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



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

*



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.

,



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



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:.

;



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

?



%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

:



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.



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



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+



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



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*



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,



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



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;



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?



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:



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



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



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$

*+



;<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. 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+

**



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

*,



%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



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

*;



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.

*?



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.

*:



8.1 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

*



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


/Mea% Va'e0

*9



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

,+



gi!en belo% in the table 8.1., for this factor. The mean rating for each attribute is


Table 8.1., 2&pectations of patients from the uality of the administration


/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



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


/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

,*



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

,,



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



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


Table 8.*.* Berceptions of patients from the beha!iour of medical assistants


/Mea% Va'e0A!ailability :.9

)no%ledge ?.8?

Cooperation ?.:1

Boliteness ?.

Impartial attitude :.+8

aintenance of >ecord :.99

,;



'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%

,?



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


Table 8.*., Berceptions of patients from the uality of the administration


/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

,:



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


/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

,



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



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


(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+



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


(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



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*



Table 8.,.1 3atisfaction le!el of patients for the beha!iour of doctors


/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,



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



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;



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?



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:



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



;. 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



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

;+



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



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;

;*

customer preference and satisfaction in hospital industry

Documents