Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
-
Upload
kalamsoftware -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 1/53
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION FROM HOSPITAL
SERVICES: A STUDY OF MAJOR PRIVATE
HOSPITALS IN LUDHIANA
Research Project Report
S!"#tte$ to the P%ja! A&r#c'tra' U%#(ers#t)
#% part#a' *'*#''"e%t o* the re+#re"e%ts
*or the $e&ree o*
MASTER OF ,USINESS ADMINISTRATION
#%
MAR-ETIN. MANA.EMENT
/M#%or S!ject: Eco%o"#cs0
,)
Ma%$eep S#%&h .h"a%
/L123341,S1561M,A0
1
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 2/53
CHAPTER 5
INTRODUCTION
The modern age can be called as the “Age of Consumers”. In today’s cut-throat
competition the consumer is considered as the king. any policies of !arious
organi"ations are aimed at keeping the consumer happy and satisfied. It is !ery
important for each and e!ery organi"ation to keep its consumers satisfied in order
to maintain its competiti!eness in the market. #ot only does this help the
organi"ation to maintain the si"e of its share in the market$ it might e!en help it to
increase the si"e of its share. It might also be instrumental in increasing the o!erall
market si"e. This helps in increasing the o!erall profitability of the organi"ation. It
also helps the long-term sur!i!al prospects of the organi"ation. Consumers %hen
!ie%ed on the macro le!el e&hibit similar traits. 'o%e!er %hen %e take a closer
look and come do%n to the micro le!el$ %e find that the consumers !ary as
compared to one another on one aspect or the other based on a !ariety of attributes
()otler$ *++,.
In the present business scenario of cutthroat competition$ customer
satisfaction has become the prime concern of each and e!ery kind of industry.
Companies are increasingly becoming customer focused. Companies can %in
customers and surge ahead of competitors by meeting and satisfying the needs of
the customers. orld o!er businesses ha!e reali"ed that marketing is not the only
factor in attracting and retaining customers. /ther ma0or factors responsible for the
*
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 3/53
same are satisfaction through ser!ice uality and !alue. 2!en the best marketing
companies in the %orld fail to sell products and ser!ices that fail to satisfy the
customers’ needs. 3o customer satisfaction is the key%ord in today’s fiercely
competiti!e business en!ironment.
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
hether the buyer is satisfied after purchase depends on the product’s
performance in relation to the buyer’s e&pectations. In general$ satisfaction is a
person’s feelings of pleasure or disappointment resulting from comparing a
product’s percei!ed performance in relation to his or her e&pectations. If the
performance falls short of e&pectations$ the customer is dissatisfied. If the
performance matches the e&pectations$ the customer is satisfied. If the
performance e&ceeds e&pectations$ the customer is highly satisfied or delighted.
The link bet%een customer satisfaction and customer loyalty is not
proportional. 3uppose customer satisfaction is rated on a scale from one to fi!e. At
a !ery lo% le!el of customer satisfaction (le!el one$ customers are likely to
abandon the company and e!en bad mouth it. At le!els t%o to four customers are
fairly satisfied but still find it easy to s%itch %hen a better offer comes along. At
le!el fi!e$ the customer is !ery likely to repurchase and e!en spread good %ord
out of mouth about the company. 'igh satisfaction creates an emotional bond %ith
the brand or company$ not 0ust a rational preference.
,
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 4/53
CUSTOMER E7PECTATIONS 'o% do buyers form their e&pectations4 5rom
past buying e&periences$ friends’ and associates’ ad!ice$ and marketers’ and
competitors’ information and promises. If marketers raise e&pectations too high$
the buyer is likely to be disappointed. 'o%e!er$ if the company sets e&pectations
too lo%$ it %on’t attract enough customers. 3ome of today’s most successful
companies are raising e&pectations and deli!ering performances to match. These
companies are aiming for TC3- total customer satisfaction.
A customers’ decision to be loyal or to defect is the sum of many small encounters
%ith the company. The key to generating high customer loyalty is to deli!er high
customer !alue. 3o a company must design a competiti!ely superior !alue
proposition aimed at a specific market segment$ backed by a superior !alue-
deli!ery system.
The (a'e propos#t#o% consists of the %hole cluster of benefits the company
promises to deli!er6 it is more than the core positioning of the offering. hether
the promise is kept depends on the company’s ability to manage its !alue deli!ery
system. The (a'e $e'#(er) s)ste" includes all the e&periences the customer %ill
ha!e on the %ay to obtaining and using the offering.
Customer satisfaction is a feeling of pleasure or disappointment on
the offers percei!ed performance in relation to buyers’ e&pectations. 2&pectation
is defined as %hat the customer %ants7reuires from the product7ser!ice and
percei!ed performance is the perception of the customer about the product7ser!ice
i.e. e!aluation of the product7ser!ice after using it. 3o perception is %hat the
8
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 5/53
customer actually recei!es7gets from the product7ser!ice. The e!aluation is done
by comparing the e&pectations %ith the percei!ed performance of the
product7ser!ice. Therefore customer satisfaction is a function of percei!ed
performance and customer e&pectations. Customers %ho are 0ust satisfied find it
easy to s%itch o!er %hen a better offer comes than those %ho are highly satisfied.
5or customer focused companies satisfaction is both a goal as %ell as a marketing
tool. hat a consumer thinks about the product or ser!ices offered by a firm can
ha!e a marked effect on the purchase of its products or ser!ices. 3o one of the
tasks before the management is to kno% %hat the consumer e&pect and %hat they
are getting in return.
3atisfaction is a 0udgment that a product or ser!ice feature$ or the product
or ser!ice itself$ pro!ided (or is pro!iding a pleasurable le!el of consumption-
related fulfillment$ including le!els of under- or o!er fulfillment. The
e&pectations-disconfirmation paradigm pro!ides the most popular e&planation of
consumer satisfaction. 'o%e!er$ and as is occasionally noted$ if a customer
e&periences disconfirmation after consuming a product$ future e&pectations
regarding the product should be re!ised to%ard the performance percei!ed by the
customer. If e&pectations do not change in the face of disconfirmation$ the
implication %ould be that the customer did not learn from their consumption
e&perience (/li!er$ 199:.
;
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 6/53
MEASURIN. SATISFACTION
Although the customer oriented companies seek to create high customer
satisfaction that is not is main goal. If the company increases customer satisfaction
by lo%ering its price or increasing its ser!ices$ the result may be lo%er profits. The
company might be able to increase its profitability by means other than increased
satisfaction. Also$ company has many stakeholders$ including employees$ dealers$
suppliers$ and stockholders. 3pending more to increase customer satisfaction
might $#(erts *%$s *ro" #%creas#%& the sat#s*act#o% o* other part%ers.
<ltimately$ the company must operate on the philosophy that it is trying to deli!er
a high le!el of customer satisfaction sub0ect to $e'#(er#%& accepta!'e 'e(e's o*
sat#s*act#o% to the other sta8eho'$ers9 &#(e% #ts tota' resorces.
Table describes four methods companies use to track and measuring customer
satisfaction=
Co"p'a#%t a%$ s&&est#o%
s)ste"
A customer-centered organi"ation makes it
easy for customers to register suggestion
and complaints.
Csto"er Sat#s*act#o%
Sr(e)s
>esponsi!e companies measure customer
satisfaction directly by conducting periodic
sur!eys. hile collecting customer
satisfaction data$ it is also useful to ask
additional uestions to measures repurchase
intention and to measure the likelihood or
?
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 7/53
%illingness to recommend the brand to
others.
.host Shopp#%& Companies can hire people to pose as
potential buyers to report on strong and
%eak points e&perienced in buying
company’s and competitors’ products.
Lost Csto"er A%a')s#s Companies should contact customers %ho
ha!e stopped buying or %ho ha!e s%itched
to another supplier to learn %hy this
happened.
The measurement of customer satisfaction has become !ery important for
the health care sector also. The concept of customer satisfaction has encouraged
the adoption of a marketing culture in the health care sector in both de!eloped and
de!eloping countries. As large numbers of hospitals are opening up and the people
are becoming more a%are and conscious of health$ great competition has emerged
in this industry. 3o to retain their patients hospitals ha!e to pro!ide better
facilities7ser!ices to its customers. @arious factors that can affect the patients’
satisfaction include beha!iour of doctors$ a!ailability of specialised doctors$
beha!iour of medical assistants$ uality of administration$ uality of atmosphere$
a!ailability of modern facilities etc.
