| Literature DB >> 20525170 |
Ghizlane Soufi1, Jihane Belayachi, Salma Himmich, Samir Ahid, Mehdi Soufi, Aicha Zekraoui, Redouane Abouqal.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients' satisfaction is an important indicator for quality of care. Measuring healthcare quality and improving patient satisfaction have become increasingly prevalent, especially among healthcare providers and purchasers of healthcare. This is mainly due to the fact that consumers are becoming increasingly more knowledgeable about healthcare. No studies of inpatients' satisfaction with hospital care have been conducted in Morocco. The first objective of the present study was to confirm the reliability and validity of the Arabic version of the EQS-H (Echelle de Qualité des Soins en Hospitalisation). The second objective was to evaluate patient satisfaction in an acute medicine department in Morocco by using the EQS-H questionnaire; and also to assess the influence of certain demographics, socioeconomics, and health characteristics in patient satisfaction.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20525170 PMCID: PMC2900260 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-10-149
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.655
Univariate analysis of predictors of satisfaction related to demographics, socioeconomics, and health characteristics.
| Characteristics | N | % | MI | RS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| <25 | 35 | 16.4 | 19.6 ± 7.2 | 21 ± 7.4 |
| 25-39 | 58 | 27.1 | 19.7 ± 5.8 | 21.8 ± 6.1 |
| 40-59 | 55 | 25.7 | 19.8 ± 6.2 | 24 ± 7.1 |
| ≥60 | 66 | 30.8 | 20.1 ± 6.1 | 22.6 ± 7 |
| | 0.98 | 0.98 | ||
| Male | 99 | 46.3 | 20.4 ± 6.3 | 22.3 ±7.4 |
| Women | 115 | 53.7 | 19.4 ± 6.1 | 21.6 ± 6.8 |
| | 0.923 | 0.032 | ||
| Unmarried | 66 | 30.8 | 19.8 ± 6.6 | 22.3 ± 7.4 |
| Married | 148 | 69.2 | 19.8 ± 6 | 22.6 ± 6.7 |
| | 0.923 | 0.6 | ||
| Urban | 134 | 62.6 | 20.9 ± 6.5 | 23.5 ± 7.2 |
| Rural | 80 | 37.4 | 18 ± 5.1 | 20.9 ± 6 |
| | 0.001 | 0.008 | ||
| ≤50 km | 149 | 69.6 | 19.9 ± 6.1 | 22.7 ± 6.8 |
| >50 km | 65 | 30.4 | 19.4 ± 6.4 | 22.2 ± 7.1 |
| | 0.329 | 0.230 | ||
| No education | 111 | 51.9 | 22 ± 6.4 | 18.8 ± 5.8 |
| Primary | 46 | 21.5 | 21 ± 7 | 25 ± 7.5 |
| Secondary and more | 57 | 26.6 | 20.7 ± 5.9 | 21.5 ± 6.9 |
| | 0.48 | 0.18 | ||
| None | 137 | 64 | 19.1 ± 5.6 | 21.2 ± 6.1 |
| Less than 180 euro | 50 | 23.4 | 19.9 ± 7.4 | 24.5 ± 7.8 |
| More than 180 euro | 27 | 12.6 | 23 ± 6 | 25.3 ± 7.4 |
| Yes | 43 | 20.1 | 21.3 ± 6.4 | 23.6 ± 7.3 |
| No | 171 | 79.9 | 19.4 ± 6.1 | 22.2 ± 6.7 |
| | 0.08 | 0.22 | ||
| None | 112 | 52.3 | 19.8 ± 6.3 | 22.7 ± 6.6 |
| Less than 2 | 73 | 34.1 | 18.9 ± 5.8 | 21.6 ± 7.4 |
| More than 2 | 29 | 13.6 | 21.8 ± 6.5 | 24 ± 6.7 |
| | 0.107 | 0.25 | ||
| Emergency | 149 | 69.6 | 19.9 ± 6.3 | 22.7 ± 6.8 |
| Scheduled | 65 | 30.4 | 19.4 ± 6 | 22.1 ± 7 |
