Evaluation of medical staff and patient satisfaction among healthcare services in several Wuhan public hospitals


Abstract

Background. Satisfaction evaluation is widely used in healthcare systems around the world to improve healthcare service quality and levels, in order to obtain better health outcomes. In the evaluation of healthcare reform, patient and medical staff satisfaction with this reform is a key criterion. The aim of this study was to measure employee work satisfaction and patient satisfaction status in the Wuhan region, China; the unsatisfactory factors as discovered through the evaluation will be used as a reference by healthcare policy makers and management so that they can adopt reasonable and effective measures to decrease the risk of dissatisfaction in the future. Methods. A cross-sectional study was conducted in 14 medical institutions in Wuhan from October to November 2016. The medical institutions included public general hospitals (tertiary and secondary) and community healthcare service centers/stations (primary). Stratified sampling of target medical staff and patients was carried out and the final valid sample comprised a total of 696 medical staff and 668 patients. Results. In the Wuhan area, it was found that the reliability levels of medical staff work satisfaction scales and patient satisfaction scales comprised Cronbach's alpha=0.973 and Cronbach's alpha=0.949, respectively. The studies in Wuhan and Guangzhou showed that the psychometric characteristics of the scales were basically the same. The overall satisfaction levels of medical staff and patients were 58.28±14.60 and 65.82±14.66, respectively. The medical staff satisfaction ranking in sequence from most to least satisfied was: work itself, work environment and atmosphere, hospital management, practicing environment, and job rewards. The patient satisfaction ranking in sequence from most to least satisfied was: physician-patient relationship and communication, service organization and facilities, continuity and collaboration of medical care, access to relevant information and support, and healthcare and related services. There were differences in the overall satisfaction levels of medical staff based on gender, age, educational level, job title, nature of the job, employment status, and whether staff were at the standardized training stage (p<.05 or .01). There was no statistically significant difference in various demographic variables in terms of overall patient satisfaction (p>.05). Discussion. The overall satisfaction evaluation of medical staff was average. In the future, healthcare policy makers and management staff of medical institutions should focus on job rewards and practicing environment in order to decrease the risk of dissatisfaction amongst medical staff. This would allow them to increase their work happiness and sense of belonging, which in turn would allow them to provide better medical services to patients. The overall patient evaluation was satisfactory, with patients satisfied at all levels of the satisfaction evaluation.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. That said, if the manuscript is accepted for publication then the reviewer reports can be optionally signed and made public (see below).
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).
  • If the article is accepted, then the authors are given the option to reproduce the reviewer reports, and their full revision history, alongside their finally published article. In those instances, the comments of the reviewers will be made public (although reviewers' names will never be revealed unless the reviewer opted to sign their review, as noted above).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at peer.review@peerj.com.