| Literature DB >> 19435526 |
Chih-Tung Hsiao1, Jar-Yuan Pai, Hero Chiu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the outsourcing situation in Taiwanese hospitals and compares the differences in hospital ownership and in accreditation levels.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19435526 PMCID: PMC2685796 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-9-78
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.655
Sample Hospitals–Hospital Level and Hospital Type
| Level | Type: Private | Type: Not-for Profit | Type: Public | Row Totals |
| Local Hospital | 7 | 0 | 3 | 10 |
| Region Hospital | 4 | 11 | 6 | 21 |
| Medical Center | 0 | 5 | 1 | 6 |
| All Groups | 11 | 16 | 10 | 37 |
Rate of Outsourcing for Taiwanese Hospitals
| Non-Medical Items | Number | Outsourced number | Outsourced Percentage (%) |
| Medical Waste | 37 | 35 | 94.6 |
| Common Waste | 37 | 35 | 94.6 |
| Gift Store | 37 | 28 | 75.6 |
| Linen | 37 | 27 | 73.0 |
| Restaurant | 37 | 21 | 56.8 |
| Security Guard | 37 | 20 | 54.1 |
| Information | 37 | 18 | 48.6 |
| Medical instrument Maintenance | 37 | 14 | 37.8 |
| Utility Maintenance | 37 | 5 | 13.5 |
| Medical Items | Number | Outsourced number | Outsourced Percentage (%) |
| Ambulance | 37 | 19 | 51.4 |
| Hemodialysis | 34 | 17 | 50.0 |
| Laser | 32 | 8 | 25.0 |
| Shake Wave | 31 | 7 | 22.6 |
| Laboratory | 37 | 5 | 13.5 |
| Radiology | 37 | 4 | 10.8 |
| Health Exam | 37 | 4 | 10.8 |
| Nutrition | 34 | 1 | 2.9 |
| Nurse | 37 | 1 | 2.7 |
| Pharmacy | 37 | 1 | 2.7 |
Summary of Chi-square Tests that were Significant
| By Hospital Level | Pearson Chi-square | ML Chi-square |
| Non Medical – Gift Store | 9.60(p = .008) | 8.98(p = .011) |
| Medical – Ambulance | 8.10(p = .017) | 8.51(p = .014) |
| By Hospital Type | Pearson Chi-square | ML Chi-square |
| Non Medical – Utility Maintenance | 7.56(p = .023) | 9.43(p = .009) |
| Non Medical – Security Guard | 8.74(p = .013) | 9.26(p = .010) |
Remark: testing alpha = .05
Summary for Satisfaction with Medical Items, Non-medical Items, and Paired t-Test
| Survey Item | Mnon | M | SDnon | SD | t-Value | p-Value |
| speciality performance | 3.24 | 4.16 | .723 | .602 | 7.03 | 0.000* |
| service quality | 3.03 | 4.16 | .726 | .553 | 7.52 | 0.000* |
| saving capital investment | 3.03 | 4.08 | .687 | .640 | 8.22 | 0.000* |
| saving cost | 3.59 | 3.38 | .725 | .828 | -2.09 | 0.044* |
| saving human resource | 3.92 | 3.86 | .682 | .822 | -0.47 | 0.644 |
| adaptability to environment | 3.62 | 4.00 | .721 | .745 | 3.87 | 0.000* |
| total satisfaction | 3.49 | 3.84 | .692 | .602 | 2.84 | 0.007* |
N = 37. Remark: alpha = .05, "*" means statistical significant
Exploratory factor analysis (N = 37)
| Factor loadings | |||
| Items | Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 |
| N-speciality performance | 0.73 | ||
| N-service quality | 0.76 | ||
| N-saving capital investment | 0.73 | ||
| N-saving cost | 0.61 | 0.63 | |
| N-saving human resource | 0.91 | ||
| N-adaptability to environment | 0.87 | ||
| N-total satisfaction | 0.65 | ||
| Eigenvalue | 2.33 | 1.44 | 1.04 |
| Variance explained | 27.84% | 24.38% | 16.47% |
| speciality performance | 0.71 | ||
| service quality | 0.67 | ||
| saving capital investment | 0.75 | ||
| saving cost | 0.63 | ||
| saving human resource | 0.66 | ||
| adaptability to environment | 0.84 | ||
| total satisfaction | 0.69 | ||
| Eigenvalue | 2.65 | 1.26 | |
| Variance explained | 33.41% | 22.50% | |
* Significant at the 0.60 level
Figure 1Confirmative Factor Analysis results of non-medical items and medical items.