Name of Student: Charanpreet Kaur
Exam Roll No. : 22029528006
College Roll No. : 22/PSY/15
Name of Paper: Health Psychology
Unique Paper Code: 2112102603
Semester: VI
Name of Course: B.A. (Hons) Psychology
Index
S.no.
Topic
1.
Patient Experiences of Hospitalisation in a
Government Hospital- A Survey
Signature
Patient Experiences of Hospitalisation in a Government Hospital- A Survey
Abstract
This study examines patient experiences during hospitalization in government hospitals,
focusing on communication, hygiene, staff competence, and overall satisfaction. A survey of 100
participants aged 25–65, with balanced gender representation (51% female, 49% male) and
predominantly lower-income backgrounds (71% earning <8 lakhs annually), revealed key
insights. Most respondents (70%) reported satisfactory communication with healthcare
providers, though 26% experienced inconsistencies. Hygiene standards varied, with OPDs/OTs
rated highest (mean: 3.76) and food services lowest (mean: 3.15). Clinical services (pharmacy,
diagnostics) received high ratings (mean: 3.87–3.95), while non-clinical amenities (disability
access, room facilities) scored moderately (mean: 3.34–3.55). Over 60% felt their privacy and
safety were maintained, though 9–14% reported dissatisfaction. While 63% found treatment
outcomes satisfactory, 23% were uncertain, highlighting gaps in post-discharge support. Notably,
40% used alternative medicine (Ayurveda, homeopathy) alongside allopathy. Overall, 63% rated
their experience positively, yet systemic challenges—overcrowding, inconsistent care, and
infrastructural gaps—persist. The findings underscore the need for improved patient-centered
communication, standardized hygiene protocols, and enhanced grievance redressal to elevate
public healthcare quality. Recommendations include staff training, infrastructure upgrades, and
integrative care models to bridge existing disparities.
Keywords: Patient Experiences, Government Hospital, Overall Satisfaction
Patient Experiences of Hospitalisation in a Government Hospital- A Survey
Introduction
Patient experience in hospitals is a significant aspect of healthcare delivery, deeply
impacting treatment outcomes, physical recovery, and mental wellness. This experience
encompasses several factors, such as interactions with healthcare providers, quality of
communication, hospital environment, and emotional support received during care (Doyle,
Lennox, & Bell, 2013), who highlighted in their review how positive patient experiences are
linked to better clinical outcomes and service quality. Within the field of health psychology,
understanding patients’ perceptions and responses to care is essential, as these perceptions can
significantly influence health behaviors, treatment adherence, and overall psychological and
physical outcomes (Epstein & Street, 2011), who emphasize that communication in clinical
relationships affects health outcomes directly and indirectly. Patient experience, therefore, is not
merely a matter of perception — it is intricately connected to clinical effectiveness, patient
safety, and long-term health outcomes, making it a key area for improving healthcare systems
globally.
Health psychology underscores the bidirectional relationship between psychological
factors and physical health, showing how patient experiences can shape health outcomes.
Positive experiences, such as feeling heard, respected, and supported by healthcare providers,
predict improved treatment adherence, faster recovery, and reduced psychological distress
(Rathert, Wyrwich, & Boren, 2013), who systematically reviewed evidence linking
patient-centered care to better outcomes. Conversely, negative experiences, like perceived
neglect, inadequate communication, or lack of compassion, can increase stress, anxiety, and even
worsen physical health. These findings highlight the importance of patient-centered care —
tailoring treatment approaches to individual patients’ needs, preferences, and values — in
improving both physical and mental health.
Understanding what patients go through during a hospital stay is thus crucial for
enhancing healthcare quality. Patient experiences include factors such as communication by the
staff, technical skills of healthcare professionals, cleanliness, personal and impersonal care,
financial aspects, treatment results, complaint handling, quality of facilities, and post-discharge
care. Together, these influence patient satisfaction, which is now a key indicator of healthcare
system performance (Rathert et al., 2013). Studying patient experiences helps identify strengths
and weaknesses in healthcare delivery, providing essential feedback for policymakers and
providers to enhance patient outcomes and overall service quality.
