Dissertation on Patient Satisfaction

UNIVERSITY OF WALES ID 0811867060434

Table:Patients perceptions from the doctors’ behaviour

Dimensions

Perceptions (Mean Value)

Availability

7.68

Knowledge

7.16

Handling of

6.52

Queries Cooperation

6.69

Politeness

6.81

Attitude

7.41

Examination Comfort

7.72

Check-Up

7.89

Empathy

5.79

Individual

6.01

Consideration Experience

6.70

Average

6.94

According to this table, the highest average mean value for the dimension check up is 7.89 which indicate that patients’ perception about about this dimension is good. good. The doctors’ availability, comfort examination and doctors’ attitude where the average values for these dimensions are respectively 7.68, 7.72, and 7.41. Patients’ perception about knowledge is quite good where the average value for this dimension is 7.16. 62


The average means value for the dimensions experience, cooperation, politeness and handle queries are respectively 6.70, 6.69, 6.81 and 6.52 which shows that patient perception of the dimensions are not good. The empathy and individual consideration having the average mean value 5.79 and 6.01 respectively amongst the other dimensions. Patient perceptions for these all dimensions the average value is 6.94 which indicates that patient perceptions for doctors behavior is not very good it is quite good 4.6.2 PATIENTS PERCEPTIONS FOR MEDICAL ASSISTANTS

An analysis of the patient perceptions for the medical assistant behavior, researcher is given various types of dimension quality of services which patients had asked to rate their perception scale of 1to 9 and depends upon the dimension the mean rate is calculated which is given below in the table. Table: Perceptions of patients from the behaviour of medical assistants

Dimensions


Availability

7.86

Knowledge

6.42

Cooperation

6.75

Politeness

6.89

Attitude

7.01

Maintenance of Record 7.92 Experience

6.31

Dress

9.00

Handle of queries

6.09

Average

7.13

63


The average value for the dimension dress is 9 which shows highest rating dimension. From these patients perceptions about dresses of medical staff are very good so that means patients think medical assistant wear neat and clean dress. The average value of the dimensions maintenance record and availability are 7.92 and 7.86 respectively. This value is good means on the scale of 9 which shows patient had comprehended these dimensions of medical assistant. Attitude has the means value 7.01 which is not very good. The dimensions politeness and cooperation having the average mean value 6.89 and 6.75 respectively. This indicates assistant deals with patients are not good. The average means value for the dimension experience and knowledge are 6.31 and 6.42 respectively which indicate that medical assistant are deficient on this parameter. The average mean value for the dimension handles of queries has the lowest degree amongst the other dimension which shows the query of the patients are not properly handle by medical assistant. Patients’ perception from medical assistant, overall average means value came out 7.13. The researcher can calculated the patients perception for medical assistant behavior is fairly good so medical assistants need to improve their behavior.

4.6.3 PATIENTS PERCEPTIONS FOR QUALITY OF ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION

An analysis the patients perceptions for quality Administration, researcher is given various types of dimension quality of services which patients had asked to rate their perception scale of 1to 9 and depends upon the dimension the mean rate is calculated which is given below in the table.

64


Table: Perceptions of patients from the quality of the administration Dimensions


Convenient Hours

8.25

Check Up Procedure

6.31

Over Crowd

7.97

Welcome Your Ideas

6.21

Handle the System

6.01

Billing Procedure

7.68

Check Out Procedure

7.79

Clerical Staff behaviour

7.18

Security Staff behaviour

8.48

Average

7.32

The average value for the security staff behavior and convenient hours are respectively 8.48 and 8.25 where patients’ perceptions are very high. According to these dimensions hospitals provide good service on these dimensions. The average means for the dimensions over crowd, check out process are 7.97 and 7.79 respectively which indicate patients’ perception on these dimensions are good. Clerical staff behavior is quite less than previous factor which indicate hospitals should improve on this. The average value for the dimensions check up process, welcome idea and handle system are respectively 6.31, 6.21 and 6.01. According to that average mean patient perceptions is fairly good compared to other factors. The total dimensions average mean is 7.32 which indicates that patient’s perception from Quality Administration tend to be good.

