See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/316145414

Patient Satisfaction: A study in General and Private Wards of a Multispecialty

Hospital

Article · June 2015

CITATIONS READS

5 2,100

3 authors, including:

Sucharitha Suresh Rashmi Kodikal

Father Muller Medical College Sahyadri College of Engineering & Management ,Mangalore
48 PUBLICATIONS   260 CITATIONS    27 PUBLICATIONS   87 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A Comparative Study of Efficacy of Topical Phenytoin vs Conventional Wound Care in Diaabetic Ulcers View project

“ Efficacy of ToxicodendronPubescens in Relation with Serum Hyaluronic acid and its application on primary osteoarthritis” View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rashmi Kodikal on 13 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

JMSCR Vol.||03||Issue||06||Page 6162-6175||June 2015

www.jmscr.igmpublication.org Impact Factor 3.79

ISSN (e)-2347-176x

Patient Satisfaction: A study in General and Private Wards of a

Multispecialty Hospital
Authors
Sucharitha Suresh , Sweeta D’ Cunha2, Dr. Rashmi Kodikal3
1
1
Assistant Professor, Department of Hospital Administration, Father Muller Medical College, Mangalore,
Karnataka, India
& Research Scholar: REVA University, Bangalore Ph: 9449991150
Email: sureshsucha1@gmail.com
2
Associate Professor, Department of Hospital Administration, Father Muller Medical College, Mangalore
& Research Scholar: REVA University, Bangalore
3
Professor, Centre for Management Studies and Research, P.A. College of Engineering, Mangalore,
Karnataka, India
Abstract
Patient satisfaction is an important measure of the quality of care provided by health care organisations. It
is not only important for gaining insights into the perception of the patient’s on the delivery of the health
care service, but also a key outcome of care. The p r e s e n t study was undertaken to i d e n t i f y the
factors in which the patients are satisfied in the present healthcare delivery at private and general
wards and compare the same. The present study was a cross sectional study, data was collected from 100
patients each from general ward & private wards. Result showed that Patients’ were satisfied and willing to
recommend this Hospital to others because of the quality of service shown by the Hospital.
In particular, Patients of private ward were more satisfied than general wards regarding Timeliness of the
treatment, regular evaluation by doctor, availability of doctor in case of emergencies, explanation given by
doctor regarding tests, health advice given by doctor, behavior of the nurses, facilities in the rooms
(p<0.05). There is no significant difference in the satisfaction level of private & general ward patients
regarding discussing ailment with doctor, listening ability of doctor, sympathy & attentiveness of nurses,
getting medicines on time, availability of nurses (p>0.05). Regarding other facilities, patients of private
ward were more satisfied than general wards in the area of registration, food services, visiting hours,
security services, facilities to attendants (p<0.05). There is no significant difference in the satisfaction level
of private & general ward patients regarding bed & surroundings in the room, helpful housekeeping staff,
changing bed linen, cleanliness of the room, diagnostic services (p>0.05).
Key words: Patients, Satisfaction, Patient care.

Introduction responsibility of the hospital administrators to

Patients, the only reason for a hospital's existence, keep the patient and his attendants in satisfied
need services, which are reasonably accessible state. Patient satisfaction is the real testimony to
and readily available at all times. It is the the efficiency and effectiveness of hospital’s

