAudit the practice's response-time data for online booking requests over the past 3 months: measure actual median and 90th percentile time from submission to first reply. Compare to patient-reported wait times in open-text answers.
monitorTrack and report satisfaction separately for six patient groups: (1) aged 18–44, (2) aged 45–64, (3) aged 65–74, (4) aged 75+, (5) has disability, (6) needs interpreter. Do not report 'average' satisfaction. Flag any group falling below 50%.
decisionDo not implement universal phone booking. Instead, close the feedback loop: respond to patients who asked for it in open-text and explain that a dedicated phone line will be available for vulnerable patients, that response times will improve to 4 hours, and that the form will be simplified. Invite feedback on whether this addresses their concerns.
researchInvestigate the 24% of patients (≈4,100 registered adults weighted) who report avoiding booking an appointment in the last 3 months. Conduct brief exit surveys or follow-up interviews with a sample to understand the decision pathway: Was it the form, lack of phone line, expected wait time, or something else? Did they get care elsewhere?

Open-text themes it coded

Phone booking requested (general) 91Slow response time to online requests 42Online form too long, repetitive, or confusing 23Accessibility barriers (vision, mobility, hearing, cognitive, neurological) 19Preference for human interaction and personal contact 43Continuity of care / seeing same doctor 14Online system works well / no changes needed 51Support needed for patients with limited English or interpreter needs 2

The survey it planned

3 screening questions and 11 questions, as the model wrote them.

S1
Are you aged 18 or over?
One answer
- Yes
- No
Continues if Yes
S2
Are you registered as a patient at Ashgrove Medical Group?
One answer
- Yes
- No
Continues if Yes
S3
Have you tried to book an appointment at Ashgrove Medical Group in the last 6 months (since April 2026)?
One answer
- Yes
- No
Continues if Yes
Q1
How satisfied are you with how easy it is to book an appointment at Ashgrove Medical Group?
Scale

Scale 1-5: Very dissatisfied to Very satisfied
Q2
When you last needed to book an appointment, did you go ahead and request one?
One answer
- Yes, I requested an appointment
- No, I decided not to request an appointment
Q3
You said you didn't request an appointment. What was the main reason?
One answer
- The online form was too difficult or confusing
- I don't have internet access or a device to use the online form
- I prefer to speak to someone by phone
- I was not sure my problem was urgent enough
- I didn't know how to use the online system
- I gave up because it took too long
- Other reason
Routing Shown only if Q2 is: No, I decided not to request an appointment
Q4
Thinking about how you would prefer to book an appointment at Ashgrove Medical Group, which one of these would suit you best?
One answer
- Online form (fill in a form on the practice website or app)
- Phone call to reception
- In person at the reception desk
- No preference – any method is fine
Q5
What would make it easier for you to book an appointment? Please select all that apply.
Any that apply
- A phone line I can call during opening hours
- Help at reception to book an appointment in person
- A simpler or shorter online form
- Being able to book directly (not wait for a call back)
- Online booking at more times (early morning, evening, weekends)
- Booking in a language other than English
- Video or chat support to help with online booking
- Nothing – the current system works fine for me
Q6
Do you have a long-term health condition or disability that affects how you manage everyday tasks?
One answer
- Yes
- No
- Prefer not to say
Q7
Is English your first language?
One answer
- Yes
- No
Q8
Which age band are you in?
One answer
- 18 to 44
- 45 to 64
- 65 to 74
- 75 or over
Q9
Before April 2026, the practice had a phone line open each morning where you could call to book an appointment. Did you ever use that phone line?
One answer
- Yes, regularly
- Yes, occasionally
- No, never
- Don't know/can't remember
Q10
Compared to booking appointments before April 2026, how would you say booking is now?
One answer
- Much easier
- Somewhat easier
- About the same
- Somewhat harder
- Much harder
- Don't know – I wasn't registered before April 2026
Judges: assumptive
Assumes respondents have experience of booking before April 2026. Patients registered before then may never have booked under the previous system; the only don't-know option is restricted to those not registered before April 2026.
Assumes respondents who were registered before April 2026 actually booked appointments back then and can make a comparison, lacking a 'did not book before April 2026' option.
Q11
Is there anything else you would like to tell us about booking appointments at Ashgrove Medical Group?
Open text

Sample plan

Invite all adult patients (aged 18+) registered at Ashgrove Medical Group with a mobile number on record via text message with survey link. Target 900 completes. To achieve precision of ±5 percentage points at 95% confidence within each of four age bands (18–44, 45–64, 65–74, 75+), use soft quotas during fieldwork. Assume unequal age distribution among registered population; allocate sample to meet minimum n=200 per age band (which yields ±7 pp at 95% CI per band, and ±5 pp overall for combined estimates). Expect response rate of 15–20% given SMS mode; send invitations across multiple days to monitor quota fill and boost underrepresented bands if needed.