65


4.6.4 PATIENTS PERCEPTION FOR FACILITIES PROVIDE BY THE HOSPITAL

An analysis of the patients perceptions for the facilities or service provide by hospital, researcher is given various types of dimension quality of services which patients had asked to rate their perception scale of 1to 9 and depends upon the dimension the mean rate is calculated which is given below in the table. Table: Patients Expectation from the services and facilities provided by the hospitals

Dimensions

Perceptions (Mean )

Sitting Arrangements

8.57

Bed Arrangements

8.61

Staff Appearance

7.62

Lights

7.21

Dust Boxes

8.59

Outer & Inner Appearance

7.42

Parking

8.09

Equip Units

7.04

Marking On Walls

7.71

Eating Places

8.47

Average

7.93

66


The average mean for the bed arrangement, sitting arrangement, eating place, dust boxes and parking area are a re respectively respectivel y 8.61, 8.57, 8.47,8.59, and 8.09 which shows that patients perceptions on this dimensions are very good so hospital are doing good service to patients in good manner. Other dimension staff appearance, inner and outer appearance and marking on walls and lights are respectively 7.62, 7.42, 7.71 and 7.21 which indicates patients’ perceptions are good towards this dimensions. The lowest average ave rage of the dimension is equip units is respectively 7.04 but the researcher is think it’s not bad. Patients’ perceptions for the facilities supply by hospital, the overall average means is 7.93.

4.7 DEGREE OF PATIENTS SATISFACTION FOR THE VARIOUS FACTORS 4.7.1 DEGREE OF PATIENTS SATISFACTION FOR THE DOCTORS’ BEHAVIOR

An analysis the measurement of the degree of patient satisfaction from doctors behavior, where differences between the average mean value of expectation and perception, where each dimensions are computed and then the researcher is applied t-test whether distinguish between the two means average is important or not at 0.05 degree of important. The computed values are given below in the table. This table indicates that distinguish between the average value of expectation and perceptions for the dimensions experience, politeness, knowledge, handle queries, empathy and cooperation are respectively 1.85, 1.85, 1.77, 1.79, 1.92, 1.92, 1.42 and 1.94. 1.94. TValue for the dimensions at 0.05 degree of significance indicates that there are important difference in the mean value of perceptions and expectation for the dimensions. For the dimensions check up, and availability difference between expectation and perceptions are respectively 1.29 and 0.88.

67


Table: Degree of Patients Satisfactions for Doctors behaviour

Dimensions

Expectations

Perceptions

Difference

(Mean Value) (Mean Value) Availability

8.97

7.68

1.29

Knowledge

8.95

7.16 7.16

1.79

Handle of Queries

8.44

6.52

1.92

Cooperation

8.63

6.69

1.94

Politeness

8.58

6.81

1.77

Attitude

8.38

7.41

0.97

Check-Up

8.77

7.89

0.88

Empathy

7.21

5.79

1.42

Individual Consideration

6.52

6.01

0.51

Experience

8.55

6.70

1.85

Significant difference at 0.05 degree of significance

t- Critical: 1.66 There comparing t-values shows important differences 0.97 and 0.51 are the attitude and individual consideration differences respectively and T-value for these dimensions indicates that important difference between the means value of expectation and perceptions. In this calculation which is clear the highest difference for the dimension is in the handle queries and the lowest for the dimension individual consideration

68


4.7.2 DEGREE OF THE PATIENTS SATISFACTIONS FOR THE MEDICAL ASSISTANT BEHAVIOUR

An analysis the measurement of the degree of patient satisfaction from medical assistant behavior, where where differences between the mean value of expectation and perception, where each dimensions are computed and then the researcher is applied t-test whether differences between the two means values are important or not at 0.05 degree of important. The computed values are given below in the table. Table: Degree of the patients’ satisfactions from the medical assistant behaviour Dimensions