Sucharitha Suresh et al JMSCR Volume 03 Issue 06 June Page 6162

JMSCR Vol.||03||Issue||06||Page 6162-6175||June 2015
administration. Though the patient’s are not technical expertise of doctors, communication of
technically qualified to measure the services of the information and mutual trust and barriers of
hospital, they can express the satisfaction on the communication between doctors and patients need
basis of service they received and the way they to be studied (Verma and Sarma)3
were treated and cared for, by the hospital staff. Thus, in the present day context, evaluation of
Health care scenario is fast changing all over the hospital services from patient's point of view is
world. Economic, political, social, environmental, becoming increasingly important component of
and cultural factors influence the peoples need for health care delivery. A public sector tertiary care
health care and the delivery of health service. hospital in Delhi metropolis has an ongoing
Emphasis is placed on providing quality services system of eliciting patient's opinions on hospital
at the lowest possible cost, leading to a variety of service in special wards with the help of exit
alternatives to hospital care. This change in health proformas which were designed and implemented
care scene presents both opportunity and 20 years back. Information generated from these
challenge for the health care professionals and the proformas is sent to middle and senior level
administrators. Consumerism is also affecting the management, but is used or analysed only when
health care sector. It can help authorities to there are complaints or deviations from normal
advance from considering individual members of working. It has become more or less a ritual
their public (patients) as passive clients or instead of being a tool for improving operational
recipients of service, who get what they are given efficiency.
for which they must be thankful-to thinking of According to Sun4Patient satisfaction — the
them as customers with legitimate rights and subjective experiences of patients using the
preference as well as responsibilities.(August)1 healthcare system — correlates with improved
Patients, as noted by Tomes 2, are passive medical compliance, decreased utilization of
receivers of treatment determined by professionals medical services, less malpractice litigation, and
and, therefore, are not in a position to understand greater willingness to return to the healthcare
the technical and medical aspects of care. Thus, provider. Accordingly, quantitative measurement
the inability of patients to make judgments on the of patient complaints is a comparative measure of
technical competency of the hospital and its staff service quality, and several authorities believe that
have limited most patient satisfaction research to quality-assurance measures should include patient
the functional quality of care, that is, the manner satisfaction and an analysis of patient complaints.
in which medical care is delivered to them. Complaints may arise from poor quality of service
Satisfaction with care has already been established or unmet patient expectations. Some complaints
as an important influence determining whether a appear minor, but many relate to more serious
person seeks medical advice, complies with events and lead to remedial action or
treatment and maintains a continuing relationship compensation. Analysis of the nature of
with a practitioner. It has been seen that even complaints is important to identify problems and
when patients report high levels of satisfaction, assist in their elimination. For quality-assurance
studies have shown how the volume of comment purposes, individual hospitals may analyse and act
was a more sensitive indicator. Human on the complaints they receive.
satisfaction is a complex concept that is related to According to Olusina5, patient satisfaction has
a number of factors including life style, past been proposed as a simple measure of the quality
experiences, future expectations and the value of of care. The study aimed to assess how satisfied
both individual and society. Because satisfaction the patients and staff in an acute admission
is a derived concept, it is important to find out the psychiatric unit were with experiences in the
sources of dissatisfaction. In addition to different ward, including the physical environment,
preferences about the hospital aspects of care, freedom, comfort, attitudes of staff towards

Sucharitha Suresh et al JMSCR Volume 03 Issue 06 June Page 6163

JMSCR Vol.||03||Issue||06||Page 6162-6175||June 2015
patients, access to staff, and duration of communication with doctors, and 4.1 (0.3%) for
hospitalization. Highest satisfaction for patients hospital environment. 98.9% of the patients
and staff were for items on staff-patient would recommend the hospital to their family and
relationship. Barely satisfactory items for patients friends. The lowest score was for the "room
included the time spent with doctors. Patients had environment" (3.99, 0.8%) and the highest for
a higher positive appraisal of the adequacy of overall services of the hospital (4.7, 0.5%).
physical facilities than staff, while staff had a A Comparative study conducted by Chaudhury,
more positive appraisal of their relationship with Mahmood and Valente8 pointed out that, In
patients. There were no significant differences in comparing single- versus double-occupancy
satisfaction among diagnostic groups. The logical rooms, it is evident that nurses clearly favour
and discriminating manner in which patients single- occupancy rooms. For instance, 84 percent
assessed satisfaction supports the impression that of the respondents rated room flexibility as high
they can be relied upon to make objective or very high in single- occupancy rooms, whereas
appraisal of the process of care, and that patient only 40 percent of nurses felt double-occupancy
satisfaction is a valid index of the quality of care. rooms are moderately flexible. In terms of
The patient satisfaction depends on three flexibility in private rooms, one respondent stated
elemental issues of health care system. These are: that, “lots of room, private conversations in person
perception of patients regarding quality health and on phone, stays in room.” Interaction with
care service, good health care providers and good family members and flexibility for
health care organization. A study conducted has accommodating family members both got high
revealed that satisfaction with hospital experience scores (high or very high) in private rooms,
was driven by dignity and respect, speed and whereas in double-occupancy rooms, interaction
efficiency, comfort, information and with family members was considered low (33
communication and emotional support. During percent) or moderate (47 percent) and flexibility
2004 and 2005, a focus group interview was for accommodating family members was
conducted to find out how patients perceive the considered low (48 percent). Although interaction
quality of health care and it was observed that with family members is greater in single-
patients, usually, preferred four qualities of health occupancy rooms, interaction with other patients
care services viz. doctor communication skill, is greater in double-occupancy rooms. According
responsiveness of hospital staff, comfort and to one respondent, single rooms are more helpful
cleanliness of the hospital environment and as there is “more privacy, room for ambulation
communication of nursing staff. (Safavi )6. within room.” Other factors such as the quality of
Binsalih et.al7, conducted a study to assess patient monitoring, patient’s comfort level,
satisfaction among inpatients and the impact of patient’s recovery rate, and scope for patient
demographics on satisfaction levels. The tool surveillance were all rated higher in private rooms
included questions on demographics, compared to double occupancy rooms.
communication skills, hospital environment, and Mpinga & Chastonay9 mention that measuring
the patients' overall evaluation of the hospital. patient satisfaction is not an easy task. It requires
Inpatients from acute wards of five different a) a clear definition of the objectives; b) the
specialties who stayed for at least 2 days were identification of the target populations; c) well
enrolled. There were 988 respondents with a mean defined tools and ways to collect the data; d) a
age of 39.1 years (25.9%) and the mean length of strategy for analyzing the data and its utilization.
stay (LOS) of 10.0 days (24.1%). Illiteracy rate It can focus on the process and/or the results of
was 42.4%, and 43.1% were male. The overall care. It also allows patients to evaluate received
satisfaction scores-out of five-were 4.3 (0.6%) for services and treatments. Finally measuring patient
communication with nurses, 4.4 (0.4%) for satisfaction allows the identification of possible