As gre% the competition$ so gre% the trend of pro!iding better facilities to
the customers by the hospitals. In last fe% years$ a plethora of hospitals ha!e
:
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 8/53
mushroomed in and around the city. These hospitals are ad!ertising hea!ily about
the speciali"ed treatments pro!ided by tthese hospitals. There are !arious hospitals
that pro!ide speciali"ed treatments for !arious diseases. ecause of neck to neck
competition bet%een hospitals customers run to these hospitals for speciali"ed
treatments. Interestiongly all hospitals claim to ha!e a high success rate. They
claim to pro!ide the best treatment and other essential facilities at reasonable cost
and in easy %ay to their customers. ut ho% much of this is true and ho% many of
their claims are myth are not kno%n to !ast ma0ority of customers.
As competition is increasing$ the hospitals are making their best efforts to
pro!ide uality health care ser!ices to its customers. They ha!e begun practicing a
patient satisfaction strategy comprising consumer-oriented plans$ policies and
practices to genuinely meet the needs of customers. Also$ %ith increased
a%areness and high e&pectations of the customers’ hospitals ha!e to pro!ide them
better facilities. Batients ha!e begun to demand high uality of ser!ices i.e. a
consumer oriented approach.
These days patients ha!e become more a%are about their rights so they
%ant they should be better facilities like responding to their ueries promptly$
friendly en!ironment$ understanding their problems$ a!ailability of speciali"ed
doctors$ maintaining cleanliness$ regular repots etc. i.e. pro!iding them e!ery type
of essential facilities. 3o$ if the hospitals %ant that their customers must be
satisfied$ they ha!e to pro!ide not only better treatment but other facilities also.
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 9/53
The current study is focused on e&amining the !arious factors related to patient
satisfaction %ith the follo%ing specific ob0ecti!es=
1. To study the customer e&pectations from hospital ser!ices.
*. To study the customer perception of hospital ser!ices.
,. To study the degree of satisfaction of customers from hospital ser!ices.
9
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 10/53
CHAPTER II
REVIE OF LITERATURE
any studies ha!e been conducted on the customer satisfaction. An attempt
has been made to present in brief$ a re!ie% of literature on customer satisfaction in
general as %ell as on the customer satisfaction from hospital ser!ices.
Briscilla et al (19, proposed a cogniti!e model to assess the
dynamic aspect of consumer satisfaction7 dissatisfaction in consecuti!e purchase
beha!ior. They found that satisfaction ha!e a significant role in mediating
intentions and actual beha!ior for fi!e product classes that %ere analy"ed in the
conte&t of a three- stage longitudinal field study. They found that repurchases of a
gi!en brand is affected by lagged intention %hereas s%itching beha!ior is more
sensiti!e to dissatisfaction %ith brand consumption.
Da!id and ilton(19 ha!e e&tended consumer satisfaction
literature by theoretically and empirically e&amining the effect of percei!ed
performance using a model first proposed by Churchill and 3urprenant$
in!estigating ho% attracti!e conceptuali"ations of comparison standards and
disconfirmation capture the satisfaction formation process and e&ploring possible
multiple comparison processes in satisfaction formation. They suggest that
percei!ed performance e&erts direct significant influence on satisfaction in
addition to those influences from e&pected performance and sub0ecti!e
disconfirmation.
1+
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 11/53
3aha (19 made an attempt to in!estigate the interrelationships bet%een
0ob-satisfaction$ life satisfaction$ life satisfaction-o!er-time and health. The
relationship among these four !ariables and biographical !ariables %ere also
e&amined. The study %as conducted o!er the nurses in #igeria. The data %as
collected from the full time employees only because statements about 0ob
satisfaction and other !ariables are different %hen supplied by retirees$ part-time
nurses.
olton and Dre% (1991 proposed a model of ho% customers %ith prior
e&periences and e&pectations assessed ser!ice le!els$ o!erall ser!ice uality and
ser!ice !alue. They applied the model to residential customers of local telephone
ser!ices. Their study e&plored ho% customers integrate their perceptions of a
ser!ice to form an o!erall e!aluation of that ser!ice. They de!eloped a multistage
model of determinants of percei!ed ser!ice uality and ser!ice !alue. The model
described ho% customers e&pectations$ perceptions of current performance and
disconfirmation e&periences affected their satisfaction or dissatisfaction %ith a
ser!ice$ %hich in turn affected their assessment of ser!ice uality and !alue.
oulding et al (199, stated that the ser!ice uality relates to the retention
of customers at aggregate le!el. The author has offered a conceptual model of the
impact of ser!ice uality on particular beha!ior that signal %hether customers
remain %ith of defect from a company. The results of the study sho% strong
11
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 12/53
e!idence of their being influenced by ser!ice uality. The findings also re!eal
difference in the nature of the ser!ice uality.
Aurora and alhotra (199: had done a comparati!e analysis of the
satisfaction le!el of customer of public and pri!ate sector banks$ in order to help
the bank management to formulate marketing strategies to lure customers to%ards
them and hence increase customer base.
Ere%al et al had e&panded and integrated prior price percei!ed !alue
models %ithin the conte&t of price comparison ad!ertising. ore specifically$ the
conceptual model e&plicates the effects of ad!ertised selling and reference prices
on buyers’ internet reference prices$ perceptions of uality$ acuisition !alue$
transaction !alue$ and purchase and search intentions. T%o e&perimental studies
test the conceptual model. The results across these t%o studies$ both indi!idually
and combined$ support the hypothesis that buyers’ internal reference prices are
influenced by both ad!ertised selling and reference price as %ell as buyers’
perception of product uality. The authors also find that effect of ad!ertised selling
price on buyers’ acuisition !alue %as mediated by their perceptions of transaction
!alue. In addition$ effects of percei!ed transaction !alue on buyers$ beha!ioral
intentions %ere mediated by their acuisition !alue perceptions.
@oss (199 had e&amined the rule of price$ performance and e&pectations
to determine satisfaction in ser!ice e&change. hen price and performance are
consistent$ e&pectations ha!e an assimilation effect on performance and
1*
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 13/53
satisfaction 0udgments6 %hen price and performance are inconsistent$ e&pectations
ha!e no effect on performance and satisfaction 0udgments. To e&amine these
issues authors de!elop a contingency model that they estimate using data from a
multimedia e&perimental design. The results generally support contingency
frame%ork and pro!ide empirical support for normati!e guidelines that call for
creating realistic performance e&pectations and offering money-back ser!ice
guarantees.
Earbarino and Fohnson (1999 analy"e that the relationships of satisfaction$
trust and commitment to component satisfaction attitudes and future intentions for
the customers of a #e% Gork off-road%ay repertory theater company. 5or the
relational customers ( indi!idual ticket buyers and occasional subscribers$ o!erall
satisfaction is the primary mediating construct bet%een the component attitudes
and future intentions and for the high relational customers (consistent subscribers$
trust and commitment$ rather than satisfaction$ are the mediators bet%een
component attitudes and future intentions.
3harma and Chahal (1999 had done a study of patient satisfaction in
outdoor ser!ices of pri!ate health care facilities. They had done a sur!ey to
understand the e&tent of patient satisfaction %ith diagnostic ser!ices. They ha!e
constructed a special instrument for measuring patient satisfaction. The instrument
captures the beha!iour of doctors and medical assistants$ uality of administration$
and atmospherics. The role of graphic characters like gender$ occupation$
1,
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 14/53
education$ and income is also considered. ased on their findings$ they also
suggested strategic actions for meeting the needs of the patients of pri!ate health
care sector more effecti!ely. In their study pro!ided suggestions like becoming
more friendly and understanding to the problems of patients$ maintaining
cleanliness in the units$ both internally and e&ternally$ pro!iding regular report
regarding the patients’ progress %ithout %aiting for them to demand$ conducting
sur!eys to kno% about the attitude of the patients %ith regard to the employees and
adopting patient-oriented policies and procedures.
3imester et al (*+++ ha!e studied that multinational firm uses
sophisticated$ state-of-the-art methods to design and implement customer
satisfaction impro!ement programs in the <nited 3tates and 3pain. Their
e&periments re!eals a comple& and surprising picture that highlights
implementation issues$ a construct of residual satisfaction not captured by
customer needs and the managerial need for combining noneui!alent controls and
noneui!alent dependent !ariables.
/fir and 3imonson (*++1 in their study found that customer e!aluations of
uality and satisfaction are critical inputs in de!elopment of marketing strategies.
