Assessment on health care service quality and patients’ satisfaction in Ghana

Abstract

Purpose With the exigencies of health-care service quality to actualize sustainable socio-economic and developmental aspirations, in both peripheral and core countries, this paper aims to provide empirical evidence on health-care service quality and its precursor – patients’ satisfaction, and continuous service utilization. Design/methodology/approach A total of 398 screened questionnaires were analyzed from selected hospitals of the Koforidua, Ghana. Findings from the structural equation modeling showed a significant association among perceived quality, patients’ satisfaction and tangibility. Contrary to the expectations, the results did not show a significant association among the constructs – perceived quality, safety and empathy. Again, the model fit indices collaboratively showed that the hypothesized model overwhelmingly “fit” the sample data, and further proved the predictive robustness of the model. Findings The results of the analysis demonstrate that patients were discontent with empathy and safety measures at the hospitals. However, tangible and perceived quality were identified as significant predictors of patients’ satisfaction. Originality/value There is a dearth of empirical investigations on the assessment of health-care service quality and patients’ satisfaction in developing economies such as Ghana. Therefore, the implication of the study will equip the top hierarchy of the Health System of Ghana in achieving their mission, and objectives in line with quality service delivery. In particular, MoH and GHS can embark on a routine exercise to audit the hospitals for re-accreditation, and provide CCT cameras to improve safety and security conditions at the hospitals, while enforcing the culture of receptive hospital environment to improve empathy.

Quality healthcare services under National Health Insurance Scheme in Ghana: perspectives from health policy implementers and beneficiaries

“…Some of the beneficiaries report cheap drugs and medicines, extra payments for expensive drugs/medicines, shortages of drugs, less attention from service providers at facilities, among others. (Atinga, 2012;Nketiah-Amponsah et al, 2019;Ampaw, et al, 2020).…”

The Effect of Quality Care on Patient Loyalty Mediated with Patient Satisfaction and Moderated by Age and Gender (Study in Outpatients at a Private Hospital)

“…It is the extent to which health services meet the specific patient needs and determine the care physically, emotionally, and psychologically (Prakash & Srivastava, 2019). The professional knowledge provided through health services provides the patients with expected health outcomes (Ampaw, Chai, Liang, Tsai, & Frempong, 2020) According to Oliver (2010), satisfaction is the response of consumers whose needs are met. Satisfaction is the assessment evidence that a product/service is provided at a pleasurable rate.…”

“…Care quality has positive direct effects on patient satisfaction (Asnawi et al, 2019;Ampaw et al, 2020;Sharma, 2017;Zhou et al, 2017). Several research contended that there is a direct effect of quality care on patient satisfaction.…”

Assessing Patients’ Needs in Greek Intensive Care Units. Validation of a Respiratory Patient Satisfaction Scale

“…The validity of the content of this measuring tool was based on the extensive literature review (Beattie et al 2015;Needleman etal. 2007;Hill et al 2020;Vermeir et al 2015;Uijen et al 2012) and on concepts such as: patient satisfaction (Wagner & Bear 2009;Findik et al 2010;Gill & White 2009;Batbaatar et al 2016); Berkowitz 2016), patient needs, quality of care in general and of ICU care in particular (Mpinga & Chastonay 2011;Mosadeghrad 2012;Williams & Leslie 2007;Davidson et al 2012), the research results, which concern the identification of patients' needs (Abdellah & Levine 1957a;Risser 1975;Hinshaw & Atwood 1982;McCormack & McCance 2006;Lawrence et al 2015;Ampaw et al 2020;Cinaroglu & Baser 2016;Keller et al 2014;Hunt et al 2013;Gorari & Theodosopoulou 2015;Agheorghiesel & Copoeru 2013),the experts who evaluated the measuring tool , the pilot study (sample of 20 respiratory patients) that evaluated the content and the framework of the questionnaire and the quantitative and qualitative data, which were used to develop this measuring. The validity (based on some criteria), which was measured by Pearson's correlation coefficient, was confirmed by the degree of correlation between the questions (in the first section of the questionnaire) and the problems (in the second section of the questionnaire) and their total sum.…”