Sucharitha Suresh et al JMSCR Volume 03 Issue 06 June Page 6164

JMSCR Vol.||03||Issue||06||Page 6162-6175||June 2015
problems and suggests ways of improving the consisted of demographic information of the
quality of care or public health interventions. respondents and 2nd part consisted of items to
The present study is taken up to focus on the measure satisfaction of the respondents on various
factors that determine the satisfaction of patients factors. Level of satisfaction was measured on 3
in general ward & private ward of a multi point rating scale. Overall satisfaction was derived
specialty hospital. The following objectives have by averaging responses of all the items. Mean,
been considered. standard deviation & mean (%) was calculated.
1. To assess the level of patients’ satisfaction Mean (%) was used to assess the level of
admitted in the private wards and the satisfaction and was done on basis of
general wards. classification as follows
2. To compare the same between patients Above 90% - Fully satisfied(FS)
admitted in the private and general wards 60% -89% - Satisfied(S)
40% -59% - Moderately Satisfied(MS)
Research Methodology Below 40% - Not Satisfied(NS)
The research approach adopted in the study was
a descriptive cross sectional one. The study was Mannwhitney test was used to compare the level
conducted in a tertiary care, multi specialty of satisfaction between private & general ward
teaching hospital. Sample consisted of 100 patients. Pilot study was conducted to test the
patients from general wards and 100 patients reliability of the tool. It observed that Ccronbach
from private wards during the data collection alpha was 0.813, tool was reliable.
period. The sample was selected adopting a
purposive sampling technique based on the Results
availability of patients and included those patients The results of the study include the findings of a
who have availed the services of the Hospital for survey to assess the level of satisfaction of
more than 4 days and who are willing to patients admitted in the General wards & Private
participate. wards of a selected ward and their demographic
Data was collected using a structured details.
questionnaire. The 1st part of the questionnaire

1. Demographic details
Table no. 1: Distribution of patients according to demographic variables

Demographic variables Ward

Private General Total
ward(n=100) ward (n=200)
(n=100)
Gender Male 58 46 104(52%)
Female 42 54 96(48%)
Age 20-30 16 24 40(20%)
30-40 18 16 34(17%)
40-50 18 20 38(19%)
50-60 24 20 44(22%)
60-70 24 20 44(22%)
Marital Single
Status 16 22 38(19%)
Married 70 66 136(68%)

Sucharitha Suresh et al JMSCR Volume 03 Issue 06 June Page 6165

JMSCR Vol.||03||Issue||06||Page 6162-6175||June 2015
Widow 14 12 26(13%)
Occupation Business
12 6 18(9%)
House
wife 20 26 46(23%)
Geriatrics
18 18 36(18%)
Studying 10 12 22(11%)
Employed 40 38 78(39%)