Effective communication between healthcare providers and patients is fundamental to a
positive hospital experience. Clear, empathetic communication builds trust, reduces anxiety, and
improves adherence to treatment plans (Street et al., 2009), who demonstrated that better
patient-provider communication improves health outcomes and patient satisfaction. In India,
communication challenges — including language barriers, overcrowding, and limited
consultation time — often contribute to patient dissatisfaction, particularly in public hospitals
(Deshmukh et al., 2016), who explored patient perceptions in Indian settings and pointed to
communication gaps as a major concern. Additionally, healthcare providers’ technical skills and
compassionate attitudes greatly impact patient satisfaction. Studies in Indian hospitals show that
patients highly value both these aspects, which significantly shape their hospital experiences
(Kumar et al., 2023).
Hygiene and cleanliness are also vital for patient safety and satisfaction. Poor cleanliness
and infection control in Indian hospitals negatively affect patient experiences and contribute to
hospital-acquired infections (Jandavath & Byram, 2016), who analyzed public hospital
conditions and reported a direct link between cleanliness and patient trust. Financial concerns
like out-of-pocket costs and lack of insurance coverage further influence patient satisfaction,
especially in low- and middle-income countries like India. Many patients, particularly from
low-income groups, delay or forgo necessary care due to financial barriers (Prinja et al., 2017),
who highlighted the heavy burden of healthcare costs on Indian households.
Treatment outcomes and grievance redressal mechanisms also play important roles in
shaping patient experience. Successful treatments enhance trust and satisfaction, while effective
grievance redressal processes ensure patient voices are heard and help build accountability
(Boulding et al., 2011), who found that patient satisfaction is closely tied to outcomes and
service responsiveness. In India, the lack of robust grievance mechanisms in public hospitals
often leaves patients feeling unheard, increasing dissatisfaction. Infrastructure quality —
including modern equipment, sufficient beds, and well-maintained facilities — similarly
influences perceptions. Challenges like outdated infrastructure and overcrowding in public
hospitals negatively impact patient trust and satisfaction (Jandavath & Byram, 2016).
Finally, post-hospitalization follow-up is critical for ensuring continuity of care and
addressing lingering concerns. Lack of structured follow-up programs in many Indian hospitals
leaves patients vulnerable to complications and readmissions, particularly for chronic conditions
(Kumar et al., 2023), who highlighted gaps in continuity of care and its effects on patient health.
Addressing these issues requires a more holistic, integrated healthcare approach that includes
strong post-discharge support systems.
This report studies what patients experience in hospitals, focusing on India's healthcare
system. By looking into these aspects, we aim to understand patient experiences fully. The
purpose is to pinpoint where improvements are needed and create plans to boost patient
satisfaction and healthcare quality. By looking closely at these factors, the report aims to align
patient expectations with the healthcare services they receive. Ultimately, this should help
develop a healthcare system that is more focused on patients and works better.
Present study
The present study explores patient experiences in public hospital settings, focusing on the
factors that shape their psychological well-being, satisfaction with care, and overall health
outcomes. Key aspects under investigation include communication between patients and
healthcare providers, healthcare professionals' skill sets, hygiene standards, the nature of care
(personal or impersonal), financial concerns, grievance handling, and the role of follow-up care
and post-hospitalization support. By employing a quantitative survey-based approach, the study
aims to gather comprehensive data on patients' satisfaction levels, emotional well-being, and
perceived support.
While existing research highlights that empathetic communication can enhance patient
satisfaction and coping, time constraints often hinder meaningful interactions. In primary
healthcare settings, poor diagnostic accuracy and insufficient staff training have been shown to
weaken patient trust and safety, ultimately impacting their mental well-being. Similarly, studies
on emergency care indicate that although patients may appreciate staff support, environmental
stressors such as noise, overcrowding, and poor sanitation can heighten anxiety.
Despite these insights, there remains a lack of comprehensive research examining how
multiple factors such as communication quality, healthcare professionals’ skill sets, hygiene
practices, financial concerns, and personal versus impersonal care collectively shape patients'
psychological well-being and overall satisfaction in public hospitals. Additionally, the influence
of follow-up care and post-hospitalization support, which are crucial for long-term recovery,
remains underexplored.
