Quality of health care and patient satisfaction

Abstract

PurposeThe aim of this research is to examine the major factors affecting patients' perception of cumulative satisfaction and to address the question whether patients in Istanbul evaluate quality of health care to be similar or different to that of the Kazakhstani, Egyptian and Jordanian patients.Design/methodology/approachA conceptual model including behavioural dimensions of patient‐physician relationships and patient satisfaction has been used for approach. As the empirical research setting, this study concerns people who are or were patients once in Istanbul hospitals.FindingsThe questionnaire was taken from another research regarding Egyptian and Jordanian medical clinics. The same research was also done by the authors in Kazakhstan in 2008. A total of 48 items (attributes) of the newly developed five quality dimensions (5Qs) by the second author were identified to be the most relevant.Practical implicationsThe results of this study can be used by the hospitals to reengineer and redesign creatively their quality management processes and the future direction of their more effective health care quality strategies.Originality/valueA 5Qs model to measure the patients' satisfaction of medical care is proposed as for previous studies for Kazakhstanian, Egyptian and Jordanian hospitals. As mentioned previously the 5Qs model encompasses technical, functional, interaction, infrastructure and the atmosphere qualities and services. The results can be used by the hospitals to reengineer and redesign creatively their quality management processes and the future direction of their more effective health care quality strategies.

Determinants of patient satisfaction: a systematic review

“…One study found that interaction of phone responding staff in health services was another important factor of patient satisfaction. 99 The physicians and nurses care were assessed by their affective behaviours: friendliness, sincerity, concerns, 55,87 sympathy, empathy, 45,49,58,90,94,97,106,130 kindness, courtesy to patients 23,40,87 and their family or friends, 97 and respect for patient preferences. 1,3,9,10,12,13,20,24,26,27,48,54,71,81,83,94,96,104,121,123,127,130 Peer reView Patients recommended doctors to others regarding their affective behaviours, 20 rather than their competency.…”

“…The physical environment aspects that predicted to be correlated to patient satisfaction were pleasantness of the atmosphere, room comfort, bedding, 23,83 cleanliness, 40,55,66,83,90,110,121,130 noise level, 57 temperature convenience, lighting convenience, food service, 23,40,83 bathroom comfort, 111 clarity of sign and directions, arrangement of equipment and facilities, and parking. 1,12,20,23,48,51,54,55,58,83,89,[96][97][98]106,118,130 in some studies, physical environment aspects were named as tangibles, which originated from SerVQUAL analysis by Parasuraman. 4,45,128 we found two studies demonstrated that more appealing hospital rooms potentially have had effects on patient evaluation 55 on most dimensions (health care personnel, food service, and housekeeping staff) of their hospital experience.…”

The satisfaction of healthcare consumers: analysis and comparison of different methodologies

“…It is interesting to note that all criteria in Table 7 (except for volunteering) figure among the most relevant patient satisfaction criteria present in Fig. 5: exams and treatment (or medical exams as in the chart; see, for example, De Salins et al., 2016); food quality (Bikker and Thompson, 2006; Camgöz‐Akdağ and Zineldin, 2010; Schoenfelder et al., 2011; Schaal et al., 2017); health staff, namely, the nursing care (e.g., Brown et al., 2005; Bergmann et al., 2020; Kinnear et al., 2020); obtained information (e.g., Messina et al., 2014; Meng et al., 2018; Davis‐Dao et al., 2020); accommodations (e.g., Ladhari and Rigaux‐Bricmont, 2013; Fatima et al., 2018; Prado‐Galbarro et al., 2020); and medical services, namely, the medical care and the discharge process (e.g., Mcfarland et al., 2015; Kamra et al., 2016; Kinnear et al., 2020). Therefore, we can conclude that despite the divergences of the three methods, our results are robust, meeting the main findings in the literature.…”

Evaluation and implementation of QR Code Identity Tag system for Healthcare in Turkey

“…However, much work remains to be done to improve their satisfaction with healthcare (Camgöz-Akdag and Zineldin 2010; Yasar 2011; Kacak et al 2014). …”