From the table no 1, it is seen that 58% of patients 2. Assessment of patient satisfaction in
were male & remaining (42%) were female. 68% the Private Wards
were married. Age wise, there was almost equal
distribution in various age groups. 39% were This section deals with the satisfaction of patients
employed, 23% were housewives, 9% were in in 2 areas
business & rest of them were geriatric & student - Patient care and
group.
- Other facilities
Table2: Item wise assessment of satisfaction in the area of Patient Care in the private ward

Mean
Items Mean ± S.D Remark
(%)
Timeliness of the treatment
2.96 ± 0.19 98.6 FS
Regularevaluation by the doctor
2.62 ± 0.56 87.3 S
Discussion of the ailment with the
2.24 ± 0.71 74.6 S
doctor
The listening ability of the doctor
2.62 ± 0.60 87.3 S
Availability of the doctor in case of
2.88 ± 0.43 96.0 FS
emergency
The explanation of the doctor
2.50 ± 0.70 83.3 S
about tests
The advice given by the doctor
about staying healthy 2.08 ± 0.80 69.3 S

The sympathy and attentiveness of

2.84 ± 0.37 94.6 FS
nurses
Getting medicines timely
2.88 ± 0.32 96.0 FS
The behaviour of the nurses
2.64 ± 0.48 88.0 S
The availability of nurses
2.88 ± 0.32 96.0 FS
The facilities in the rooms
2.80 ± 0.40 93.3 FS
Concessions recieved during
NA
treatment
Any extra expenses incurred for a
2.72 ± 0.60 90.6 FS
single room.
*FS= Fully Satisfied; *S= Satisfied; *NA=Not Applicable

Sucharitha Suresh et al JMSCR Volume 03 Issue 06 June Page 6166

JMSCR Vol.||03||Issue||06||Page 6162-6175||June 2015
Table- 2 shows that private ward patients were Patients were satisfied with the regular
fully satisfied with the time of starting the evaluation by the doctors (mean %: 87.3),
treatment (mean %:98.6), the availability of the sharing the ailment to the doctor (mean %:
doctor in case of emergency (mean % 96), the 74.6), the listening mentality of the doctor
sympathy and attentiveness of nurses (mean %: (mean %: 87.3), the explanation of the doctor
94.6), getting medicines timely (mean %: 96), about the texts (mean %: 83.3), the advice
the availability of the nurses(mean %: 96), the given by the doctor about staying healthy (mean
facilities in the rooms(mean %: 93.3), the % 69.3), the behavior of the nurses (mean %:
expenses incurred for a single room(mean %: 88).
90.6).

Table 3: Item wise assessment of satisfaction in the area of Other Facilities of private ward

Items Mean ± S.D Mean Remark

(%)

Registration 2.68 ± 0.58 89 S

Bed and facilities in the S
2.68 ± 0.71 89
room
Housekeeping staff were S
2.48 ± 0.76 82
helpful
Services of changing bed linen, S
cleaning the room etc 2.68 ± 0.55 89

Cleanliness of the room and S

2.38 ± 0.72 79
surroundings
Food services 2.50 ± 0.70 83 S
Visiting hours for relatives NA
Security services 2.90 ± 0.36 96 FS
Diagnostic services 2.66 ± 0.47 88 S
Facilities to the attendants FS
2.96 ± 0.19 98

*FS= Fully Satisfied; *S= Satisfied; *NA=Not Applicable

The patients were fully satisfied with only the 3. Assessment of patient satisfaction in
security services (mean %: 96) & facilities the General Wards
provided to the attendants (mean %: 98). They This section deals with the satisfaction of patients
were satisfied with registration, facilities in the in 2 areas
room, housekeeping, service of changing bed
linen, cleanliness, food service & diagnostic - Patient care and
services. - Other facilities

Sucharitha Suresh et al JMSCR Volume 03 Issue 06 June Page 6167

JMSCR Vol.||03||Issue||06||Page 6162-6175||June 2015
Table 4: Item wise assessment of satisfaction in the area of Patient Care in the general ward