To address these gaps, this study aims to investigate the combined impact of relational,
systemic, and environmental factors on patients’ psychological well-being and satisfaction with
care. By doing so, the study seeks to inform strategies that strengthen communication practices,
improve hospital environments, and enhance psychological support in public hospitals,
ultimately contributing to better health outcomes and improved quality of life.
Research Objectives
1. To explore patient experiences and perceptions of care during hospitalization in
government hospitals.
2. To assess the quality of patient-provider communication and interpersonal interactions.
3. To examine psychological and emotional responses to hospitalization in public
healthcare settings.
4. To identify areas of improvement in hospital care as suggested by patients themselves.
Research Questions
1. How do patients perceive and evaluate their interactions with hospital staff during their
stay?
2. What aspects of the hospital environment contribute to feelings of comfort or distress?
3. In what ways do hospitalization experiences impact patients’ psychological
well-being?
4. What recommendations do patients offer for improving care in government hospitals?
Method
The study included a total of 100 participants, selected through purposive sampling, a
non-random sampling technique where participants are chosen based on specific characteristics
relevant to the research objectives. The sampling of participants involved 22 researchers. This
method was employed to ensure a diverse and representative sample within the target population.
The inclusion criteria were: (1) individuals should be aged between 25 and 65 years, (2)
hospitalized in a government hospital within the last 1 year, and (3) with hospitalisation of
minimum of 2 days or more at a time. Both male and female participants were included to
capture a balanced representation of gender-based experiences. The age range of 25 to 65 was
selected as individuals below 25 and above 65 are often not self-dependent and most of their
decisions are taken by parents or guardian figures, which could influence the entirety of hospital
experiences and the study outcomes.
The sample of 100 participants comprised
49 females and 51 males from various
educational, occupational, and socioeconomic backgrounds. Educational qualifications ranged
from primary school to Ph.D., and occupations included homemakers, teachers, corporate
professionals, government employees, business owners, domestic workers, and laborers. The
participants represented diverse demographic backgrounds, originating from various regions
across India, providing a broad spectrum of experiences and perspectives relevant to the
research. Household income levels varied widely, with participants earning less than 4 lakhs to
above 20 lakhs annually. They sought medical treatment for a broad spectrum of health issues
such as typhoid, dengue, gallbladder and kidney stones, heart conditions, surgeries, viral
infections, fractures, respiratory problems, and chronic illnesses like diabetes and cancer,
availing services at both government and private hospitals across India.
A purposive sampling technique was employed to identify and select participants who
met specific inclusion criteria for the study. This approach ensured that only individuals between
the age group 25 and 65, who had been hospitalized continuously in a government hospital for at
least 48 hours within the past year were included. By targeting this specific group, the study
aimed to explore patients’ experiences within the public healthcare system. The purposive aspect
of this sampling method involved intentionally selecting individuals who fit the study’s
objectives, ensuring that the data collected was relevant and meaningful. Meanwhile, the
convenience element facilitated recruitment based on accessibility and willingness to participate,
making it practical and efficient for researchers to gather information within a limited timeframe.
In this study, participants were asked to provide basic demographic details to gain a
comprehensive understanding of their backgrounds and hospitalization experiences. The
information collected included their name, age, gender, educational qualifications, occupational
status, annual family income, number of dependents, total hospitalizations in the past year,
reason for hospitalization, and the name of the hospital where they received treatment. These
details were crucial for analyzing patterns related to healthcare access, socioeconomic
influences, and the frequency of hospital visits. However, to protect participant privacy and
ensure ethical research practices, certain demographic details were not mandatory, allowing
individuals to withhold sensitive information if they preferred. This approach helped maintain
participant anonymity while still enabling researchers to gather meaningful insights into
hospitalization trends and patient demographics within government healthcare settings.
Survey Design
A survey is a widely used method of data collection that involves asking a large number
of respondents the same set of structured questions through formats such as questionnaires,
interviews, or phone calls. It can collect both quantitative data, using numerical responses, and
qualitative data, through open-ended answers, or a combination of the two. Surveys aim to
understand behaviors, opinions, and experiences by measuring multiple variables at once and
testing several hypotheses. Temporal order is often inferred by asking about past characteristics
or experiences—such as education level or race—before analyzing their influence on current
attitudes. Although surveys do not involve direct manipulation of variables like experiments,
researchers use control variables to statistically account for alternative explanations and
approximate experimental control, allowing them to explore causal relationships through
correlations among variables (Manary et al., 2015; Neuman, 2014).