| | 0.58 | 0.55 | ||
| Double | 60 | 72 | 21.6 ± 6 | 24.9 ± 6.2 |
| Common | 154 | 28 | 19.9 ± 6.3 | 22.1 ± 7 |
| | 0.09 | 0.001 | ||
| Less than 6 days | 65 | 30.4 | 18.7 ± 6 | 21.6 ± 7.2 |
| 7 to 9 | 45 | 21 | 20.3 ± 6.3 | 23.3 ± 5.8 |
| 10 to 14 | 53 | 24.8 | 21.4 ± 7 | 23.9 ± 7.6 |
| More than 14 | 51 | 23.8 | 19.4 ± 5 | 21 ± 5.8 |
| | 0.11 | 0.09 | ||
| Same | 15 | 7 | 15.8 ± 5.5 | 19.4 ± 4.4 |
| Much better | 107 | 50 | 21.9 ± 6.1 | 24.3 ± 7 |
| | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||
| Worse | 89 | 41.6 | 18 ± 5.4 | 21.4 ± 6.1 |
| Same | 100 | 46.7 | 20.6 ± 5.9 | 23 ± 6.9 |
| Better | 25 | 11.7 | 22.7 ± 8.2 | 24.6 ± 8.5 |
| | 0.001 | 0.075 | ||
| r | 0.172 | 0.274 | ||
| | 0.012 | <0.001 | ||
| 214 | 100% | |||
MI subscale: quality of medical information. RS subscale: relationships with staff and daily routine. N:Number. %: Percentage. r: Pearson correlation coefficient. a stratified by interquartile range. Student t test, or analysis of variance (ANOVA).
Results of factor analysis of EQS-H questionnaire
| Factor loading | ||
|---|---|---|
| My symptoms | 0.612 | |
| The purpose of the tests | 0.775 | |
| The results of the tests | 0.788 | |
| Purpose of the treatments | 0.687 | |
| The possible side-effects of these treatments | 0.712 | |
| Warning signs to look for | 0.776 | |
| When to resume activities after discharge | 0.728 | |
| Medical follow-up | 0.634 | |
| I could identify the doctor in charge of me | 0.641 | |
| There was enough privacy during medical care | 0.750 | |
| I received enough help in my daily routine | 0.597 | |
| Assistance for pain relief | 0.740 | |
| The promptness of nurses in coming when called | 0.847 | |
| The organization of the ward | 0.788 | |
| The atmosphere of the ward | 0.804 | |
| The readiness of nurses to spend time with me | 0.781 | |
| Percentage of explained variance | 31.36 | 28.45 |
| Mean score ± Standard deviation | 22.5 ± 6.9 | 19.8 ± 6.2 |
| Cronbach alpha | 0.906 | 0.889 |
EQS-H questionnaire and distribution of the replie
| Poor | moderate | good | Very good | excellent | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I received clear information about: | |||||
| My symptoms | 23 (10.7%) | 83 (38.8%) | 73 (34.1%) | 19 (8.9%) | 16 (7.5%) |
| The purpose of the tests | 20 (9.3%) | 73 (34.1%) | 79 (36.9%) | 24 (11.2%) | 18 (8.4%) |
| The results of the tests | 33 (15.4%) | 72 (33.6%) | 69 (32.2%) | 23 (10.7%) | 17 (7.9%) |
| Purpose of the treatments | 22 (10.3%) | 81 (37.9%) | 72 (33.6%) | 25 (11.7%) | 14 (6.5%) |
| The Possible side-effects of these treatments | 69 (32.2%) | 81 (37.9%) | 44 (20.6%) | 13 (6.1%) | 7 (3.3%) |
| Warning signs to look for | 46 (21.5%) | 88 (41.1%) | 63 (29.4%) | 13 (6.1%) | 4 (1.9%) |
| When to resume activities after discharge | 75 (35%) | 81 (37.9%) | 45 (21%) | 7 (3.3%) | 6 (2.8%) |