Items Mean ± S.D Mean Remark

(%)
Timeliness of the treatment 2.78 0.58 92.6 FS

Regular evaluation by the doctor 2.46 0.67 82.0 S

Discussing the ailment with the 2.20 0.78 73.3 S

doctor
Listening ability of the doctor 2.60 0.57 86.6 S

Availability of the doctor in case 2.76 0.47 92.0 FS

of emergency
Explanation of the doctor about 2.30 0.78 76.6 S
tests
Advice given by the doctor about 1.66 0.79 53.3 MS
staying healthy
Sympathy and attentiveness of 2.88 0.38 96.0 FS
nurses
Getting medicines timely 2.82 0.43 94.0 FS

Behavior of the nurses 2.36 0.52 78.6 S

Availability of nurses 2.80 0.45 93.3 FS

Facilities in the rooms 2.48 .61 82.6 S

Concessions during treatment 2.46 0.64 82.0 S

Any extra expenses incurred for a NA

single room.
*FS= Fully Satisfied; *S= Satisfied; *MS= Moderately Satisfied; *NA= Not Applicable.
Findings of the study (Table 4) shows that 82). But Patients were moderately satisfied by
general ward patients were fully satisfied with the advice given by the doctor about staying
the time of starting the treatment (% mean healthy (mean %: 53.3).
score 92.6), the availability of the doctor in
case of emergency (mean %: 92), the sympathy
and attentiveness of nurses mean %: 96), getting
medicines timely mean %: 94) and the
availability of the nurses mean %: 93.3).

Patients were satisfied with the regular

evaluation by the doctor(mean %: 82), sharing
the ailment to the doctor mean %: 73.3), the
listening mentality of the doctor (mean %: 86.6),
the explanation of the doctor about the tests
mean %: 76.6), the behavior of the nurses mean
%: 78.6), the facilities in the wards mean %:
82.6), the concessions during treatment mean %:

Sucharitha Suresh et al JMSCR Volume 03 Issue 06 June Page 6168

JMSCR Vol.||03||Issue||06||Page 6162-6175||June 2015
Table 5: Item wise assessment of satisfaction in the area of Other Facilities in the general ward

Items Mean ± S.D Mean (%) Remark

Registration 2.46 ± 0.78 82 S

Satisfied with the bed a S
2.66 ± 00.65 88
surroundings in the room n
housekeeping s dw S
2.50 ± 0.64 83
helpful t e
a r
Services of changing bed linen FS
cleaning the room etc f e 2.74± 0.52 91
f

cleanliness of the room and S

2.28± 0.75 76
surroundings
Food services 2.76± 0.43 92 FS
Visiting hours 2.48± 0.76 82 S
Security services 2.32± 0.84 77 S
Diagnostic services 2.46± 0.64 82 S
Facilities to the attenders t S
2.48± 0.76 82
h
*FS= Fully Satisfied; *S= Satisfied
e

a
Satisfaction regarding other facilities (Table 5)
shows that patients in the general wards were t
fully satisfied with the services of changing t
e
the bed linen, cleaning the room (mean%: 91)
n
and food services (mean%: 92). d
Patients were satisfied in the area of e
registration (mean%: 82), the bed and r
surroundings in the room (mean%: 88), the s
servants and sweepers (mean%: 83), the
cleanliness of the rooms and surroundings
(mean%: 76), the visiting hours (mean%: 82),
the security services (mean%: 77) the medical
services (mean%: 82) and with the facilities
given to the attendants (mean%: 82).

Sucharitha Suresh et al JMSCR Volume 03 Issue 06 June Page 6169

JMSCR Vol.||03||Issue||06||Page 6162-6175||June 2015
4. Comparison of Patient satisfaction
This section deals with comparison of Patient satisfaction in the private wards & general wards in the area of
- Patient care
- Other facilities
Table 6: Comparison of satisfaction level in the area of Patient Care

Private General
Mannwhitney
test Z value P value
Items Mean ± S.D Mean Mean ± S.D Mean
(%) (%)
Timeliness of the treatment 2.78±0.58 92.6 3.021 0.003**
2.96 ± 0.19 98.6
Regular evaluation by the doctor
2.62 ± 0.56 87.3 2.46±0.67 82.0 2.055 0.041*