The survey method is one of the most widely used tools in social science, health research,
and market analysis due to its efficiency, scalability, and structure. One significant advantage is
its cost-effectiveness, especially when distributed electronically via platforms like Google
Forms, SurveyMonkey, or Qualtrics, which eliminate the logistical expenses associated with
in-person data collection. Surveys also enable the collection of data from large and
geographically dispersed populations, making the findings more generalizable to the wider
population. Furthermore, the standardized format of questions ensures consistency, which
improves reliability and allows for meaningful statistical analysis. These characteristics make
surveys particularly suitable for collecting quantitative data and measuring variables like
attitudes, opinions, and behaviors (Fink, 2013).
Figure 1 Steps in the process of survey research
However, despite their strengths, surveys come with notable limitations. A common issue
is the low response rate, particularly in unsolicited online surveys, which can introduce
non-response bias, reducing the representativeness of the data (Fink, 2013). Moreover, response
bias often occurs when participants provide answers they believe are socially acceptable rather
than what they truly think, especially on sensitive topics. This can distort the accuracy of the
findings. Another disadvantage is the limited depth of insight; surveys usually rely on
closed-ended questions, which restrict participants from elaborating on their experiences or
perspectives. This lack of nuance makes it difficult to understand the context behind the answers.
Additionally, surveys are vulnerable to misinterpretation of questions by respondents, which may
lead to invalid responses. Poorly worded or ambiguous questions can confuse and affect the
reliability of the data collected. Hence, while surveys are powerful tools for data collection, they
must be carefully designed, pre-tested, and complemented with other methods like interviews or
focus groups when deeper insights are needed (Fink, 2013).
Survey research begins with a theoretical or applied problem and follows a structured
process. The first step is to develop an instrument—a questionnaire or interview schedule. In
questionnaires, participants read and respond on their own, while interviewers administer
interview schedules and record responses (Neuman, 2014).
The process is deductive: researchers define variables, then translate them into clear,
well-structured questions. These questions are organized based on the research goals, target
respondents, and survey type. Before full deployment, a pilot test is conducted to ensure clarity
and proper interpretation. Interviewers, if used, must be trained for consistency (Neuman, 2014).
Data collection can be done in person, by phone, mail, or online. Accurate and immediate
recording of responses is essential. Each respondent is assigned a unique ID to help manage data
efficiently. After collecting data, researchers review, store, and digitize it for analysis (Neuman,
2014).
Survey research requires strong organization, especially for large studies. Careful
recordkeeping and accurate data entry are critical. Errors can occur at any stage—from sampling
to question design and data handling—so attention to detail is key to producing reliable results
(Neuman, 2014).
Surveys can be conducted in several ways, each with specific features, benefits, and
drawbacks. Mail and self-administered questionnaires involve sending written questions to
respondents, who complete them independently. They are low-cost and can reach a wide
geographic area. Respondents can complete them at their convenience and enjoy anonymity,
which reduces interviewer bias. However, they often suffer from low response rates, lack of
control over response conditions, and limited question formats. Complex or open-ended
questions are difficult to include, and responses may be incomplete or inaccurate (Neuman,
2014).
Telephone interviews involve an interviewer calling a respondent to ask questions and
record answers. They can quickly reach a large sample and have higher response rates than mail
surveys, especially with multiple callbacks. Technologies like CATI (Computer-Assisted
Telephone Interviewing) and IVR (Interactive Voice Response) help streamline the process and
reduce errors. However, telephone interviews are more expensive than mail surveys, may
interrupt respondents, and cannot accommodate visual questions. The rise of cell phone use
poses challenges in reaching certain demographics and may lower response quality (Neuman,
2014).
Face-to-face interviews require interviewers to meet respondents in person, allowing for
long, complex questionnaires and observation of nonverbal cues and surroundings. This method
has the highest response rates and allows for extensive probing and clarification. However, it is
the most expensive method due to high labor, travel, and training costs, and carries a higher risk
of interviewer bias. A variation, CAPI (Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing), involves the
respondent entering answers into a computer during the interview (Neuman, 2014).
