Evaluating hospital service quality from a physician viewpoint

Abstract

Survey results should be useful for continuous quality improvement by regular measuring and reporting to executive boards. Hospitals should pay careful attention to their communication tools, particularly medical reports.

The influence of hospital image and service quality on patients’ satisfaction and loyalty

“…With the growing demand on the healthcare service, issues such as customers' satisfaction and loyalty have become a significant topic for the management team and customer. According to Al-Borie and Sheikh Damanhourie (2013), the most vital problematic and arising issue towards several previous researches was concerned with the hospital's service from the patient's point of view but, Hensen et al (2008) debate on the hospital's service evaluation from the point of view of health officer. Nekoei-Moghadam and Amireshali (2011), Johan et al 2014and Ovretveit (2014) studied on the quality of healthcare service at emerging countries and recommended a solution for healthcare problem by increasing the quantity and quality of the health expert and resource (doctor, nurse, and other healthcare-related employee) through providing trainings and health department should monitor all employees' activities.…”

Dimensions of hospital service quality: a critical review

“…Patients relinquish their privacy (and modesty) to clinicians (Berry and Seltman, 2008) Healthcare services are labour and skill intensive There is variability in performance from one clinician to another (Berry and Bendapudi, 2007) Made-to-order The needs to be tailored as patient require a more holistic and customized service (Berry and Bendapudi, 2007) Collaboration A patient's cooperation both during the encounter (answering questions honestly) and afterwards (taking the prescribed medication) is important for successful treatment (Berry and Bendapudi, 2007) Table II. Dissimilar characteristics of medical services to other services IJHCQA 26,4 Hensen et al (2008); Mason et al (2004); Shannon et al (2002); Walbridge and Delene (1993); and from a patient viewpoint such as Akter et al (2008); Angelopoulou et al (1998); Arasli et al (2008); Baltussen et al (2002); Camilleri and O'Callaghan (1998); ; Gross and Nirel (1998); Lam (1997); Mostafa (2005); Narang (2010); Rohini and Mahadevappa (2006); Rose et al (2004); Sohail (2003); Vandamme and Leunis (1993); Zifko-Baliga and Krampf (1997). Though there are numerous studies from the patient's perspective, no study has attempted to review and integrate this plethora of research on service-quality measurement from the patient's perspective and the present study addresses this gap in the literature.…”

The role and duties of scientific medical societies: The German Society of Dermatology from the member's perspective

“…In studies without reminders response rates generally range from 30 to 40%[11]. Further, only very low response rates, often only 20%, can be expected in surveys of physicians [12–14]. With this in mind, the sample size with a response rate of 28.4% in the present study with no reminders can be considered acceptable and representative.…”