Discussing the ailment with the 2.2±0.78 73.3 0.431 0.667

2.24 ± 0.71 74.6
doctor
Listening ability of the doctor 2.6±0.57 86.6 0.281 0.779
2.62 ± 0.60 87.3
Availability of the doctor in case of
2.88 ± 0.43 96.0 2.76±0.47 92.0 2.144 0.033*
emergency
Explanation of the doctor about tests 2.3±0.78 76.6 2.165 0.031*
2.50 ± 0.70 83.3
Advice given by the doctor about 53.3
1.66±0.79
staying healthy 2.08 ± 0.80 69.3 4.323 0.000**

Sympathy and attentiveness of

2.84 ± 0.37 94.6 2.88±0.38 96.0 0.867 0.387
nurses
Getting medicines timely
2.88 ± 0.32 96.0 2.82±0.43 94.0 1.234 0.218

Behavior of the nurses

2.64 ± 0.48 88.0 2.36±0.52 78.6 4.509 0.000**

Availability of nurses 2.8±0.45 93.3 1.588 0.113

2.88 ± 0.32 96.0
Facilities in the rooms
2.80 ± 0.40 93.3 2.48±0.61 82.6 4.757 0.000**

**p<0.01, H Significant *p<0.05, significant

The primary function of a hospital is patient care. As seen in Table 6, patients of private ward are
It is one of the yardsticks to measure the more satisfied than general wards regarding
success of service that it produces. The Timeliness of the treatment, regular evaluation
effectiveness of the hospital relates to provision by doctor, availability of doctor in case of
of good patient care as intended. The patient emergencies, explanation given by doctor
satisfaction is the real testimony to the efficiency regarding tests, health advice given by doctor,
of hospital administration.8 it is clear & evident behavior of the nurses, facilities in the rooms
from the table no 4 & 5, that patients were either (p<0.05). There is no significant difference in the
satisfied or fully satisfied with the various care satisfaction level of private & general ward
components & other service facilities. When patients regarding discussing ailment with
attempt was made to compare the satisfaction doctor, listening ability of doctor, sympathy &
level between the private ward & general ward it attentiveness of nurses, getting medicines on
is surprising to observe that there are few areas time, availability of nurses (p>0.05).
of services where patients of general & private There is low score on the factor, advice given by
ward were not equally satisfied. doctor on staying healthy by both private ward
Sucharitha Suresh et al JMSCR Volume 03 Issue 06 June Page 6170
JMSCR Vol.||03||Issue||06||Page 6162-6175||June 2015
patients (mean % is 69.3) & general ward patients be considered for improvement by the physicians.
(mean % is 53.3). This is an area which needs to

Table 7: Comparison of satisfaction level in the area of other facilities

Other facilities Mannwhitney test

Private General
Z value
Items Mean ± S.D Mean Mean ± S.D Mean Z value p
(%) (%)
Difficulty in Registration 2.68 ± 0.58 89 2.46±0.78 82 2.496 0.013*
Bed and surroundings in the 2.66±0.65 0.244 0.808
room 2.68 ± 0.71 89 88
Servants and sweepers were 2.5±0.64 0.239 0.811
helpful 2.48 ± 0.76 82 83
Services of changing bed linen,
2.74±0.52 0.924 0.356
cleaning the room etc 2.68 ± 0.55 89 91
Cleanliness of the room and 2.28±0.75 1.103 0.271
surroundings 2.38 ± 0.72 79 76
Food services 2.50 ± 0.70 83 2.76±0.43 92 3.968 0.000**
Visiting hours 2.48±0.76 82 32.604 0.000**
Security services 2.90 ± 0.36 96 2.32±0.84 77 6.604 0.000**
Diagnostic services 2.66 ± 0.47 88 2.46±64 82 0.031 0.975
Facilities to the attendants 2.48±0.76 6.215 0.000**
2.96 ± 0.19 98 82
**p<0.01, H Significant *p<0.05, significant