Expectations

Perceptions

Difference

(Mean Value) (Mean Value) Availability

8.91

7.86

1.05

Knowledge

8.57

6.42

2.15

Cooperation

8.65

6.75

1.90

Politeness

8.79

6.89

1.90

Attitude

8.49

7.01

1.48

Maintenance of Record

8.71

7.92

0.79

Handling of Queries

8.44

6.09

Experience

7.41

6.31

1.10

Dress

6.9

9.00

-2.1

Significant difference at 0.05 degree of significance T- critical: 1.66

69

2.35


This table indicates that differences between the mean value of expectations and perceptions for the dimension handle queries is 2.35 and the t- value is very high which indicates the differences between the values are significant which shows patients had not experienced what they having expected from the dimension. The differences of the dimensions cooperation, knowledge, and politeness are respectively 1.90, 2.15 and 1.90 where respectively t-value indicates the differences are quite important, dimensions of the perceptions are lower than patients’ expectation from these dimensions. The mean value for the dimensions availability, experience, and attitude are respectively 1.05, 1.10 and 1.48 and at 0.05 degree of significance t-value is larger than t-critical which indicates differences are important. The difference of the dimension of maintenance record is 0.79. It is quite significance which indicates perception of the patients for this factor is not higher than expectation. The difference for the dimension dresses has -2.1 which indicate the perceptions of the patients are more than expectations. 4.7.3 DEGREE OF PATIENTS’ SATISFACTION FROM THE QUALITY ADMINISTRATION

An analysis the measurement of the degree of patient satisfaction from Quality Administration, where difference difference between the

mean value value of of expectation and

perception, where each dimensions are computed and then the researcher is applied t-test whether differences between the two means values are important or not at 0.05 degree of important. The computed values are given below in the table. The difference between the means score of expectation and perceptions for the dimensions handling system and check up are respectively 1.01 and 2.18 which are huge differences. So researcher can say that patients’ expectations from the dimensions are higher than perceptions. The dimensions clerical staff behavior of the difference between expectations is 1.80 respectively which is quite small. That’s reliable; expectation is high compare to the perceptions for this dimension. 1.00, 1.07 and 0.98 respectively which are the differences for the dimension billing process, welcome idea and check out process. The differences of the clerical staff behavior and over crowd have the 1.80 and 0.22 respectively between the mean for expectations and perceptions.

70


Table: Degree of Patients Satisfaction for the Quality Administration Dimensions

Expectations

Perceptions

Difference

(Mean Value)

(Mean Value)

Convenient Office Hours

6.12

8.25

-2.13

Check Up Process

8.49

6.31

2.18

Over Crowd

8.19

7.97

0.22

Welcome Your Ideas

7.28

6.21

1.07

Handling System

7.02

6.01

1.01

Billing Procedure

8.68

7.68

1.00

Check Out Process

8.77

7.79

0.98

Clerical Staff Behaviour

8.98

7.18

1.80

Security Staff behaviour

8.87

8.48

0.38


T- Critical =1.66 The dimensions convenient office hours have the -2.13 which is negative difference between the expectations and perceptions which indicates that perception of the patients dimension is higher than expectation. 4.7.4 DEGREE OF PATIENTS SATISFACTION FROM FACILITIES PROVIDE BY HOSPITALS

An analysis the measurement of the degree of patient satisfaction from facilities provide by Hospitals, where differences dif ferences between the mean value of expectation and perception, where each dimensions are computed and then the researcher is applied t-test whether differences between the two means values are important or not at 0.05 degree of important. The computed values are given below in the table. 71


Table: Degree of Patient Satisfaction for the facilities provide by hospital Dimensions

Expectations

Perceptions

Difference

(Mean Value)

(Mean Value)