Ei!en the increasingly common practice of asking such e!aluations$ buyers of
products and ser!ices often kno% in ad!ance that they subseuently %ill be asked
to pro!ide their e!aluations. In a series of field and laboratory studies$ the authors
demonstrate that e&pecting to e!aluate leads to less fa!orable uality and
18
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 15/53
satisfaction e!aluations and reduces customer’s %illingness to purchase and
recommend the e!aluated ser!ices. The negati!e bias of e&pected e!aluations is
obser!ed %hen actual uality is either lo% or high$ and it persist e!en %hen buyers
are told e&plicitly to consider both the positi!e and negati!e aspects.
Dholakia and or%it" (*++* ha!e e&amined the scope and persistence of
the effect of measuring satisfaction on consumer beha!ior o!er time. In an
e&periment conducted in a financial ser!ices setting$ they found that measuring
satisfaction changes one-time purchase beha!ior$ changes relational customer
beha!iors and results in effects that increase for months after%ard and persist e!en
a year later. Their results raised uestions concerning the design$ interpretation
and ethics in the conduct of applied marketing research studies.
3harma and Chahal (*++, stated that due to increased a%areness among
the people patient satisfaction had become !ery important for the hospitals. The
authors e&amined the factors related to patient satisfaction in go!ernment
outpatient ser!ices in India. They said that there are four basic components %hich
had impact on the patient satisfaction namely$ beha!iour of doctors$ beha!iour of
medical assistants$ uality of atmosphere$ and uality of administration. They also
pro!ided strategic actions necessary for meeting the needs of the patients of the
go!ernment health care sector in de!eloping countries.
5olkes and Batrick (*++, in their study sho%ed con!erging e!idence of a
posti!ity effect in customers’ perceptions about ser!ice pro!iders. hen the
1;
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 16/53
customer has little e&perience %ith the ser!ice$ positi!e information about a single
employee leads to perception that the firm’s other ser!ice pro!iders are positi!e to
a greater e&tent than negati!e information leads to perception that the firm’s other
ser!ice pro!iders are similarly negati!e. 5our studies %ere conducted that !aried
in the amount of information about the ser!ice pro!ider$ the firm$ and the ser!ice.
The positi!ity effect %as supported despite differences across studies in methods
as %ell as measures.
@ernoer (*++, had in!estigated the different effects of customer
relationship perceptions and relationship marketing instruments on customer
retention and customer share de!elopment o!er time. Customer relationship
perceptions are considered e!aluations of relationship strength and a supplier’s
offerings$ and customer share de!elopment is the change in customer share
bet%een t%o periods. The results sho% that affecti!e commitment and loyalty
programs that pro!ide economic incenti!es positi!ely affect both customer
retention and customer share de!elopment$ %hereas direct mailings influence
customer share de!elopment. 'o%e!er$ the effect of these !ariables is rather
small. The results also indicate that firms can use the same strategies to affect
customer satisfaction that can ha!e impact on both customer retention and
customer share de!elopment.
Anderson et al (*++8 de!eloped a theoretical frame%ork that specifies ho%
customer satisfaction affects future customer beha!iour and$ in turn$ the le!el$
1?
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 17/53
timing$ and risk of future cash flo%s. 2mpirically$ they find a positi!e association
bet%een customer satisfaction and shareholder !alue. They also find significant
!ariation across industries and firms.
>einart" et al (*++8 in their study of Customer >elationship anagement
Brocess had stated that it is !ery important for maintaining healthy relations %ith
the customers in order to pro!ide them satisfaction. In their study$ they (1
conceptuali"e a construct of the C> process and its dimensions$ (*
operationali"e and !alidate the construct$ and (, empirically in!estigate the
organi"ational performance conseuences of implementing the C> processes.
Their research uestions are addressed in t%o cross-sectional studies across four
different industries and three countries. The key outcome is a theoretically sound
C> process measure that outlines three key stages= initiation$ maintenance$ and
termination.
'omburg et al (*++; conducted t%o e&perimental studies (a lab
e&periment and a study in!ol!ing a real usage e&perience o!er time %hich re!eal
the e&istence of a strong$ positi!e impact of customer satisfaction on %illingness
to pay and they pro!ide support for a nonlinear$ functional structure based on
disappointment theory. In addition$ the second e&amines dynamic aspects of the
relationship and pro!ides e!idence for the stronger impact of cumulati!e
satisfaction rather than of transaction-specific satisfaction on %illingness to pay.
1:
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 18/53
ithas et al (*++; e!aluates the effect of customer relationship
management (C> on customer kno%ledge and customer satisfaction. They
analy"e archi!al data of a cross-section of <.3 firms %hich sho%s that the use of
C> applications is positi!ely associated %ith impro!ed customer kno%ledge and
impro!ed customer satisfaction. They also found that gains in customer
kno%ledge are enhanced %hen firms share their customer related information %ith
their supply chain partners.
Eustafsson et al (*++; in their study of telecommunications ser!ices
e&amine the effect of customer satisfaction$ affecti!e commitment$ and calculati!e
commitment on retention and the potential for situational conditions to moderate
the satisfaction-retention relationship. Their results support consistent effects of
customer satisfaction$ calculati!e commitment and prior-churn on retention.
Eruca and >ego (*++; strengthen the chain of effects that link customer
satisfaction to shareholder !alue by establishing the link bet%een satisfaction and
t%o characteristics of future cash flo%s that determine the !alue of the firm to
shareholders= gro%th and stability. y using the longitudinal American Customer
3atisfaction inde& and C/B<3TAT data and hierarchical ayesian estimation
they found that satisfaction creates shareholder !alue by increasing future cash
flo% gro%th and reducing its !ariability. They also test the stability of findings
across se!eral firm and industry characteristics and assess the robustness of the
results using multi-measure and multi-method estimation
1
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 19/53
Thompson (*++; in his study had sho%n that consumers often mis0udge
their health risks o%ing to a number of %ell-documented cogniti!e biases. These
studies assume that consumers ha!e trust in the e&pert systems that culturally
define safe and risky beha!iours. Conseuently$ this research stream does not
address choice situations %here consumers ha!e refle&i!e doubts to%ard
pre!ailing e&pert risk assessments and gra!itate to%ard alternati!e model of risk
reductions. This study e&plores ho% dissident health risk perceptions are culturally
constructed in the natural childbirth community$ internali"ed by consumers as a
compelling structure of feeling$ and enacted through choices that intentionally run
counter to orthodo& medical risk management norms.
19
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 20/53
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLO.Y
The present chapter describes the research methodology of the study. It includes
the >esearch 5rame%ork$ 3ample design and selection$ Collection of Data$
>esearch !ehicle and ethods for analysis of data. It also points out the
limitations of present study.
To study consumers’ e&pectations$ perception and their satisfaction
le!el it %as reuired to e&amine the follo%ing aspects
(i Batients’ e&pectations from the beha!iour of the doctors$
(ii Batients’ e&pectations from the beha!iour of the medical assistants$
(iii Batients’ e&pectations from the uality of administration of hospitals$
(i! Batients’ e&pectations from the ser!ices pro!ided by the hospitals$
(! Batients’ perceptions for the beha!iour of the doctors$
(!i Batients’ perceptions for the beha!iour of the medical assistants$
(!ii Batients’ perceptions for the uality of administration of hospitals$
(!iii Batients’ perceptions for the ser!ices pro!ided by the hospitals$
(i& Batients’ satisfaction le!el for the beha!iour of the doctors$
(& Batients’ satisfaction le!el for the beha!iour of the medical assistants$
(&i Batients’ satisfaction le!el for the uality of administration of hospitals and
(&ii Batients’ satisfaction le!el for the ser!ices pro!ided by the hospitals$
*+
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 21/53
;<5 RESEARCH FRAMEOR-
The present study is based on e&plorati!e and descripti!e research design
%ith the ob0ecti!e of measuring the satisfaction le!el of patients’ of fi!e ma0or
pri!ate hospitals in Hudhiana. The study uses both primary and secondary
information. As it is clear from the ob0ecti!es of the study$ the study %as di!ided
into three parts i.e. patients’ e&pectations$ perceptions from the hospital ser!ices
and then measuring their satisfaction le!el from the hospital ser!ices. 5or both the
first and second ob0ecti!e of study i.e. the customers’ e&pectations and their
perceptions of hospital ser!ices$ primary data %as collected through a structured
uestionnaire. Then to meet the third ob0ecti!e of the study proper statistical tools
%ere used on the information collected for the first t%o ob0ecti!es of the study.
