Ayşen EKERBurak Erdi ÇELİKFırat CİNDEMİRTuğçe HAYRET

Oğuzhan ALTUNPınar 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 18-65 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

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, low-educated=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

Mean EUROPEP scores of the participants depending on variables

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 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).

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

Acıbadem University Student Research Congress 16

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

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

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

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

Acıbadem University Student Research Congress 17

Acıbadem University Student Research Congress

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).

18

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.

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

19

Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable: europeptotal

LSD

,15248 ,12477 ,222 -,0928 ,3978

,20905 ,11060 ,059 -,0084 ,4265

,04078 ,12677 ,748 -,2084 ,2900

,57829* ,12340 ,000 ,3357 ,8209

-,15248 ,12477 ,222 -,3978 ,0928

,05656 ,11520 ,624 -,1699 ,2830

-,11171 ,13080 ,394 -,3688 ,1454

,42581* ,12753 ,001 ,1751 ,6765

-,20905 ,11060 ,059 -,4265 ,0084

-,05656 ,11520 ,624 -,2830 ,1699

-,16827 ,11736 ,152 -,3990 ,0624

,36924* ,11371 ,001 ,1457 ,5928

-,04078 ,12677 ,748 -,2900 ,2084

,11171 ,13080 ,394 -,1454 ,3688

,16827 ,11736 ,152 -,0624 ,3990

,53751* ,12949 ,000 ,2829 ,7921

-,57829* ,12340 ,000 -,8209 -,3357

-,42581* ,12753 ,001 -,6765 -,1751

-,36924* ,11371 ,001 -,5928 -,1457

-,53751* ,12949 ,000 -,7921 -,2829

(J ) GrupB

C

D

Sinifsiz

A

C

D

Sinifsiz

A

B

D

Sinifsiz

A

B

C

Sinifsiz

A

B

C

D

(I) GrupA

B

C

D

Sinifsiz

MeanDiff erence

(I-J ) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound

95% Confidence Interval

The mean diff erence is significant at the .05 level.*.

Acıbadem University Student Research Congress 20

Acıbadem University Student Research Congress

Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable: europeptotal

LSD

,15248 ,12477 ,222 -,0928 ,3978

,20905 ,11060 ,059 -,0084 ,4265

,04078 ,12677 ,748 -,2084 ,2900

,57829* ,12340 ,000 ,3357 ,8209

-,15248 ,12477 ,222 -,3978 ,0928

,05656 ,11520 ,624 -,1699 ,2830

-,11171 ,13080 ,394 -,3688 ,1454

,42581* ,12753 ,001 ,1751 ,6765

-,20905 ,11060 ,059 -,4265 ,0084

-,05656 ,11520 ,624 -,2830 ,1699

-,16827 ,11736 ,152 -,3990 ,0624

,36924* ,11371 ,001 ,1457 ,5928

-,04078 ,12677 ,748 -,2900 ,2084

,11171 ,13080 ,394 -,1454 ,3688

,16827 ,11736 ,152 -,0624 ,3990

,53751* ,12949 ,000 ,2829 ,7921

-,57829* ,12340 ,000 -,8209 -,3357

-,42581* ,12753 ,001 -,6765 -,1751

-,36924* ,11371 ,001 -,5928 -,1457

-,53751* ,12949 ,000 -,7921 -,2829

(J ) GrupB

C

D

Sinifsiz

A

C

D

Sinifsiz

A

B

D

Sinifsiz

A

B

C

Sinifsiz

A

B

C

D

(I) GrupA

B

C

D

Sinifsiz

MeanDiff erence

(I-J ) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound

95% Confidence Interval

The mean diff erence is significant at the .05 level.*.

21

Acıbadem University Student Research Congress

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).

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

Acıbadem University Student Research Congress

• 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.

24

Acıbadem University Student Research Congress 25