Hospital Paper
Hospital Paper
Hospital Paper
net/publication/275956827
CITATIONS READS
2 2,403
4 authors, including:
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Zaid Ahmad Ansari on 07 May 2015.
Abstract: The paper investigated the satisfaction level of patients from the infrastructure facilities of the
government hospitals in Saudi Arabia with the aim of identifying potential areas of improvement to guide
the efforts of policymakers in right direction to enhance the satisfaction of patients from infrastructure
facilities of the government hospitals in Saudi Arabia.
Primary data is the main source of data for the study. The sample size of the study was 400 hundred
respondents, selected on convenience basis in the city of Jeddah. The researchers selected the variables in
hospital infrastructure by making personal visits and observing the systematic infrastructure facilities
needed by a patient and their family visiting a hospital. The researchers identified ten variables under
infrastructure facilities, which they consider important. The facilities were; Parking facilities, General
entrance, Emergency entrance, Waiting area, Seating area, Cleanliness and hygiene, Canteen, direction
Signboards, and use of Technology. Five point Likert scale measured the patient's satisfaction from these
ten infrastructure variables.
The results show that the patients are not satisfied with the infrastructure facilities of the government
hospitals in Saudi Arabia.
useful to begin with the obvious by saying that quality is viewed as the degree and direction of
quality is a property that medical service can have discrepancy between clients’ perceptions and
in varying degrees”. It follows that an assessment expectations” (Parasuraman et. al, 1988).
of quality is a judgment whether a specified
instance of medical service has this property, and The study of (Aladham, 2004) shows a direct
if so, to what extent (Donabedian, 1980). relationship in all hospitals between service
procedures and patient satisfaction. It also shows
Zeithmal, et al., (2006), defined satisfaction as the that patient's satisfaction is linked to the hospital
evaluation of customers for a service or product staff attitudes and values and have a direct impact
whether it fulfill their needs and expectations. on all the activities of the hospital.
Customer satisfaction is a feeling of pleasure or
disappointment resulting from comparing Rose Laub Coser (1956) conducted ‘standardized
product/service's perceived performance in interviews’ with 51 patients at a hospital. When
relation to his or her expectations. Thus, Coser asked “what is your idea of a good
satisfaction is a function of perceived doctor?” the answers given by the patients
performance and expectations. If the performance seemed to classify them into two distinct groups.
falls short of expectations, the customer is A little more than half of the patients saw the
dissatisfied. If the performance matches the good doctor as one who provided kindness, love,
expectations, the customer is satisfied. If the and security. He “talks nice, shows interest,
performance exceeds expectations, the customer makes you feel good, so all knowing and all
is highly satisfied or delighted. Tarantino (2004) powerful that you can rest secure in his safe-
stressed on the fact that patients’ satisfaction is keeping.” On the other hand, remaining patients
truly measured based on two factors, their focused on the doctor’s scientific and
expectations of the service and their perceptions professional competence. Friedson (1969)
of the actual service they received. Thus if the interviewed patients about their reasons for liking
patients are satisfied it indicates their perception and disliking certain doctors, and for continuing
to be good about service quality they received to receive care from one but not from another.
from the hospital. Patient satisfaction is the most Friedson concluded, “Patients assume that all
important measure of the quality of medical doctors possess a minimal competence” and they
services because it gives information on the are concerned only with degrees of competence.
provider’s success at meeting the patient's values The patients defined quality in terms of certain
and expectations. The measurement of the behavior on the part of the physician, or attributes
patients’ satisfaction is therefore important tool of his care, which they felt denoted personal
for research, administration, and planning. Some interest or competence. Cartwright (1967)
studies indicate that patient satisfaction is one of interviewed patients to define the appreciated
the important indicators of the quality of care qualities for doctors. Majority of the responses
provided by the emergency department at a showed the most appreciated qualities related to
hospital (Hansagi et. al., 1992; Kurata et al., the manner or personality of the doctor and the
1992; Yamold et. al., 1998). Lewis et. al (1985) way they looked after the patient.