;<2 SAMPLE DESI.N AND SELECTION
;<2<5 Pop'at#o% a%$ Sa"p'e:
In !ie% of the fact that this %as a one person sur!ey to be completed %ithin
limited resources the present study %as restricted to only those hospitals %hich
%ere located in Hudhiana. The population of this study comprised of the indoor
patients only. 5i!e ma0or pri!ate hospitals in Hudhiana %ere selected namely=
1. Dayanand edical College and 'ospital
*. Christian edical College and 'ospital
,. 3atguru Bartap 3ingh Apollo 'ospital
*1
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 22/53
8. ohan Dai /s%al Cancer 'ospital
;. Euru Teg ahadur Charitable 'ospital
;<2<; Se'ect#o% o* Respo%$e%ts
5rom these hospitals primary data %as collected from the respondents. The
respondents %ere either the patients themsel!es or their relati!es. 5or sample
selection$ a multistage sampling procedure %as follo%ed. At the first stage$ sample
units consisted of total number of general %ards and pri!ate %ards in the hospital.
1+ of the general %ards and 1+ pri!ate$ %ards %ere selected randomly. Then
from each selected general %ard , to ; patients %ere chosen and from each
selected pri!ate %ard one patient %as chosen. The information %as collected
through a pre-designed$ structured uestionnaire. A sample of + respondents
selected from these hospitals on the basis of their con!enience for the first
ob0ecti!e and the second ob0ecti!e. To suggest solutions to the problems obser!ed
during the sur!ey is done through secondary data.
Ta!'e ;<5 Sa"p'#%& P'a%
SELECTION OF ARDS
HOSPITAL /A0 TOTAL
.ENERAL
ARDS
SELECTED
.ENERAL
ARDS
/53= OF A0
/,0TOTAL
PRIVATE
ARDS
SELECTED
PRIVATE
ARDS
/53= OF A0
APOLLO ? 1 :1 :.RU TE. ,AHADUR ; 1 8? ;
DMC 1: * 9 1+
**
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 23/53
OSAL CANCER *? , ? :CMC 1? * :? 1
TOTAL >3 6 ;?6 4>
SELECTION OF RESPONDENTS
HOSPITAL RESPONDENT FROM
.ENERAL ARD
/; TO ? FROM EACH0
RESPONDENTS
FROM PRIVATE
ARD
/5 FROM EACH0
TOTAL
RESPONDENTS
APOLLO 1J;K; :J1K: 1*
.RU TE. ,AHADUR 1J;K; ;J1K; 1+DMC *J;K1+ 1+J1K1+ *+
OSAL CANCER *J; L 1J,K1, :J1K: *+CMC *J;K1+ J1K 1
TOTAL 4; ;> @3
In this %ay data %as collected from + respondents that comprise of the indoor
patients themsel!es or their attendants.
;<; DATA COLLECTION
efore an attempt %as made to collect the information from the sample$ the
desk research %as conducted to see the literature and other library material
a!ailable on the sub0ect. @arious studies %ere re!ie%ed to ha!e a through
kno%ledge before considering ho% to collect the information from the
respondents. After ha!ing the background kno%ledge a structured uestionnaire
*,
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 24/53
%as prepared to obtain ans%er pertinent to the ob0ecti!es of the study. 5or the
purpose of the study$ eighty indoor patients %ere selected and inter!ie%ed from
the fi!e pri!ate hospitals.
3econdary data %as also collected from !arious books$ 0ournals$ maga"ines
etc.
;<4 ANALYSIS OF DATA
The data 7 information contained in the uestionnaire %ere first transferred
to master table %hich facilitated tabulation of data in desired form. The collected
data %as then grouped into tables and analy"ed using !arious statistical tools like
mean scores. /ther statistical tool used includes T-test for measuring %hether
there is significant difference bet%een the mean scores of attributes i.e. bet%een
e&pectations and perceptions of a factor. >eaction of the respondents to%ards the
different factors gi!en %as studied using a structured$ non-disguised and %ell-
defined uestionnaire designed for the patients or their attendants. The
uestionnaire contained rating uestions. 2ach factor %as rated o!er a scale of 1 to
9 i.e. likert scale %as used. The respondents %ere asked to rate the factors
according to %hat they e&pect and %hat they had percei!ed from the hospital
ser!ices.
ean score %as calculated for the uestions asked on a 9-point scale. In case of 9-
point scale %here the respondents %ere asked to indicate their degree of
importance7unimportance for e&pectations and degree of bad7good for the
*8
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 25/53
perceptions$ scores %ere assigned from 1to 9. 5reuencies %ere multiplied %ith
their respecti!e %eights and aggregate !alues found out. ean score %as
calculated using the formula=
Mea% Score /B#*%0%
i K 1 to 9
n K +
here$ i K eight attached for degree of importance7unimportance and
good7bad.
fn K Associated freuency
n K #umber of respondents
T1test %as used to see %hether there is significant difference bet%een the means
of a factor for the t%o data samples at ; le!el of significance. T-test %as used
because the both the data samples %ere collected from the same selected
indi!iduals. 5irst the data %as collected from a patient for his e&pectations from
the !arious factors taken for the study and then from same patient data is collected
for his perceptions for the hospital ser!ices. 3imilarly$ the data %as collected from
the other patients. 3o$ the data in t%o samples %as dependent as data in one
sample %as collected from the same indi!idual as in other sample.
;<? LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
Any study based on consumer sur!ey through a pre-designed uestionnaire
suffers from the basic limitation of the possibility of difference bet%een %hat is recorded
and %hat is the truth$ no matter ho% carefully the uestionnaire has been designed and
field in!estigation has been conducted. This is because the consumers may not
deliberately report their true preferences and e!en if they %ant to do so$ there are bound
*;
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 26/53
to be differences o%ing to problems in filters of communication process. The error has
been tried to be minimi"ed by conducting inter!ie%s personally yet there is no full proof
%ay of ob!iating the possibility of error creeping in. 3o$ the study suffers from some
limitations also. As such generali"ing the results$ the follo%ing limitations of the study
should be taken into the account.
1. As the study %as to be completed in a short time$ the time factor acted as
a considerable limit on the scope and the e&tensi!eness of the study.
*. The information pro!ided by respondents may not be fully accurate due
to una!oidable biases.
,. The lack of corporation sho%n by the respondents$ because of this
optimum number of responds not collected$ so the sample %as to be
shortened.
*?
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 27/53
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
This chapter contains the analysis and discussion of the primary data
collected from the respondents. The study is conducted to see the satisfaction le!el
of the patients from the ser!ices pro!ided by the hospitals. This chapter is di!ided
into three parts=
/50 Epectat#o%s o* the pat#e%ts
In this part analysis of e&pectations of patients regarding the
beha!ior of doctors$ medical assistants$ uality of administration and
ser!ices pro!ided by the hospitals is done.
(* Percept#o% o* the pat#e%ts /i.e. %hat they had actually recei!ed
In this part analysis of perceptions of patients regarding the beha!ior
of doctors$ medical assistants$ uality of administration and ser!ices
pro!ided by the hospitals is done.
(, Sat#s*act#o% 'e(e' o* the pat#e%ts
In this part satisfaction le!el of the patients regarding the beha!ior of
doctors$ medical assistants$ uality of administration and ser!ices
pro!ided by the hospitals is found. To find the satisfaction le!el
difference bet%een the mean scores of attributes of e&pectations and
perceptions are calculated.
*:
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 28/53
8.1 2&pectations of the Batients
4<5<5 Epectat#o%s o* Pat#e%ts *ro" the ,eha(#or o* Doctors
To study the e&pectations of patients from the beha!iour of doctors$ patients %ere
asked to rate their e&pectations in the scale of 1 to 9 for the !arious attributes
gi!en belo% in the table 8.1.1 for this factor. The mean rating for each attribute is
gi!en in this table.
Table 8.1.1 2&pectations of patients from the beha!iour of doctors
Attr#!tes Epectat#o%s
/Mea% Va'e0A!ailability .9
)no%ledge .98
'andling of
Mueries
.;1
Cooperation .;,
Boliteness .:1
Impartial attitude .,9
2&amination Comfort .:9
Thorough Check-<p .9
2mpathy :.,1
Indi!idual Consideration ?.:+
2&perience .?8
A(era&e .8?