The efficient care is possible only when surroundings in the room, helpful housekeeping
facilities are provided in the best way. The staff, changing bed linen, cleanliness of the room,
physical factors are location, layout, sufficient diagnostic services (p>0.05).
ventilation, good light, clean environment, seating
arrangements, and good enquiry services, In a study of Patient satisfaction with the hospital
parking facilities, adequate toilets, drinking water services conducted at a large teaching hospital in
facilities and sign boards. Supplies and New Delhi, in 1997, 10 it was observed that
equipments should be always in proper working cleanliness of toilets was one of five major
condition. The physical facilities of the hospital dissatisfiers among the patients, besides quality
should be such, the patient’s and their relatives of food, explanation of procedure, information
feel secure and comfortable with in and around about illness and treatment and linen. In
the hospital another study he stated that costing of
housekeeping services at a large teaching
As seen in Table 7, regarding other facilities,
hospital in Delhi in 1997, the dissatisfaction with
patients of private ward are more satisfied than
the toilets cleanliness was maximum. Whereas
general wards in the area of registration, food this study reveals that patients are satisfied
services, visiting hours, security services, facilities
towards the services like changing the bed linen
to attendants (p<0.05). There is no significant
and sanitation, helpfulness of housekeeping staff,
difference in the satisfaction level of private & cleanliness of room & surroundings . This
general ward patients regarding bed &
Sucharitha Suresh et al JMSCR Volume 03 Issue 06 June Page 6171
JMSCR Vol.||03||Issue||06||Page 6162-6175||June 2015
implies that the house keeping department of the patients, attendants and their belongings.
hospital is doing fairly good.
Good functioning of the security department will The general ward patients are less satisfied
satisfy the patient’s and their relatives. Theft compared to private ward patients regarding the
control, visitors’ control, will help the proper visiting hours of the hospital. As there is no
functioning of hospital. It is observed here that restriction to the private ward patients regarding
the patients were satisfied regarding security the visiting to the patients so they are
services of the hospital. So this study states that completely satisfied with the same.
the hospital gives priority to the safety of the

5. Assessment & Comparison of overall level of satisfaction among Private ward and General
ward patients.
Table 8: Overall Comparative level of satisfaction among Private ward and General ward patients.
Mann-
Mean ± S.D. Mean (%) Whitney p value
Test

Private ward 2.37 ± 0.25 79.2

Patient
care General ward 2.044 0.041*
2.26 ± 0.32 75.3

Private ward 2.66 ± 0.30 88.5

Other
facilities General Ward 1.458 0.145
2.51 ± 0.38 83.8

Private ward 2.48 ± 0.24 82.7

Over all 2.380 0.017*

General ward 2.36 ± 0.29 78.7

**p<0.01, H Significant *p<0.05, significant

There is a significant difference between Further when the overall satisfaction level
private ward and general ward patients’ (Patient care and other facilities level of
satisfaction level in the area of patient care. satisfaction score together) was compared, it
Private ward patients were more satisfied was found that there was a significant difference
compared to general ward patients. p= between the level of satisfaction between the
0.041<0.05. There is no significant difference general ward and private ward patients, which
between private and general ward patients implied that the private ward patients were
satisfaction level with respect to other facilities, more satisfied than the general ward patients.
p=0.145>0.05. p=0.017< 0.05.

Sucharitha Suresh et al JMSCR Volume 03 Issue 06 June Page 6172

JMSCR Vol.||03||Issue||06||Page 6162-6175||June 2015
6. Opinion of the respondents regarding visiting the hospital & future intentions

Table 9: Opinion of the respondents regarding visiting the hospital & future intentions

Ward Total (n=200)

Private General ward
ward(n=100) (n=100)

For the first time 24 38 62(31%)

visiting this For some
26 20 46(23%)
Hospital specific illness
For all illness 50 42 92(46%)

Near to the house 34 36 70(35%)

You come to
this Hospital Prefer a private 12 8 20(10%)
because Hospital
Satisfied with
54 56 110(55%)
care

you Yes 94 74 168(84%)

Do
prefer this
Hospital Sometimes 6 20 26(13%)
again if
necessary No 0 6 6(3%)

Yes 82 72 154(77%)
Do you
recommend
this Hospital Sometimes 18 22 40(20%)
to relatives,
friends No 0 6 6(3%)

50% of the private ward and 42% of the general 94% of the private ward patients and 74% of the
ward patients visited this hospital regularly for general ward patients were willing to visit again
all the illnesses, and 24% of the private ward and if necessary. Paine11 stated that every human
38% of the general ward patients visited this being carries a particular set of thoughts, feelings
hospital for the first time. and needs. By getting to know the patients a little
50% of the private ward patients and 42% of the more to get their views on the care one ought to
general ward patients preferred this hospital come closer to what the patients consider as a
because they were satisfied with the care, 34% good care.
of the private ward patients and 36% of the
general ward patients were visiting this hospital Levin 12 accentuated that the medical team
because it is near to their h o u s e . becomes the lifeline of the patient, and as such