claimed that service quality involves a
comparison of expectations with performance. Patients of Emergency and Accident Department
Gronross (1982) developed a model in which he comprise a big proportion of people who refer to
contends that clients compare the service they a hospital (Lau 2000). The Emergency
expect with perceptions of the service they Department of a hospital is a very critical unit
receive in evaluating service quality. where a patient is struggling between life and
Parasuraman et al (1988) defined service quality death, the emergency department requires high
as “global judgment, or attitude, relating to the coordination between human and material
superiority of the service.” They linked the elements (Jinn & Wen-Shan 2007). There are
concept of service quality to the concepts of many researches conducted in measuring the
perceptions and expectations as follows: Service patients satisfaction from emergency services of
(DOI: dx.doi.org/14.9831/1444-8939.2014/2-6/MAGNT.67)
MAGNT Research Report (ISSN. 1444-8939) Vol.2 (6) PP: 531-539
hospitals, namely; in Iran (Rezaee et.al. 2002; Section B was the focus of the study 'Hospital
Sarchami & Sheykhi, 1999; Zendehdel & Infrastructure', which comprised of ten variables
Baradarjalili, 1998), in USA (Boudreaux et. al., namely; Parking facilities, General entrance,
2003; Taylor & Benger 2004), in Australia Emergency entrance, Waiting area, Seating place,
(Hordacre et. al., 2005), in Canada (Hutchison et. Cleanliness and hygiene, Canteen, Signboards,
al 2003), Spain (Miro et. al., 2003), in Britain and Technology.
(Pickin et. al.2004; Richards et. al. 2002) and in
Pakistan (Qidwai et. al., 2005). The satisfaction 3.2. Data Collection: Convenience sampling
of patients from emergency services is critical as methodology was used to identify the respondents
the patients and their relatives struggling between to administer the questionnaires. The respondents
death and life. were employees working in various companies
across the kingdom. The respondents were
The literature in the above section suggests presently pursuing bachelor degree in various
number of variables in hospitals considered for programs of College of Business Rabigh, King
measuring the patient's satisfaction namely; Abdulaziz University through part time and
doctors, emergency services, human resource et distance learning program. Researchers
al. The researchers in this study have taken personally administered the questionnaires to the
another area of hospital to measure the respondents during the counselling session
satisfaction, which previously did not attract the conducted prior to the final exam as well as
attention of the researchers. The researchers during the final exam.
studied the 'hospital infrastructure' for measuring
Sample size: The sample size of the study was
patient satisfaction, as it is the first element in the
400 respondents.
hospital and patient interaction discussed more in
detail in the methodology section. The rest of the Research Hypothesis: The researchers tested ten
paper presents the information in the following hypotheses from the results each representing one
order, research methodology, results, discussion, variable in infrastructure.
conclusion, acknowledgement and references.
H1: Patients were satisfied with the Parking
3. Research Methodology facilities.
3.1. Survey Instrument: The study draws result H2: Patients were satisfied with the General
on primary data. To obtain data from the users of entrance.
government hospital services the researchers used
self-administered close-ended questionnaires. To H3: Patients were satisfied with the Emergency
maintain high reliability of the data and high entrance.
response rate from the respondents, H4: Patients were satisfied with the Waiting area.
questionnaires translated into Arabic Language
were administered to the respondents, as most of H5: Patients were satisfied with the Seating area.
the respondents were Arabic speakers. The close- H6: Patients were satisfied with the Washroom
ended questions translated into Arabic language facilities.
enabled the respondents to answer the questions
conveniently in short period and ensured highly H7: Patients were satisfied with the Cleanliness
reliable data. Five point Likert Scale was used to and hygiene.
measure the intensity of the satisfaction of the H8: Patients were satisfied with the Canteen
respondents. The grading used were 5 equal to facilities.
Highly Satisfied, 4 equal to Satisfied, 3 equal to
Somewhat Satisfied, 2 equal to Dissatisfied and 1 H9: Patients were satisfied with the direction
equal to Highly Dissatisfied. Signboards.
The questionnaire comprised of two sections. H10: Patients were satisfied with the use of
Section A comprised of respondents' profile such Technology.
as Nationality, and Educational qualification.
(DOI: dx.doi.org/14.9831/1444-8939.2014/2-6/MAGNT.67)
MAGNT Research Report (ISSN. 1444-8939) Vol.2 (6) PP: 531-539
4.2. Profile analysis of the respondents: The were bachelor degree holders, 4.5% had
profile of the respondents measured on three completed graduation, and 1.3% had Ph.D.
variables namely their nationality, educational degrees. The third variable in profile analysis
qualification, and type of treatment received by considered the type of treatment received;
a patient. The results showed that majority of the approximately 40.3% had been outpatient,
respondents were Saudi nationals approximately 20.5% were inpatient, and 39.3% used both the
85.5%, and 14.5% were non-Saudi nationals services as outpatient as well as inpatient.