5orm the table8.1.1 it is clear that the mean scores for the attributes a!ailability of
doctors$ kno%ledge of doctors$ thorough check-up and e&amination comfort are
.9$ .9,$ .9 and .: %hich sho% that patients consider these attributes !ery
important. 3o$ their e&pectation le!el for these attributes is !ery high. ean scores
*
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 29/53
for the attributes politeness$ e&perience$ cooperation$ handling of ueries and
impartial attitude are .:1$ .?8$ .;8$ .;1 and .,9 respecti!ely also sho%s that
patients also consider these attributes !ery important. 3o$ a doctor must try to
fulfill these e&pectations in an efficient manner. 5or the attributes empathy and
indi!idual consideration mean scores are :.,1 and ?.:+ respecti!ely %hich are not
!ery high but patients still consider these attributes important. 3o$ it is clear that
attributes a!ailability and kno%ledge ha!e ma&imum mean score of .9 and
attribute indi!idual consideration has minimum mean score of ?.:+. The o!erall
mean score for e&pectations from the factor Neha!iour of Doctors’ comes out to
be .8? %hich is !ery high on the scale of 9. 3o$ it can be concluded here that the
e&pectations of patients from the doctors are !ery high
4<5<2 Epectat#o%s o* Pat#e%ts *ro" the ,eha(#or o* Me$#ca'
Ass#sta%ts
To study the e&pectations of patients from the beha!iour of medical assistants$
patients %ere asked to rate their e&pectations in the scale of 1 to 9 for the !arious
attributes gi!en in the table8.1.* for this factor. The mean rating for each attribute
is gi!en in this table.
Table 8.1.* 2&pectations of patients from the beha!iour of medical assistants
Attr#!tes Epectat#o%s
/Mea% Va'e0
*9
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 30/53
A!ailability 9
)no%ledge .;?
Cooperation .?;
Boliteness .:9
Impartial attitude .89aintenance of >ecord .:1
'andling of Mueries .88
2&perience :.8;
Dress ?.9
A(era&e @<;;
ean score for the attribute a!ailability of medical assistants is 9$ %hich means all the
patients had gi!en rating 9 to this attribute i.e. they consider this factor !ery important
and their le!el of e&pectations for this attributes are !ery high. Boliteness$ maintenance
of records and cooperation %ith patients are gi!en the mean scores as .:9$ .:1 and .?;
respecti!ely %hich means that patients also consider these factors !ery important.
Attribute e&perience has the mean score :.8;. 3o this sho%s that patients consider this
attribute important but not as much as the abo!e mentioned attributes and the mean score
for the attribute dress of medical assistants is lo%est among all the other attributes %hich
is ?.9. This e&plains that patients do not consider this attribute !ery important but they
had not rated this attribute lo%. 3o this is also an important attribute. The o!erall mean
score for the factor eha!iour of medical assistants is .,, and this is high.
4<5<; Epectat#o%s o* Pat#e%ts *ro" the a'#t) o*
A$"#%#strat#o%s
To study the e&pectations of patients from the Muality of Administration$ patients
%ere asked to rate their e&pectations in the scale of 1 to 9 for the !arious attributes
,+
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 31/53
gi!en belo% in the table 8.1., for this factor. The mean rating for each attribute is
gi!en in this table.
Table 8.1., 2&pectations of patients from the uality of the administration
Attr#!tes Epectat#o%s
/Mea% Va'e0Con!enient /ffice 'ours ?.;,
Check <p Brocedure .;
/!er Cro%ding .*?
elcome Gour Ideas :.,1
5ee :.1+
Erie!ances 'andling 3ystem .8;
illing Brocedure .:
Check /ut Brocedure .:
eha!iour of Clerical 3taff .9
eha!iour of 3ecurity 3taff .;
A(era&e @<5>
The o!erall mean score for all the attributes for this factor is .1:. 3o it is true to say that
patients consider the NMuality of Administration’ an important aspect of the hospitals and
their le!el of e&pectation from this factor is also high. 2&pectation le!el for the attribute
beha!iour of clerical staff is highest among all the other attributes %ith the mean score
.9. Check up procedure$ beha!iour of security staff$ check out procedure$ billing
procedure %as also considered !ery important by the patients. The mean scores for these
attributes are .;$ .;$ .: and .: respecti!ely. Batients said that these procedures
must be simple i.e. they are not !ery comple&. Erie!ances handling system i.e. ho% the
complaints of patients are handled %as also gi!en high rating of .8;. ean score for the
attributes %elcome your ideas$ %hich means that %hether the hospitals listen their ideas
,1
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 32/53
carefully or not and fee are :.,1 and :.1 respecti!ely. Con!enient office hours had been
rated lo%est among all the attributes %ith the mean score ?.;,. This means that patients
did not consider this attribute as important as other attributes.
4<5<4 Epectat#o%s o* Pat#e%ts *ro" the Ser(#ces Fac#'#t#es
pro(#$e$ !) the hosp#ta's
To study the e&pectations of patients from the ser!ices and facilities pro!ided by
the hospitals$ patients %ere asked to rate their e&pectations in the scale of 1 to 9 for
the !arious attributes gi!en in the table8.1.8 for this factor. The mean rating for
each attribute is gi!en in this table.
Table 8.1.8 2&pectations of patients from the ser!ices and facilities pro!ided by
the hospitals
Attr#!tes Epectat#o%s
/Mea% Va'e0Broper 3itting Arrangements .9
edding Arrangements 9
3taff Appearance ?.;;
#atural Hight .,?
Dust o&es 95lies O osuitoes 9
/uter O Inner Appearance :.88
Barking .:1
ell 2uipped <nits .,,
arking /n alls .+:
2ating Blaces .?9
,*
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 33/53
A(era&e .,:
The table8.1.8 sho%s that e&pectation le!el of patients for the attributes bedding
arrangements$ dust bo&es and flies and mosuitoes is highest among all the other
attributes as all the three attributes has a mean score of 9. 'ere it is also clear that
all the patients had rated these attributes %ith a score 9. ean score of .9 for the
proper sitting arrangements also sho%s that patients consider this attributes as
important as the abo!e mentioned three attributes. Batients also thought that
parking$ eating places$ natural light$ %ell euipped units and marking on %alls are
other important attributes. ean scores for these attributes are .:1$ .?$ .,?$
.,, and .+: respecti!ely. /uter and inner appearance of the hospital has a!erage
score of :.88 %hich is uiet lo%er than other attributes. Attribute staff appearance
has got the lo%est mean score of ?.;; among all the attributes.
4<2< Percept#o%s o* the Pat#e%ts *or (ar#os Factors
4<2<5 Percept#o%s o* Pat#e%ts *or the ,eha(#or o* Doctors
,,
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 34/53
To study the perceptions of patients from the beha!iour of doctors$ patients %ere
asked to rate their perceptions in the scale of 1 to 9 for the !arious attributes gi!en
belo% in the table 8.*.1 for this factor. The mean rating for each attribute is gi!en
in this table.
Table 8.*.1 2&pectations of patients from the beha!iour of doctors
Attr#!tes Percept#o%s
/Mea% Va'e0
A!ailability :.:)no%ledge :.11
'andling of
Mueries
?.?+
Cooperation ?.:;
Boliteness ?.?
Impartial attitude :.8?
2&amination Comfort :.:?
Thorough Check-<p :.
2mpathy ;.;Indi!idual Consideration ?.1+
2&perience ?.+
A(era&e ?.99
Table 8.*.1 sho%s that attribute thorough check-up has the ma&imum mean score
:.. It is uiet high score %hich means that patients’ perception about this feature
is good. Then this follo%ed by attributes a!ailability of doctors$ e&amination
comfort and impartial attitude of the doctors. The mean scores for these attributes
are :.:$ :.:? and :.8? respecti!ely. )no%ledge has the a!erage score :.11 %hich
sho%s that patients’ perception about this factor also tends to be uiet good. ean
scores for the politeness$ e&perience$ cooperation %ith the patients and handling of
,8
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 35/53
ueries are ?.?$ ?.+$ ?.:; and ?.?+ respecti!ely %hich means that perception of
the patients of the attributes are not so good. Indi!idual consideration and empathy
has moderate scores ?.1+ and ;.; respecti!ely among all the attributes. 3o it
means that perception of the patients’ regarding these attributes is neither good nor
bad. The o!erall mean score for all these attributes is ?.99 %hich means that
perception of the patients for the factor beha!iour of doctors is not !ery good but it
is mildly good.
