Pinar Topsever, Turkey

Ayşen EKER Burak Erdi ÇELİK Fırat CİNDEMİR Tuğçe HAYRET Oğuzhan ALTUN Pınar TOPSEVER

The concepts of quality and patient satisfaction Family Health Unit Groups

Infrastructure/ FHU Group

A

B

C

D

Wihtout ranking

Presence of waiting room

+

+

+

+

-

Presence of hand wash basin in examination room

+

+

+

+

-

Nursing room

+

+

+

+

-

Ramp for wheelchair

+

+

+

+

-

Vaccination room

+

+

+

-

-

Electronic queue follow up system

+

+

-

-

-

Intrauterine device certificate

+

+

-

-

-

A seperate intervention room for each three doctor

+

-

-

-

-

+

-

-

-

-

Website

In this study, the primary objective was to determine patient satisfaction in primary healthcare services by family health unit group.

Study design: Descriptive, cross- sectional Time: 07.12.2013- 21.04.2013 Data collection: 19.02.2013 and 26.02.2013

Data processing: April 2013

The study universe: The population of all the family health centers in Maltepe

Sample size :The family health units were selected randomly based from a list of all family health units by grouping. There was no a priori- sample size calculation

All consenting men and women between the ages of 1865 applying to the selected family health units between 19.02.1013 and 26.02.2013 were enrolled in a fort following patient.

Data Collected Tools: # EUROPEP survey # socio- demographical survey

Acıbadem University Student Research Congress

8

Acıbadem University Student Research Congress

9

Acıbadem University Student Research Congress

10

The inclusion criteria: Between the ages of 18-65 people

The excluding criteria:

Younger than 18 years or older than 65 years people People with cognitive and mental disabilities

Dependent variables:





Scores of EUROPEP satisfaction survey

Independent variables:



      

Group of family health unit Gender Age Marital Status Education Level Income Level The reason for admission

•Applications

do not bear any risk to participants and they do not require any cost.

Acıbadem University Student Research Congress

13

Mean EUROPEP scores of the participants depending on variables Variable

Mean

Gender

Female=4,0±0.7, Male=4,0±0.7

Marital Status

Married=4,1±0.7, Single=3,9±0,8

Education Level

moderate-to-high educated=3,9±0.8, loweducated=4,1±0.7

Income Level

Low=4,0±0.8, Moderate=4,0±0.8, High=4,0±0.8

Reason for Admission

Non-clinical Care=3,9±0.7, Clinical Care=4,1±0.7

Acıbadem University Student Research Congress

14

FIGURE 1: The distribution of the participants according to FHU group (N=406)

Acıbadem University Student Research Congress

15

FIGURE 3: Mean EUROPEP scores of the participants according to marital status

Mean Value of EUROPEP score

Mean Value of EUROPEP score

FIGURE 2: Mean EUROPEP scores of the participants according to gender

There was no significant correlation between gender and EUROPEP scores (p=0,380).

There was no significant correlation between marital status and EUROPEP scores (p=0,058).

Acıbadem University Student Research Congress

16

FIGURE 5: Mean EUROPEP scores of the participants according to income level

Mean Value of EUROPEP score

Mean Value of EUROPEP score

FIGURE 4: Mean EUROPEP scores of the participants according to education level

There was no significant correlation between education level and EUROPEP scores (p=0,109).

There was no significant correlation between income level and EUROPEP scores (p=0,625).

Acıbadem University Student Research Congress

17

FIRURE 6: Mean EUROPEP score of the participants according to participants’ age

There was no significant correlation between participants’ age and EUROPEP scores (p=0,260).

Acıbadem University Student Research Congress

18

Mean Value of EUROPEP score

FIGURE 7: Mean EUROPEP scores of the participants according to reason for admission

There was significant correlation between reason for admission and EUROPEP scores (p=0,048). *Prescription re-fills, referrals, health reports etc. **Physical examination+diagnostics, vaccinations, well child visits etc.