Sitting Arrangements

8.94

8.57

0.36

Bed Arrangements

9.00

8.61

0.39

Staff Appearance

6.99

7.62

-0.63

Natural Light

8.39

7.21

1.18

Dust Boxes

9.00

8.59

0.41

Outer & Inner Appearance

7.42

7.42

0.00

Parking

8.71

8.09

0.62

Equip Units

8.29

7.04

1.25

Marking On Walls

8.12

7.71

0.40

Eating Places

8.93

8.47

0.45


T- Critical =1.66 The differences between expectation and perceptions for the dimension 1.25 and 1.18 equip units and lights respectively amongst the other dimensions which indicate that patient expectation are higher than patient perceptions for these dimensions 0.36, 0.62, and 0.41 respectively where the differences for the dimensions parking, sitting arrangement and dust boxes. The dimensions bed arrangement, eating place and marking on walls have small differences of 0.39, 0.45 and 0.40 respectively between the means score of patients expectations and perception. The dimensions for the inner and out appearance are 0.00 which is lowest and patients’ perceptions and expectation for these dimensions are same. Here staff has negative value -0.63 and for this dimension patients’ expectation are lower than patients’ perceptions 72


CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION In the current scenario, cutthroat competition is going on; healthcare sector has become important for the measurement of patient satisfaction. This concept of patient satisfaction has promoted the acceptance the culture of market in healthcare sector in developed and developing countries. Nowadays, numbers of hospitals are going to open and people are going to be aware and conscious about health. Hospitals must provide good service quality to retain the patients. There are various factors affect the patients’ satisfaction, doctors behavior, medical assistant behavior, doctors availability, administration quality, modern facility availability etc. if hospitals satisfy the patients, they should provide service quality, facilities and treatment as well. The researcher is focused on analyzing the various factors which is related to satisfaction of patients with particular research objectives: •

To analyse the patients’ expectation from hospitals this provides service quality

•

To analyse the patients perceptions from hospital services.

•

To analyse the degree of patients satisfaction from hospital service.

The research objective of the study which is in order to accomplish, the primary data collected from respondent. There were two types of data used in this study. The primary data was gathered from questionnaire which was filled from respondent. The The secondary data was gathered from books, journal articles, and websites. The researcher was used quantitative methods for the analysis of the received data. The researcher was used one of the best method for measuring service quality that was SERVQUAL model which is developed Parasuraman, and Berry adopt for the service quality Gap 5 which express the customer satisfaction level from customer expectation and perceptions

73


In this study, population constituted of the indoor patients at Mayday Hospitals, Croydon. There were many respondents either patients or their relatives. The information collected from the primary research data are comparing with the literature review and from this researcher draw the conclusion. There are certain recommendation is drawn by the researcher in the end of this section.

5.2 CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS 5.2.1 GENERAL DEMOGRAPHIC:

This study involved 216 respondents, there were 45.83% of respondent were Male and 54.16% of respondent were Female. 5.2.2 PATIENT EXPECTATION

Patients’ expectation is high where same for all factors, doctors’ behaviour, medical assistant, and quality administration and facilities provide. The patients expectation mean value is 8.18 which is high on scale of 1to 9. The patient’s expectations are highest under doctors’ behaviour where the dimensions availability, knowledge and checkups are respectively 8.97, 8.95 and 8.77. The dimension of offices hours has lower expectations mean of 6.52. And clerical staff behaviour has highest 8.98 amongst the all dimensions of Quality Administration. The expectations of facilities provide by hospital have the average mean for the dimension bed arrangement and dust boxes 9 respectively. 5.2.3 PATIENTS PERCEPTIONS:

The four factors for patients’ perceptions the mean value is 7.33. It is quite good on the scale of 9. The dimension empathy has very lowest value 5.79 and check up has 7.89 which is high value amongst the dimension of factor doctors’ behaviour. The dimension dresses for the factor medical assistant has 9 which are better amongst all other dimensions. Handle queries has lowest means value is 6.09. The dimension handling the system has mean value 6.01 which is the lowest, and security staff behaviour has 8.48 which is highest dimension for the factor of Quality administration.