4<2<2 Percept#o%s o* Pat#e%ts *or the ,eha(#or o* Me$#ca'
Ass#sta%ts
To study the perceptions of patients for the beha!iour of medical assistants$
patients %ere asked to rate their perceptions in the scale of 1 to 9 for the !arious
attributes gi!en in the table*.* for this factor. The mean rating for each attribute is
gi!en in this table.
Table 8.*.* Berceptions of patients from the beha!iour of medical assistants
Attr#!tes Percept#o%s
/Mea% Va'e0A!ailability :.9
)no%ledge ?.8?
Cooperation ?.:1
Boliteness ?.
Impartial attitude :.+8
aintenance of >ecord :.99
,;
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 36/53
'andling of Mueries ?.1+
2&perience ?.,;
Dress 9.++
A(era&e ><5
It is clear from the abo!e table that attribute dress is the highest rated attribute %ith
mean score 9. 5rom this it is clear that patients’ perception about the dress of
medical assistants is !ery good i.e. they think medical assistants %ear neat and
clean dresses. ean scores of the attributes maintenance record and a!ailability
are :.99 and :.9 respecti!ely. These are !ery good score on a scale of 9 %hich
means that patients’ had percei!ed these attributes of medical assistants as good.
Impartial attitude has the a!erage score :.+8 %hich is not bad. Boliteness and
cooperation ha!e the scores ?.9 and ?.:1 respecti!ely. This means that medical
assistants’ dealing %ith patients is not !ery good. ean scores ?.8? and ?.,; for
kno%ledge and e&perience sho%s that medical assistants are lacking on these
attributes. 'andling of ueries has the least score among all the other factors and it
is uiet less %hich means that the ueries of patients’ are not properly handled by
the medical assistants. /!erall a!erage score for all the attributes comes out to be
:.1?. so it can be concluded that patients’ perception about the beha!iour of
medical assistants is moderately good i.e. there is need for the medical assistants
to impro!e their beha!iour.
4<2<; Percept#o%s o* Pat#e%ts *or the a'#t) o* A$"#%#strat#o%
,?
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 37/53
To study the perceptions of patients for the Muality of Administration$ patients
%ere asked to rate their perceptions in the scale of 1 to 9 for the !arious attributes
gi!en belo% in the table8.*., for this factor. The mean rating for each attribute is
gi!en in this table.
Table 8.*., Berceptions of patients from the uality of the administration
Attr#!tes Percept#o%s
/Mea% Va'e0
Con!enient /ffice 'ours .*?
Check <p Brocedure ?.,;/!er Cro%ding :.9;
elcome Gour Ideas ?.*,
5ee ;.8
Erie!ances 'andling 3ystem ?.+1
illing Brocedure :.??
Check /ut Brocedure :.+
eha!iour of Clerical 3taff :.1;
eha!iour of 3ecurity 3taff .8
A(era&e ><54
A!erage scores for the beha!iour of clerical staff and con!enient office hours are
.8 and .*? respecti!ely$ %hich are !ery high and so it can be conluded that
hospitals are doing %ell on these t%o attributes. /!er cro%ding and check out
procedure ha!e the scores :.9;$ :.+ and :.?? %hich means that patients’
perception about these attributes are good. :.1; is the score of attribute eha!iour
of clerical staff %hich is less than the abo!e mentioned factors. 3o hospitals need
to impro!e on this. ean scores for the check up procedure$ %elcome your ideas
and grie!ances handling system are ?.,;$ ?.*, and ?.+1 respecti!ely. 3o %e can
say that perception of patients’ for these is moderately good. The lo%est mean
score ;.8 is scored by the attribute fee %hich is not good and this sho%s that
,:
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 38/53
patients’ thought the fee of the hospitals are high. It is clear from the table that
o!erall mean score for all the attributes is :.18 %hich sho%s that perception of the
patients’ to%ards the uality of administration tends to be good.
4<2<4 Percept#o%s o* Pat#e%ts *or the Ser(#ces Fac#'#t#es
pro(#$e$ !) the hosp#ta's
To study the perceptions of patients for the ser!ices and facilities pro!ided by the
hospitals$ patients %ere asked to rate their perceptions in the scale of 1 to 9 for the
!arious attributes gi!en belo% in the table8.*.8 for this factor. The mean rating for
each attribute is gi!en in this table.
Table8.*.8 2&pectations of patients from the ser!ices and facilities pro!ided by the
hospitals
Attr#!tes Percept#o%s
/Mea% Va'e0
Broper 3itting Arrangements .;8
edding Arrangements .??
3taff Appearance :.??
#atural Hight :.*8
Dust o&es .;;
5lies O osuitoes .8,
/uter O Inner Appearance :.81
Barking .+;ell 2uipped <nits :.+9
arking /n alls :.:
2ating Blaces .8,
A(era&e ><66
,
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 39/53
ean scores for the bedding arrangements$ dust bo&es$ proper sitting
arrangements$ flies O mosuitoes $ eating places and parking are .??$ .;;$ .;8$
.8*$ .8* and .+; respecti!ely %hich means that perception of the patients’ about
these attributes are !ery good. 3o %e can say that hospitals are pro!iding these
facilities to the patients in a proper %ay. arking on %alls$ staff appearance$ outer
and inner appearance and natural light scores are :.:$ :.??$ :.81 and :.*8
respecti!ely and it sho%s that patients’ perception about these attributes are good.
:.+9 is the lo%est score scored by the attribute %ell euipped units but this score is
not bad and %e can say that perception of the patients’ to%ard this tends to be
good. :.99 is the o!erall mean score for perception of patients about the
ser!ices7facilities pro!ided by the hospitals.
4<; Sat#s*act#o% Le(e' o* the Pat#e%ts *or the(ar#os Factors
4<;<5 Sat#s*act#o% Le(e' o* the Pat#e%ts *or the ,eha(#or o*
Doctors
,9
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 40/53
To measure the satisfaction le!el of patients from the beha!iour of doctors$ the
differences bet%een the mean scores of e&pectations and perceptions for each
attribute is calculated and then t-test is applied to see %hether the difference
bet%een the t%o mean !alues is significant or not at ; le!el of significance. The
calculated !alues are gi!en in the table8.,.1.
Table8. ,.1 3atisfaction le!el of patients for the beha!iour of doctors
Attr#!tes Epectat#o%s
(ean @alue
Percept#o%s
(ean @alue
D#**ere%ce T1(a'e
A!ailability .99 :.: 1.*1 ?.8J
)no%ledge .9 :.11 1., :.11J
'andling of Mueries .;1 ?.?+ 1.91 .81J
Cooperation .;8 ?.:; 1.:9 1+.+1J
Boliteness .:1 ?.? 1.; 1+.+;J
Impartial attitude .,9 :.8? +.9, ;.8J
2&amination Comfort .:9 :.:? 1.+, :.9*J
Thorough Check-<p .9 :. 1.1+ 9.*;J
2mpathy :.,1 ;.; 1.8? ;.9,J
Indi!idual Consideration ?.9 ?.1+ +. ;.+8J
2&perience .?8 ?.+ 1.8 .,1JJthere #s s#&%#*#ca%t $#**ere%ce at ?= 'e(e' o* s#&%#*#ca%ce (t-critical K1.??
The table8.,.1 sho%s that difference bet%een the mean !alues of e&pectations and
perceptions for the attributes handling of ueries$ politeness$ e&perience$ kno%ledge$
cooperation and empathy are 1.91$ 1.;$ 1.8$ 1.*$ 1.:9 and 1.8? respecti!ely. The t-
!alues for these attributes at ; le!el of significance sho% that there is significant
difference in the mean !alues of e&pectations and perceptions for these attributes. 5or the
attributes a!ailability$ thorough check up and e&amination comfort differences bet%een
there mean !alues for e&pectations and perceptions are 1.*1$ 1.1 and 1.+* respecti!ely.
8+
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 41/53
There corresponding t-!alues indicates this is a significant difference. +.9, and +. are
the differences for the impartial attitude and indi!idual consideration respecti!ely and t-
!alues for these attributes also sho%s that there is significant difference bet%een the
means scores of e&pectation and perceptions. 3o$ it is clear that highest difference is for
the handling of ueries and lo%est for the attribute indi!idual consideration.