working in Saudi Arabia. On educational front
55.8% were less than bachelor degree, 38.5%
(DOI: dx.doi.org/14.9831/1444-8939.2014/2-6/MAGNT.67)
MAGNT Research Report (ISSN. 1444-8939) Vol.2 (6) PP: 531-539
4.3. Patient’s satisfaction levels with Hospital dissatisfaction category (highly dissatisfied +
infrastructure dissatisfied). The results in table 3 and table 4
shows that number of patients satisfied with the
Satisfaction of patients is an important measure
parking facilities are only 62 or 15.5%. The
of the service quality of the hospitals. The
patient’s satisfaction level from other
satisfaction levels of the patients from the
infrastructure facilities were also low. The
infrastructure of the government hospitals in
satisfaction levels were as follows; general
Saudi Arabia measured patients' satisfaction
entrance 30.8%, from emergency entrance
from ten variables. The list is suggestive not
30.3%, from the waiting area inside the hospital
exhaustive. In future researches, number of
23.3%, seating area and arrangements 23.8%,
variables may increase. The results in table 3
from the washroom facilities 24.5, from
and table 4 showed the patients’ satisfaction
cleanliness and hygiene 34.3%, from canteen
level from the hospital infrastructure. Table 3,
22%, from direction and signboards 45%, and
presented the results in number of respondents in
from technology 26.3% (table 3 and 4). The
the category of highly satisfied, satisfied,
results suggested that very less percentage of
somewhat satisfied, dissatisfied, and highly
patients were satisfied with the infrastructure
dissatisfied. However, table 4 presented the
facilities of the government hospitals in Saudi
result in cumulative percentage of respondents
Arabia.
in satisfaction category (together highly satisfied
+ satisfied) somewhat satisfied and
(DOI: dx.doi.org/14.9831/1444-8939.2014/2-6/MAGNT.67)
MAGNT Research Report (ISSN. 1444-8939) Vol.2 (6) PP: 531-539
The results in table 6 show that the mean values value for these variables are less than 3, which
for nine items from ten items are less than 3. indicated that the patients were not satisfied with
Ranging from parking facilities where the mean the services of the government hospitals in Saudi
value is 2.22 significant at 95% confidence Arabia. The only variable which has mean value
level, for Washroom facilities mean value 2.38 above 3 is 'direction Signboards represented by
significant at 95% confidence level, Waiting H9. For this variable, also the mean value is just
area 2.45 significant at 95% confidence level, more than 3 that is '3.20' which indicated that the
followed by Canteen 2.46, Seating place 2.52, patients were somewhat satisfied. The results are
Technology 2.55, Emergency entrance 2.80, statistically significant at '0.01' level for all the
Cleanliness and hygiene 2.88, General entrance variables except for Cleanliness and hygiene,
2.89, direction Signboards 3.20. Based on the and General entrance.
results nine hypothesis namely H1, H2, H3, H4,
H5, H6, H7, H8, H10, are rejected as the mean
6. Conclusion Acknowledgement
Thus from the results and discussion it can be This project was funded by the Deanship of
concluded that the infrastructure of the Scientific Research (DSR) King Abdulaziz
government hospitals in Saudi Arabia needs an University, Jeddah, under grant no.
enhancement to meet the patients expectations. (91/849/1433). The authors, therefore,
The basic facilities such as the parking, acknowledge with thanks DSR technical and
washroom, lobby, refreshment, sitting financial support.
arrangement, technology, cleanliness and et al.,
are not able to satisfy the patients and visitors to References
the hospital. 1. Aladham, M. and Fred. A.R (2004),
Managerial Implication Determine the quality of service perceived
The findings of the study indicated that the health in Palestinian hospitals. MPhil, Najah
current situation of government hospital University, Palestine.
infrastructure for the ministry of health of Saudi
Arabia needed improvement. The findings 2. Boudreaux, E.D., C.V. Mandry and K.M.
indicated the areas for future planning for Wood (2003) Patient satisfaction data as a
(DOI: dx.doi.org/14.9831/1444-8939.2014/2-6/MAGNT.67)
MAGNT Research Report (ISSN. 1444-8939) Vol.2 (6) PP: 531-539
10. Miro et. al (2003) An analysis of patient 18. Yarnold P.R., Michelson E.A., Thompson,
flow in the emergency department and the effect D.A., and Adams S.L. (1998) Predicting patient
of an extensive reorganization, Emergency satisfaction: A study of two emergency
Medicine Journal, 20 (2); 143 – 148. departments, Journal of Behavioral Medicine,
21 (6), 545 – 63.
11. Pickin D.M., A.O. Cahian, M.Fall, A.B.
Morgan, A. Have, and J.P. Nicholl (2004) The 19. Ware J.E., Steward D.A. (1978), The
impact of a general practice co-operative on measurement and meaning of patient
accident and emergency services, patient satisfaction. Health and Med Care Ser Rev., 1:
2-5.
(DOI: dx.doi.org/14.9831/1444-8939.2014/2-6/MAGNT.67)
MAGNT Research Report (ISSN. 1444-8939) Vol.2 (6) PP: 531-539
(DOI: dx.doi.org/14.9831/1444-8939.2014/2-6/MAGNT.67)