74


5.2.4 PATIENTS EXPECTATION AND PERCEPTION RELATIONSHIP:

The differences between expectations and perceptions are1.94 and 1.92 for the dimension cooperation and handle of queries 1.94 and 1.92 respectively and 0.51 mean values which is the lowest dimensions individual consideration factor doctors behaviour, for factor medical assistant behaviour, the highest differences is 2.35 for the dimension handle of queries and lowest record maintenance -2.1 mean value for dimension dresses which is negative indicates perceptions are higher than expectation. Quality of administration has negative dimension convenient office hours, a highest difference is for the dimension checkups and lowest differences for security staff behaviour. The lowest differences outer and inner appearance is 0.00 and highest equip units is 1.25 and one difference has negative which is staff appearance -.0.63 respectively. The researcher found that the patients are not satisfied in reliability which is significant of service quality. It expresses that the patients wanted to service quality guarantee which is more than all hospital staff communicate to the patients. This is focused on the hospitals that trying to communicate to patients about services in hospitals but sometimes create misunderstanding between doctors and patients. Sometimes patients do not understand the doctors explain. It depends upon the culture, back ground, and patients’ education. Conclusion that patient wants good service quality. High quality systemically is difficult but useful for service organizations. The researcher compares the study between the research of this study and previous study which the researcher mentioned in chapter two. The researcher found that different conclusion between this study and study about the quality of hospital in southern and west U.S.A. for this study, demographic level aspect about gender, it is not different for the patient’s satisfaction and other side butler et al proposed that facilities in hospitals relate quality is evaluated high for female than male respondent. Butler et al studied that perception of hospital quality were affecting by age

75


As the age, Butler Butler et al (1996) said that no found that hospital quality quality perceptions are affected by age but from this research the result showed that age is the influence factor on tangible, assurance, empathy and price. Parasuraman (1985) determinants five service quality: tangible, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy. For the research of Kanlaya Damrongsak revealed that importance level of service quality was reliability, tangible and responsiveness respectively. And for customer satisfaction part, the reliability and assurance dimension was dissatisfied. For this research, the most important level is reliability and assurance dimension. And for customer satisfaction part is the same as Kanlaya research that the reliability and assurance was dissatisfied.

5.3 RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION The measurement of the patients satisfaction level can change the alleviate hospital services supplying and management as well as enhance and keep the service quality providing which focus focus on patients wants and expect(Babakus). The results come out from this result that respondents dissatisfied with some service quality so now hospitals have to improve the service quality. For this study, the researcher set up the solving the patients dissatisfaction attribute. The researcher found that from this study many respondents satisfy with the service quality. But some respondent does not satisfy with the doctors because they could not solve the problem and they have taken a time. Patients’ satisfaction is more tangible t angible and less l ess related with measurement unit of good. Some process required for setting up patients’ expectation needs nee ds to be more rigorously and have to include different types of approached. Service quality essential have to cover hospital procedure as well as measurable quality factor, because of service extending and delivery of service is looped. Nowadays hospital market has become competitive, all hospitals have realized to improve the service quality. Equally Thailand, need to be health touristy hub of Asia. To reply the customer satisfaction is most important path to pull out the customer from the different country.

76


To construct the reliability is the essential way for all hospitals. To decrease the mistakes or errors this affects on hospital. Expressing physician image competent to patients is possibly a more challengeable job. Grow up and maintained image of hospital, medical assistant have to reliable on the experienced places. Patients will make an impression the degree of the staff as patients experienced the services during their visiting. Attempts have to be committed to make all patients experience build up positive response and reward the impression amongst them that staff is efficient. To integrate the mode of think amongst hospital staff, accomplishing this is via training programme that have to design to reward. Empathy, from this study results indicates that the improve the communication quality with patient by explain medical process, discuss the business concern question, consult with them concerning their care may increase patients satisfaction. Patients are satisfied with masters who give patient individual attention and realized their demands. Hospital staffs dealing with patients in care fashion have their interest are significant services issue. The factors responsiveness and price should refer. Hospitals bill raised the react that they are extraordinary high, it contribute to patients’ dissatisfaction. Hospital staff has to work with patients expectation, their instruction to assist them dealing with potentiality shocking cost. Today’s people shifting from curative to preventive medicines, preventive medicines concentrated on individual health. Hospitals have to apply the approach strategies to reaction of the marketing trend, new effort to serve patients who interested their healthy.