4<;<2 Sat#s*act#o% Le(e' o* the Pat#e%ts *ro" the ,eha(#or o*
Me$#ca' Ass#sta%ts
To measure the satisfaction le!el of patients from the beha!iour of medical
assistants$ the differences bet%een the mean scores of e&pectations and
perceptions for each attribute is calculated and then t-test is applied to see %hether
the difference bet%een the t%o mean !alues is significant or not at ; le!el of
significance. The calculated !alues are gi!en in the table8.,.*.
Table 8.,.* 3atisfaction le!el of patients from the beha!iour of medical assistants
Attr#!tes Epectat#o%s
(ean @alue
Percept#o%s
(ean @alue
D#**ere%ce T1(a'e
A!ailability 9.++ :.9 1.11 ;.9+J
)no%ledge .;? ?.8? *.1+ .9J
Cooperation .?; ?.:1 1.98 9.8,J
Boliteness .:9 ?.9 1.91 9.9,J
Impartial attitude .89 :.+8 1.8; ;.9,Jaintenance of >ecord .:1 :.99 +.:, 8.98J
'andling of Mueries .88 ?.1+
*.,8
11.11J
2&perience :.8; ?.,; 1.1+ ,.99J
Dress ?.9+ 9.++ -*.1+ -1,.*,JJthere #s s#&%#*#ca%t $#**ere%ce at ?= 'e(e' o* s#&%#*#ca%ce (t-critical K1.??
81
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 42/53
It is clear from the table8.,.* that difference bet%een the mean !alues for e&pectations
and perceptions are highest for the attribute handling of ueries %hich is *.,8 and its
corresponding t-!alue is !ery large and it sho%s that this difference bet%een the !alues is
significant. This means that patients had not recei!ed %hat they ha!e e&pected from this
particular attribute. Differences for the kno%ledge$ cooperation and politeness are *.1$
1.98 and 1.91 respecti!ely and there respecti!e t-!alues indicate that these differences are
uiet significant %hich means that perceptions of these attributes are less than the
e&pectation of patients’ from these attributes. 1.8;$ 1.11 and 1.1+ are the differences
bet%een the mean scores of e&pectations and perceptions for the attributes impartial
attitude$ a!ailability and e&perience respecti!ely and t-!alues corresponding to these
attributes are larger than the t-critical at ; le!el of significance. This means that
differences are significant. The difference for the attribute maintenance of record is +.:,
and t-!alue for it sho%s that difference is uiet significant i.e. patients’ perception about
this factor is lo%er than their e&pectations. Dress has the difference -*.1$ %hich sho%s
that patients’ perception for this attribute is higher than their e&pectations.
4<;<; Sat#s*act#o% Le(e' o* the Pat#e%ts *or the a'#t) o*
A$"#%#strat#o%
To measure the satisfaction le!el of patients from the uality of administration$ the
differences bet%een the mean scores of e&pectations and perceptions for each
attribute is calculated and then t-test is applied to see %hether the difference
bet%een the t%o mean !alues is significant or not at ; le!el of significance. The
calculated !alues are gi!en in the table8.,.,.
8*
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 43/53
Table 8.,.1 3atisfaction le!el of patients for the beha!iour of doctors
Attr#!tes Epectat#o%s
/Mea% Va'e0
Percept#o%s
/Mea% Va'e0
D#**ere%c
e
T1(a'e
Con!enient /ffice
'ours
?.;, .*?
-1.:8
-:.*:J
Check <p
Brocedure
.; ?.,;
*.;+
9.8J
/!er Cro%ding .*? :.9; +.,1 1.9*J
elcome Gour
Ideas
:.,1 ?.*,
1.+
8.99J
5ee :.1+ ;.8 1.?* 8.89J
Erie!ances
'andling 3ystem
.8; ?.+1
*.88
11.19J
illing Brocedure .: :.?? 1.11 :.8:J
Check /ut
Brocedure
.: :.+
+.9
:.+J
eha!iour of
Clerical 3taff
.9 :.1;
1.:8
:.J
eha!iour of
3ecurity 3taff
.; .8
+.,
,.1+J
Jthere #s s#&%#*#ca%t $#**ere%ce at ?= 'e(e' o* s#&%#*#ca%ce (t-critical K1.??
This table sho%s that differences bet%een the mean !alues of e&pectations and
perceptions for the check up procedure and grie!ances handling system are *.;+ and *.88
respecti!ely %hich are uiet big differences. 3o %e can say that e&pectations of patients’
from these attributes are higher than their perceptions. 5or the attributes beha!iour of
clerical staff and fee difference bet%een e&pectations and perceptions are 1.:8 and 1.?,
respecti!ely %hich are not small. 3o it is true to say that e&pectations are higher than
perceptions of these attributes. 1.11$ 1.+ and +.9 are the differences for the billing
procedure %elcome your ideas and check out procedure respecti!ely. eha!iour clerical
8,
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 44/53
staff and o!er cro%ding has the difference +., and +.,1 bet%een the mean !alues for
e&pectations and perceptions. Attribute con!enient office hour has the negati!e difference
bet%een mean !alues of e&pectations and perceptions %hich means that patients’
perception about the attributes is higher than their e&pectations.
4<;<4 Sat#s*act#o% Le(e' o* the Pat#e%ts *or the Ser(#ces a%$
Fac#'#t#es Pro(#$e$ !) the Hosp#ta's
To measure the satisfaction le!el of patients from the ser!ices and facilities
pro!ided by the hospitals$ the differences bet%een the mean scores of e&pectations
and perceptions for each attribute is calculated and then t-test is applied to see
%hether the difference bet%een the t%o mean !alues is significant or not at ;
le!el of significance. The calculated !alues are gi!en in the table8.,.8.
Table 8.,.8 3atisfaction le!el of patients for the beha!iour of doctors
Attr#!tes Epectat#o%s/Mea% Va'e0
Percept#o%s/Mea% Va'e0
D#**ere%ce T1(a'e
Broper 3itting
Arrangements
.9 .;8
+.88
;.+8J
edding
Arrangements
9.++ .??
+.,8
8.8J
3taff Appearance ?.;; :.?? -1.11 -8.88J
#atural Hight .,? :.*8 1.1, 8.;*J
Dust o&es 9.++ .;; +.8; ;.+:J5lies O
osuitoes
9.++ .8,
+.;
?.1,J
/uter O Inner
Appearance
:.88 :.81
+.+,
+.1+
Barking .:1 .+; +.?? ,.+J
88
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 45/53
ell 2uipped
<nits
.,, :.+9
1.*8
;.?,J
arking /n
alls
.+ :.:
+.,+
1.;?
2ating Blaces .?9 .8, +.*? *.:+JJthere #s s#&%#*#ca%t $#**ere%ce at ?= 'e(e' o* s#&%#*#ca%ce (t-critical K1.??
This table sho%s that largest differences bet%een e&pectations and perceptions are 1.*8
and 1.1* for the attributes %ell euipped units and natural light respecti!ely among all the
other attributes. This means that e&pectations of patients are higher than their perceptions
for these attributes. +.??$ +.;$ +.8; and +.88 are the differences for the parking$ flies O
mosuitoes$ dust bo&es and proper sitting arrangements respecti!ely. The attributes
bedding arrangements$ marking on %alls and eating places ha!e small differences of
+.,8$ +.,+ and +.*? respecti!ely bet%een the mean !alues of e&pectations and
perceptions. 5or inner and outer appearance the difference is .+*; %hich is !ery small and
it can be concluded that patients’ perception and e&pectation for this attribute are
appro&imately same. ut attribute staff appearance has negati!e !alue %hich is -1.11 and
it is true to say that patients’ e&pectations are lo%er for this attribute than their
perceptions.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONLUSIONS
8;
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 46/53
In the present business scenario of cutthroat competition$ customer
satisfaction has become the prime concern of each and e!ery kind of industry.
Companies are increasingly becoming customer focused. Companies can %in
customers and surge ahead of competitors by meeting and satisfying the needs of
the customers. orld o!er businesses ha!e reali"ed that marketing is not the only
factor in attracting and retaining customers. /ther ma0or factors responsible for the
same are satisfaction through ser!ice uality and !alue. 2!en the best marketing
companies in the %orld fail to sell products and ser!ices that fail to satisfy the
customers’ needs. 3o customer satisfaction is the key%ord in today’s fiercely
competiti!e business en!ironment.
