Back

Patients' satisfaction and quality of clinical laboratory services provision at public health facilities in northeast Ethiopia

Abebe, D. D.; Hassen, S. L.; Temesgen, M. M.

2022-01-25 health systems and quality improvement
10.1101/2022.01.25.22269238 medRxiv
Show abstract

Patient satisfaction is a key element of quality measures that has increasingly become acknowledged as an important tool for service improvement. This study aimed to assess the level of patients satisfaction and associated factors with clinical laboratory services provided at public health facilities. A cross-sectional study was conducted from May-June 2019 among clients attending 24 health centers and 8 hospitals, northeast Ethiopia. A total of 502 patients were selected using systematic random sampling. Patients satisfaction towards multiple aspects of laboratory services was assessed using structured exit interview questionnaire, on a rating scale of 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 points (very satisfied). We assessed test availability and laboratory practices using facility inventory, stepwise accreditation audit checklist and blinded slide rechecking. Data were entered and analyzed using EpiData ver3.1 and STATA ver14.1. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to determine the association of factors with overall satisfaction. Overall, majority of the respondents (73.5%) were found to be satisfied. Lowest mean ratings were obtained for waiting area (3.3), and information provided on specimen collection (3.5) and on how and when to receive results (3.7). Patients were more likely to be satisfied in health centers (75.2%) than in hospitals (68.6%) (AOR=1.9, 95%CI: 1.0-3.6, p=0.036). Patients timely receipt of results (p=0.005) and laboratories accuracy of results (p< 0.025) also showed significant positive associations with satisfaction. In conclusion, there were specific areas of deficiency that were driving dissatisfaction, particularly in the larger hospital laboratories. Therefore, more and balanced emphasis should be given to the patients experiences, alongside technical quality improvements, to reduce the disparities and enhance the overall quality of care.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.