5.4 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY This study is focused on patients survey through pre designed questionnaire endures from the limitation of possible difference between what is truth and record, no issue how the questionnaire is design and area investigate has been conduct. Because of respondent may not intentionally that report true orientations. These types of problems has been minimise by taking interview personally, no validation of avoiding the possible of crawling error in. From this study, following limitation has to be considered.

77


1. As study had finished in short time, time factor acting as significant limit and extensive of the study

2. Questionnaire is quite long respondents who filled up the questionnaire may not be accurate because of inescapable bias.

3. Group of sampling come from several backgrounds which is affect on questionnaire due to respondent do not understand questionnaire and someone wants more explanation.

5.5 SUGGESTION FOR FURTHER STUDIES 1. Next research have to repeat this study because the patients satisfaction always changes mind when the customer have always used service for the next time they will expect more. 2. The patients’ satisfaction is on the background, culture and experience. Next research has to analysis the patient’s satisfaction of each nation to customise the patient’s expectations. 3. Next research has to focus on the individual hospitals that having many foreigners utilized the service to measure the significant factor to meet patient’s satisfaction.

78


REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andaleeb, S.S. (1998), “Determinants of customer satisfaction with hospitals: a managerial model”, International model”, International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol.11 No.6, pp 181-7. 181-7. Anderson, E.W. and Sullivan, M.W. (1993), “The antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction for firms”, Marketing firms”, Marketing Science, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp.125-43. Anderson E W, Fornell C and Mazvancheryl S K (2004) Customer satisfaction and shareholder value. J value. J Mktg 68: 172-85. Andaleeb, S.S. (1998), “Determinants of customer satisfaction with hospitals: a managerial model”, International model”, International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol.11 No.6, pp 181-7. 181-7. Aurora S and Malhotra M (1997) Customer satisfaction: A comparative analysis of the satisfaction level of customer of public and private sector banks. Decision 24: 109-30. Babakus, E. and Boller, G.W., “An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL scale”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 24, pp. 253 – 68. Babakus, E. & Mangold, G.W., Adapting the SERVQUAL scale to the health care environment, in: P. Bloom(Ed.) Enhancing Bloom(Ed.) Enhancing Knowledge Development in Marketing (Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association), 1989 Baker, J.A. and Lamb, C.W. Jr (1993), “Measuring architectural design service quality”, Journal quality”, Journal of Professional Services Marketing, Vol. 10 No.1, pp. 89-106. Bolton R and Drew J H (1991) A multistage model of customer’s assements of service quality and value. J value. J Consumer Res 17: 375-84.

Boulding W, Kalra A, Staelin R and Zeithmal VA (1993) A dynamic process model of service quality: from expectations to behavioral intentions. J intentions. J Mktg 30: 7-27. Butler, D., Oswald, S. and Turner, D. (1996), “The effects of demographics on determinants of perceived health care service quality: the case of users and observers”, Journal observers”, Journal of Management in Medicine, Medicine, vol. 10 No.5, pp. 8-20. Buttle, F. (1996), “SERVQUAL: review, critique and research agenda”, European Journal of Marketing , Vol. 30 No.1, pp.8-10.

79


Buzzel, R.D. and Gale, B.T., The PIMS Principles – Linking Strategy to Performance, Free Press, New York, NY, 1987 Coulson- Thomas, C. and Brown, R., Beyond R., Beyond Quality – Managing the Relationship with the Customer , British Institute of Management, London, 1990.