The measurement of customer satisfaction has become !ery important for
the health care sector also. The concept of customer satisfaction has encouraged
the adoption of a marketing culture in the health care sector in both de!eloped and
de!eloping countries. As large numbers of hospitals are opening up and the people
are becoming more a%are and conscious of health$ great competition has emerged
in this industry. 3o to retain their patients hospitals ha!e to pro!ide better
facilities7ser!ices to its customers. @arious factors that can affect the patients’
satisfaction include beha!iour of doctors$ a!ailability of speciali"ed doctors$
beha!iour of medical assistants$ uality of administration$ uality of atmosphere$
a!ailability of modern facilities etc. 3o$ if the hospitals %ant that their customers
must be satisfied$ they ha!e to pro!ide not only better treatment but other facilities
8?
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 47/53
also. The current study is focused on e&amining the !arious factors related to
patient satisfaction %ith the follo%ing specific ob0ecti!es=
1. To study the customer e&pectations from hospital ser!ices.
*. To study the customer perception of hospital ser!ices.
,. To study the degree of satisfaction of customers from hospital ser!ices.
In order to accomplish the ob0ecti!es of the study$ the primary data %as
collected. The population of this study comprised of the indoor patients only. 5i!e
ma0or pri!ate hospitals in Hudhiana %ere selected namely=
1. Dayanand edical College and 'ospital$
*. Christian edical College and 'ospital$
,. 3atguru Bartap 3ingh Apollo 'ospital$
8. ohan Dai /s%al Cancer 'ospital$ and
;. Euru Teg ahadur Charitable 'ospital
5rom these hospitals primary data %as collected from the respondents. The
respondents %ere either the patients themsel!es or their relati!es. 5or sample
selection$ a multistage sampling procedure %as follo%ed. At the first stage$ sample
units consisted of total number of general %ards and pri!ate %ards in the hospital.
1+ of the general %ards and 1+ pri!ate$ %ards %ere selected randomly. Then
from each selected general %ard , to ; patients %ere chosen and from each
selected pri!ate %ard one patient %as chosen. The information %as collected
through a pre-designed$ structured uestionnaire. A sample of + respondents
8:
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 48/53
selected from these hospitals on the basis of their con!enience for the first
ob0ecti!e and the second ob0ecti!e. To suggest solutions to the problems obser!ed
during the sur!ey is done through secondary data. The collected data %as then
grouped into tables and analy"ed using !arious statistical tools like mean scores.
/ther statistical tool used includes T-test for measuring %hether there is
significant difference bet%een the mean scores of attributes i.e. bet%een mean
!alues of e&pectations and perceptions of an attribute.
Major F#%$#%&s G Co%c's#o%s
1. 2&pectation le!el is !ery high and nearly same for almost all the factors i.e.
for beha!iour of the doctors$ beha!iour of medical assistants$ uality of
administration and ser!ice7facilities pro!ided.
*. ean score for the e&pectations from all the four factors is .,+ %hich is
!ery high on the scale 9.
,. <nder beha!iour of doctors attribute a!ailability and thorough check up has
the highest score .9 and empathy and indi!idual consideration ha!e :.,1
and ?.:+ respecti!ely.
8. Attribute con!enient office hours has lo%est e&pectation score of ?.;, and
beha!iour of clerical staff has the highest .9 among all the attributes of
factor uality of administration.
8
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 49/53
;. edding arrangements$ dust bo&es and flies and mosuitoes has score 9 for
e&pectations for these attributes of factor ser!ices pro!ided by the hospitals.
?. /!erall mean score for perceptions of patients’ about the four factor is :.,1
%hich is considered good on the scale of 9.
:. 2mpathy %ith score ;.; has the minimum score and thorough check up
%ith score :.9 has highest score among all the attributes of factor
beha!iour of doctors.
. Berception about the dress of medical assistant is !ery good %ith score 9
and handling of ueries is lo%est %ith score ?.1.
9. 5ee has the lo%est le!el of perception and beha!iour of security staff has
the highest le!el of perception.
1+.Berceptions of patients’ about the attributes of factor ser!ices7facilities
pro!ided by the hospitals are almost good.
11.The largest difference bet%een e&pectations and perceptions is 1.91 for
attribute handling of ueries and lo%est for indi!idual consideration +.
under factor beha!iour of doctors.
1*. 5or beha!iour of medical assistants the largest difference is for the attribute
handling of ueries and lo%est for maintenance of record. Also dress has
negati!e difference %hich means perceptions are larger than e&pectations.
1,.Attribute con!enient office hours of factor uality of administration is
negati!e$ largest difference is for the attribute check up procedure and
lo%est for beha!iour of security staff.
89
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 50/53
18. /uter O inner appearance has the lo%est difference +.+*; and %ell
euipped units ha!e the highest 1.*8. and attribute staff appearance has the
negati!e difference of 1.11.
Re*ere%ces
;+
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 51/53
Aurora 3 and alhotra (199: Customer satisfaction= A comparati!e analysis
of the satisfaction le!el of customer of public and pri!ate sector banks.
Decision 24= 1+9-,+.
Anderson 2 $ 5ornell C and a"!ancheryl 3 ) (*++8 Customer satisfaction
and shareholder !alue. J Mktg @= 1:*-;.
olton > and Dre% F ' (1991 A multistage model of customer’s assements of
ser!ice uality and !alue. J Consumer Res 5>= ,:;-8.
oulding $ )alra A$ 3taelin > and Peithmal @A (199, A dynamic process
model of ser!ice uality= from e&pectations to beha!ioral intentions. J Mktg
;3= >-*:.
Da!id ) and ilton B C (19 odels of consumer satisfaction formation= Ane&tension. J Mktg Res 2?= *+8-1+
Dholakia A and or%it" E (*++* The scope and persistence of mere-
measurement effects= 2!idence from a field study of consumer satisfaction
measurement. J Consu Res 26= 1;9-?:
5olkes @ 3 and Batrick @ (*++, The posti!ity effect in perceptions of ser!ices=
3een one$ seen them all4 J Consumer Res ;3= 1*;-1,:.
Ere%al D$ onroe ) and )rishnan > (199 The effects of price-comparisonad!ertising on buyers$ perceptions of acuisition !alue$ transaction !alue$
and beha!ioral intentions. J Mktg 2= 8?-;9
Earbarino 2 and Fohnson 3 (1999 The different roles of satisfaction$ trust and
commitment in customer relationships. J Mktg ;= :+-:
Eruca T 3 and >ego H H (*++; Customer satisfaction$ cash flo%$ and shareholder
!alue. J Mktg 6= 11;-1,+
Eustafsson $ Fohnson D and >oos I (*++; The effects of customersatisfaction$ relationship$ commitment$ dimensions and triggers ion
customer retention. J Mktg 6= *1+-*1;
'omburg C$ )oschate # and 'oyer D (*++; Do satisfied customers really pay
more4 A study of the relationship bet%een customer satisfaction and
%illingness to pay. J Mktg 6= 8-9?
;1
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 52/53
Habarbera B A and a"ursky (19, A longitudinal assessment of customer
satisfaction7dissatisfaction= The dynamic aspect of the cogniti!e process. J
Mktg Res 2= ,9,-8+8
/fir C and 3imonson I (*++1 In search of negati!e customer feedback= The effect
of e&pecting to e!aluate on satisfaction e!aluations. J Mktg Res ;@= 1:+-
1*
@ernoer B C (*++, <nderstanding the effect of customer relationship
management efforts on customer retention and customer share
de!elopment. F Mktg >= ,+-8;
>einart" $ )rafft $ and 'oyer D (*++8 The customer relationship
management process= Its measurement and impact on performance. J Mktg
Res 42= *9,-,+;.
3aha A.). (19 3atisfaction %ith life- A study of nurses #igeria. Decision 5?=
?1-?8
3harma > D and Chahal ' (1999 A study of patient satisfaction in outdoor
ser!ices of pri!ate health care facilities. Vikalpa 24= ?9-:?
3imester D I$ 'auser F '$ ernerfelt and >ust > T (*+++ Implementing uality
impro!ement programs designed to enhance customer satisfaction = Muasi Q
2&periment in <nited 3tates and 3pain. J Mktg Res ;>= 1+*-11*
3harma > D and Chahal ' (*++, Batient satisfaction in go!ernment outpatient
ser!ices in India. Decision ;3= 1+9-*.
@oss D (199 >ole of price performance and e&pectation in ser!ice. J Mktg Res
;= 8;-;1.
Thompson C F (*++; Consumer risk perceptions in a community of refle&i!e
doubt. J Consumer Res ;2= *,;-*8;
;*
8/12/2019 Customer Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital Industry
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/customer-preference-and-satisfaction-in-hospital-industry 53/53