19

Multi ple Comp ariso ns Dependent Variable: europeptotal LSD

(I) Grup A

B

C

D

Sinif siz

(J) Grup B C D Sinif siz A C D Sinif siz A B D Sinif siz A B C Sinif siz A B C D

Mean Dif f erence (I-J) ,15248 ,20905 ,04078 ,57829* -,15248 ,05656 -,11171 ,42581* -,20905 -,05656 -,16827 ,36924* -,04078 ,11171 ,16827 ,53751* -,57829* -,42581* -,36924* -,53751*

Std. Error ,12477 ,11060 ,12677 ,12340 ,12477 ,11520 ,13080 ,12753 ,11060 ,11520 ,11736 ,11371 ,12677 ,13080 ,11736 ,12949 ,12340 ,12753 ,11371 ,12949

Sig. ,222 ,059 ,748 ,000 ,222 ,624 ,394 ,001 ,059 ,624 ,152 ,001 ,748 ,394 ,152 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,001 ,000

95% Conf idence Interv al Lower Bound Upper Bound -,0928 ,3978 -,0084 ,4265 -,2084 ,2900 ,3357 ,8209 -,3978 ,0928 -,1699 ,2830 -,3688 ,1454 ,1751 ,6765 -,4265 ,0084 -,2830 ,1699 -,3990 ,0624 ,1457 ,5928 -,2900 ,2084 -,1454 ,3688 -,0624 ,3990 ,2829 ,7921 -,8209 -,3357 -,6765 -,1751 -,5928 -,1457 -,7921 -,2829

* . The mean dif f erence is signif icant at the .05 lev el.

Acıbadem University Student Research Congress

20

Multi ple Comp ariso ns Dependent Variable: europeptotal LSD

(I) Grup A

B

C

D

Sinif siz

(J) Grup B C D Sinif siz A C D Sinif siz A B D Sinif siz A B C Sinif siz A B C D

Mean Dif f erence (I-J) ,15248 ,20905 ,04078 ,57829* -,15248 ,05656 -,11171 ,42581* -,20905 -,05656 -,16827 ,36924* -,04078 ,11171 ,16827 ,53751* -,57829* -,42581* -,36924* -,53751*

Std. Error ,12477 ,11060 ,12677 ,12340 ,12477 ,11520 ,13080 ,12753 ,11060 ,11520 ,11736 ,11371 ,12677 ,13080 ,11736 ,12949 ,12340 ,12753 ,11371 ,12949

Sig. ,222 ,059 ,748 ,000 ,222 ,624 ,394 ,001 ,059 ,624 ,152 ,001 ,748 ,394 ,152 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,001 ,000

95% Conf idence Interv al Lower Bound Upper Bound -,0928 ,3978 -,0084 ,4265 -,2084 ,2900 ,3357 ,8209 -,3978 ,0928 -,1699 ,2830 -,3688 ,1454 ,1751 ,6765 -,4265 ,0084 -,2830 ,1699 -,3990 ,0624 ,1457 ,5928 -,2900 ,2084 -,1454 ,3688 -,0624 ,3990 ,2829 ,7921 -,8209 -,3357 -,6765 -,1751 -,5928 -,1457 -,7921 -,2829

* . The mean dif f erence is signif icant at the .05 lev el.

Acıbadem University Student Research Congress

21

Mean Value of EUROPEP score The satisfaction scores of Group A FHU (4.2±0.7), group B FHU (4.1±0.8), group C FHU (4.0±0.8) group D FHU (4.2±0.6) were all significantly higher as compared to the score of the FHU “without ranking” (3.6±0.8, p=0.001). Acıbadem University Student Research Congress

22

•

In the studied sample, the average patient satisfaction score was high, and seemed related to infrastructure of the FHU (higher satisfaction in better equipped FHUs). Patients receiving clinical care seemed to be more satisfied as compared to people attending the FHU for administrative purposes like prescription refills, referrals or health reports.

Acıbadem University Student Research Congress

23

•

Other studies conducted with EUROPEP survey; •

Kosovar • Young participants were more satisfied. • There was no significant correlation between age, education

level and satisfaction. •

Rio de Janeiro: • Old participants and highly educated participants were more

satisfied.

Acıbadem University Student Research Congress

24

Acıbadem University Student Research Congress

25