Finn, D.W. and Lamb, C.W. (1991), “An evaluation of the SERVQUAL scales in a retailing setting”, Advances setting”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 18, pp.483-90. Gronroos, C.(1984), “A service quality model and its marketing implications”, European Journal of of Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 36-44. Gustafsson W, Johnson M D and Roos I (2005) The effects of customer sat isfaction, relationship, commitment, dimensions and triggers ion customer retention. J Mktg 69: 210-215

Homburg C, Koschate N and Hoyer W D (2005) Do satisfied customers really pay more? A study of the relationship between customer satisfaction and willingness to pay. J pay. J Mktg 69: 84-96

Horovitz, J., How to Win Customer – Using Customer Service for a Competitive Edge, Longman, Harlow, 1990. Kanlaya, D. (2001). “A Comparative Study of Client Expectations and Perception of Service Quality to Assess satisfaction level: A case study of Vibhavadi Hospital”

Kandampully, J. (2000). “The impact of Demand Fluctuation on the Quality of Service: a Tourism Industry Example”, Managing Service Quality. Quality. Vol. 10, pp. 1018.

Kotler, P.,& Clarke, R., “ Marketing for Health Care Organization” Prentice Hall, 1987., P. 133 Labarbera P A and Mazursky (1983) A longitudinal assessment of customer satisfaction/dissatisfaction: The dynamic aspect of the cognitive process. J process. J Mktg Res 2: 393-404

Lamb, C.W., hair, J.F., & McDaniel, C. (2000). Marketing (5th ed.). Ohio: SouthWestern College Publishing.

80


Lehtinen, J.R. and lehtinen, U., “Service “ Service quality: a study of quality dimensions”, unpublished Working Paper, Service Management Institute, Helsinki, 1982. Lewis, B.R. “Quality in the Service Sector – A Review”., International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 5, 1989. Lewis, B.R. and Mitchell, V.W. (1990), “Defining and measuring the quality of customer service”, Marketing service”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol.8, No.6, pp. 11-17 Li, L. (1997), “Relationships between determinants of hospital quality management and service quality performance – a path analytic model”, Omega, Vol. 25 No. 3, Lithuaria”, International Journal for Quality in Health Care, Vol. 16 No.3, pp.8389. Lim, P.C., Tang. Nelson, N.H., Peter, M.J. (1999), “Innovation and strategy, An innovative framework for health care performance measurement”, Journal of Managing Service Quality, Vol. 9, No.6, pp. 423-433 Ofir C and Simonson I (2001) In search of negative ne gative customer feedback: The effect of expecting to evaluate on satisfaction evaluations. J evaluations. J Mktg Res 38: 170-182 Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), “A conceptual model of service quality and implications for future research”, Journal research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol 49, Fall, pp.42-50. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), “SERVQUAL: a multipleitem scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality”, Journal quality”, Journal of Retailing , Spring, pp.12-40. Reidenbach, E.R. and Sandifer-Smallwood,B. (1990),”Exploring perceptions of hospital operations by a modified SERVQUAL approach”, Journal of Health Care Marketing, Vol. 10 No.4, pp.47-55 Roderick. M Mcnealy., Making Customer Satisfaction Happen-A Strategy for delighting customers, Chapman&Hall, P.1-3, 1996. Royal Danish Council., Section overview the health section in Thailand., 2004 Rust, R. and Zahorik, A. (1993), “Customer satisfaction, customer retention and market share”, Journal share”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 69 No.1, pp. 193-215. Saha A.K. (1988) Satisfaction with life- A study of nurses Nigeria. Decision 15: 6164 Sharma R D and Chahal H (1999) A study of patient satisfaction in outdoor services of private health care facilities. Vikalpa 24: 69-76