| Medical follow-up | 28 (13.1%) | 56 (26.2%) | 87 (40.7%) | 19 (8.9%) | 24 (11.2%) |
| I could identify the doctor in charge of me | 2 (0.9%) | 29 (13.6%) | 83 (38.8%) | 36 (16.8%) | 64 (29.9%) |
| There was enough privacy during medical care | 13 (6.1%) | 62 (29%) | 68 (31.8%) | 34 (15.9%) | 37 (17.3%) |
| I received enough help in my daily routine | 37 (17.3%) | 80 (37.4%) | 61 (28.5%) | 18 (8.4%) | 18 (8.4%) |
| Assistance for pain relief | 22 (10.3%) | 83 (38.8%) | 66 (30.8%) | 25 (11.7%) | 18 (8.4%) |
| The promptness of nurses in coming when called | 42 (19.6%) | 72 (33.8%) | 61 (28.6%) | 19 (8.9%) | 19 (8.9%) |
| The organization of the ward | 14 (6.5%) | 73 (34.1%) | 86 (40.2%) | 15 (7%) | 26 (12.1%) |
| The atmosphere of the ward | 16 (7.5%) | 54 (25.2%) | 103(48.1) | 20 (9.3%) | 21 (9.8%) |
| The readiness of nurses to spend time with me | 60 (28%) | 70 (32.7%) | 54 (25.2%) | 14 (6.5%) | 16 (7.5%) |
EQS-H: Echelle de Qualité des Soins en Hospitalisation. N (%): number of patient (Percentage).
Multivariate analysis by relevant variables
| Patient satisfaction questionnaire domains | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Men | 0 | ------- | 0 | ------- |
| Women | -0.24 | 0.8 | -0.24 | 0.8 |
| Urban | 1.584 | 0.093 | ------- | ------- |
| Rural | 0 | ------- | ------- | ------- |
| ≤50 km | ------- | -------- | 0.532 | 0.563 |
| >50 km | ------- | ------- | 0 | ------- |
| No education | ------ | 0 | ------- | ------- |
| Primary | ------- | ------- | 1.529 | 0.26 |
| Secondary and more | ------- | ------- | -1.284 | 0.365 |
| None | 0 | ------- | 0 | ------- |
| Less than 180 euro | -0.4 | 0.699 | 1.587 | 0.167 |
| More than 180 euro | 1.407 | 0.240 | 1.407 | 0.381 |
| Yes | 0 | 0 | ------ | ------ |
| No | 0.416 | 0.684 | -0.437 | 0.713 |
| None | 0 | ------- | 0 | ------- |
| Less than 2 | -0.326 | 0.704 | 0.402 | 0.672 |
| More than 2 | 3.15 | 0.008 | 1.7 | 0.193 |
| Common | 0 | ------- | 0 | ------- |
| Double | 2.049 | 0.022 | 1.459 | 0.138 |
| Less than 6 days | 0 | ------- | 0 | ------- |
| 7 to 9 | 2.084 | 0.056 | 1.861 | 0.124 |
| 10 to 14 | 3.191 | 0.002 | 2.715 | 0.017 |
| More than 14 | 1.601 | 0.117 | -0.088 | 0.938 |
| Same | 0 | ------- | 0 | ------- |
| Little better | 0.803 | 0.63 | 1.822 | 0.326 |
| Much better | 3.704 | 0.036 | 4.95 | 0.013 |
| Better | 2.528 | 0.058 | 0.735 | 0.619 |
| Worse | 0 | ------- | 0 | ------- |
| Same | 1.04 | 0.26 | 0.314 | 0.764 |
| 0.208 | 0.42 | 0.782 | 0.006 | |
MI subscale: quality of medical information. RS subscale: relationships with staff and daily routine. β Coef.: Beta coefficient from the lineal general model, after adjustment by all relevant variables. Positive values indicate more satisfaction on that domain for that category; negative values indicate less satisfaction compared with the reference category. a stratified by interquartile range. 0 indicated reference category