Sucharitha Suresh et al JMSCR Volume 03 Issue 06 June Page 6173

JMSCR Vol.||03||Issue||06||Page 6162-6175||June 2015
need to know exactly what the perceptions of the References
patients are. Feedback from patients, their 1. August JM. Mapping change in health
families and the medical team initiates changes in care: pathways for nursing..Seminars for
clinical practice. When quality service is Nurse Managers 1995, 3(2):67-71
provided it is experienced that the patient will 2. Tomes, A.E. Service quality in hospital
advise family and friends to use the same care: The development of an inpatient
facility. Based on this study it is clear that 82% questionnaire; International Journal of
of the private wards patients and 72% of the Health Care Quality Assurance. 1995;
general wards patients were willing to recommend 8(3): pp. 25-33
this hospital to others. Therefore it is certain that 3. Verma Aarti, Sarma R.K. Evaluation of
they experienced the care and concern more in the "Exit Proformas" in use at Special
this hospital. Wards of a Public Sector Tertiary Care
Hospital; Journal of the Academy of
Conclusion Hospital Administration. 2000; 12(1):
In this study, an effort has been made to assess the pp.1-6.
patient satisfaction in the private wards and 4. Sun B.C., Adams J., Orav EJ.
general wards, so as to improve the performance Determinants of patient satisfaction and
of the hospital. A brief analysis is made about the willingness to return with emergency care;
factors, which are closely related to the hospital Ann Emerg Med. 2000; 35: pp. 426-434.
services in order to assess the satisfaction of the 5. Olusina AK, Ohaeri JU, Olatawura MO.
patients’. The most important factor is Patient Patient and staff satisfaction with the
care; it includes the service, behavior of the quality of in-patient psychiatric care in a
staff. In absence of adequacy of this factor Nigerian general hospital. Soc Psychiatry
excellent facilities are not likely to produce the Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2002 Jun;37(6):283-
desired results. Patients’ feedbacks are essential in 8.
order to measure performance and to make 6. Safavi, K. (2006). Patient-centered pay for
healthcare professionals more aware of aspects performance: Are we missing the target?
enhancing users’ satisfaction. Mainly, they have Journal of Healthcare Management. 51(4):
to remember that more satisfied patients are more 215-218.
they are likely to respond to treatments and to get 7. Binsalih SA, Waness AO, Tamim HM,
better health outcomes. The other facilities of the Harakati MS, Al Sayyari AA. Inpatients'
hospital are also an influencing factor on patient care experience and satisfaction study. J
satisfaction. Availability of facilities and proper Family Community Med. 2011
utilization of hospital resources give satisfaction Sep;18(3):111-7.
to the patient. 8. Chaudhury Habib, Mahmood Atiya and
The present study, patients of general ward & Valente Maria. Pilot Study on
private ward were satisfied with patient care Comparative Assessment of Patient Care
components & other facilities provided in the Issues in Single and Multiple Occupancy
hospital. In the aspect of physician giving health Patient Rooms; Simon Fraser University,
advice to patients, both the ward patients were less Oregon, November 20, 2003; pp.14-15
satisfied. Further, private ward patients were more 9. Mpinga Emmanuel Kabengele &
satisfied some of the services. Satisfaction survey Chastonay Philippe Patient Satisfaction
is thus one of the prime responsibilities of the Studies and the Monitoring of the Right to
hospital to measure the level of satisfaction and Health: Some Thoughts Based on a
try to find out the ways and means for improving Review of the Literature Global Journal of
satisfaction of their patients. Health Science April 2011 Vol. 3, No. 1;

Sucharitha Suresh et al JMSCR Volume 03 Issue 06 June Page 6174

JMSCR Vol.||03||Issue||06||Page 6162-6175||June 2015
10. Shakti, Gupta K. Cleanliness procedures of
medium & small hospitals are flawed:
Study; Express Pharma pulse. September
29, 2005.
11. Paine Lislie. Giving patients what they
want. Journal of Hospital Management
International. 1989; pp. 340-41.
12. Levin, R.F. Heart mates a survival guide
for the cardiac spouse; Simon & Schuster,
New York: 1987; p16

Sucharitha Suresh et al JMSCR Volume 03 Issue 06 June Page 6175

View publication stats