81


Simester D I, Hauser J H, Wernerfelt B and Rust R T (2000) Implementing quality improvement programs designed to enhance customer satisfaction : Quasi – Experiment in United States and Spain. J Spain. J Mktg Res 37: 102-112 Sharma R D and Chahal H (2003) Patient satisfaction in government outpatient services in India. Decision India. Decision 30: 109-28. Sesser, W.E., Olsen, R.P. and Wyckoff, D.D. (1978), Management of Service Operations, Allyn&Bacon, Boston, M.A. Thompson C J (2005) Consumer risk perceptions in a community of reflexive doubt. J Consumer Res 32: 235-245 Voss D (1998) Role of price performance and expectation in service. J Mktg Res 36: 45-51. Zebiene, E., Razgauskas, E., Basys, V., Baubiniene, A., Gurevicius, R., Padaif, Z. And Svab, L.(2004), “Meeting patients’ expectations in primary care consultations in

Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1993) “The Nature and Determinants of Customer Expectations of Service”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 21, No.1, pp. 1-12 Zeithaml, V.A., & Bitner, M.J. (2003). “Service “ Service CustomerFocus Across the Firm”., Firm”., NY: McGraw-Hill.

Web References

http://www.maydayhospital.org.uk/page.asp?pageid=90 http://www.maydayhospital.org.uk/page.asp?pageid=4

82

Marketing:

Integrating


APPENDIX

Questionnaire Thank you very much for spending your time and extending your effort to fill this form. Your support will help the researcher gather data on the patients satisfaction at Mayday hospital and will complete the research paper in Master of Master Of Business Administration in Healthcare Management Management _____________________ ________________________________ ______________________ ______________________ ________________ _____ The questionnaire is divided into 3 parts:

•

Demographic

•

The important level

•

Patients expectation and Patients perception

Demographics

1. Gender

Male Female

2. Age

Under 18

40 - 49

18 – 29

50 - 59

30 – 39

60 and above

83


The researcher would like to have your opinions on the following service issue related to the important level of medical treatment at Mayday Hospital that you use to use it, Please circle one number for each statement that best reflects how You feel. 1= strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = Fair, 4 = agree, 5= strongly agree Degree of Important

Beautiful organized and clean place

1

2

3

4

5

Provide convenient and adequate parking lot

1

2

3

4

5

Accurate diagnosis and medical treatment

1

2

3

4

5

Conducts a through physical check up before treatment Provides treatment of good quality medical academic Reliability of the physician, nurses and staff

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

Nurses assist promptly

1

2

3

4

5

Rapid Service

1

2

3

4

5

Knowledge Staff

1

2

3

4

5

Friendly, kind, and polite staff in treating patients Respect customer privacy

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

Customers ensured that they would be safe from any complications and other incidents Customers ensured of recovery; i.e., illness would relieved after treatment Physicians sufficiently clarify the treatment, such as mode of examination, reason of examination, outcome, and treatment

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

84


Focus Group Interview Questionnaire We would like to have your opinions on the following service issue related to the expectation and the perception at Mayday hospital, Croydon that you use to use it, Please circle one number for each statement that best reflects how you feel. 1= strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = Fair, 4 = agree, 5= strongly agree Dimension

Expectation

Perception

Place to be clean, beautiful, and Organized Providing with convenient and adequate parking lot Accurate diagnosis and medical treatment Having a through physical check up before treatment Physician checking patients on schedule Nurses assisting promptly

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

Serving rapidly

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

Staff every level to knowledge Respecting paying Attention

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

Respect to customer privacy

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

Physicians Paying attention to customers problems Physicians willing to answer any customer inquires

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

85


Focus Group Interview Questionnaire We would like to have your opinions on the following service issue related to the expectation and the perception at Mayday hospital, Croydon that you use to use it, Please circle one number for each statement that best reflects how you feel. 1= strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = Fair, 4 = agree, 5= strongly agree Dimension

Expectation

Perception

Place to be clean, beautiful, and Organized Providing with convenient and adequate parking lot Accurate diagnosis and medical treatment Having a through physical check up before treatment Physician checking patients on schedule Nurses assisting promptly

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

Serving rapidly

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

Staff every level to knowledge Respecting paying Attention

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

Respect to customer privacy

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

Physicians Paying attention to customers problems Physicians willing to answer any customer inquires

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

85

Dissertation on Patient Satisfaction

Recommend Documents