Web surveys, conducted via email or websites, are fast, low-cost, and flexible in design.
They can include visuals, audio, and adaptive questioning. However, they risk poor design,
limited access among less tech-savvy groups, and challenges with privacy and respondent
verification. Design consistency and user-friendly formats are essential to ensure reliable data
(Neuman, 2014).
Special surveys include those targeting organizations, elites, or time use. Organizational
surveys seek specific information from knowledgeable personnel. Elite surveys require personal
contact and high confidentiality due to sensitive information. Time budget surveys have
respondents log daily activities over a period, offering detailed insights into time use (Neuman,
2014).
Survey is particularly suitable for studying patient satisfaction during hospitalization
because it provides direct feedback from patients about their experiences. It enables us to assess
key aspects such as nurse responsiveness, cleanliness, pain management, and overall hospital
experience using a standardized approach. The quantitative nature of the survey allows hospitals
to measure satisfaction levels, identify patterns, and implement improvements based on
statistical analysis. Surveys are also cost-effective and scalable, making them a practical choice
for reaching a large number of patients. Additionally, the anonymity of surveys ensures that
patients feel comfortable sharing honest feedback without fear of judgment or repercussions. The
comparability of survey results across different patient demographics, hospital units, or even
hospitals allows healthcare institutions to benchmark performance and make informed decisions
to enhance patient satisfaction.
Procedure
For the present study, an extensive review of the literature was carried out in order to
develop a strong foundation and identify key areas of interest. These areas were further shaped
by personal observations, pilot interactions, and the researchers’ prior knowledge of public
healthcare experiences. Based on this, the topic of patient experiences in government hospitals
was selected, with particular focus on hospitalization patterns, treatment accessibility, and the
overall functioning of the public healthcare system.
The research team collaboratively brainstormed and initially identified 11 key domains,
including communication between patients and healthcare professionals, the skillset of
healthcare providers, cleanliness and hygiene, personal versus impersonal care, financial aspects
(value for money and insurance coverage), overall satisfaction and treatment outcomes,
grievance redressal mechanisms, self-care, facilities and infrastructure, follow-up care and
post-hospitalization engagement, and accessibility of emergency care. However, after further
deliberation, certain domains were excluded. The financial aspects domain was removed as
consultations with healthcare facilities revealed that variables such as insurance coverage and
cost-effectiveness could not be accurately assessed in the context of government hospitals.
Additionally, the treatment provided in government hospitals is free of cost or subsidized. The
self-care domain was merged with communication and satisfaction to avoid overlap.
Once the domains were finalized, researchers individually drafted questions under each
domain. These were reviewed collectively, and repetitive or unsuitable items were eliminated.
The remaining questions were critically assessed for clarity, relevance, and language, avoiding
jargon or ambiguity. Responses were structured using a 5-point Likert scale, MCQ and, where
suitable, yes/no options to capture both qualitative and quantitative data. The finalized
questionnaire underwent peer review and was refined in consultation with the project facilitator.
To ensure accessibility across diverse educational and linguistic backgrounds, the
questionnaire was translated into Hindi by a language expert. A pilot test was conducted using
both the translated and original versions to evaluate the tool’s clarity, effectiveness, and cultural
relevance. Feedback from the pilot study was incorporated to revise and finalize the
questionnaire. Participants were selected using a purposive sampling technique, targeting
individuals who met the inclusion criteria: between the age 25-65 and hospitalized in a
government hospital for at least 48 consecutive hours in the past year. Initially, participants aged
18–25 were considered; however, this was revised to include individuals aged 25–65 years to
focus on those with greater autonomy in healthcare decisions and more substantial
hospitalization experiences. A Google Form was developed to collect data. It consisted of
multiple sections, including inclusion criteria, informed consent, demographic details, and
various categories related to the study. Some sections were mandatory, while others were
optional to ensure flexibility during data collection. The form was distributed using purposive
sampling through platforms such as WhatsApp, email, and social media to reach the target
population effectively.
The final survey was distributed via Google Forms, and each of the 22 researchers were
required to collect responses, ensuring a broad and diverse sample of 100 participants.
Participants were either approached directly in hospital settings or contacted through networks.
The focus on government hospitals was particularly relevant given their central role in providing
accessible care to diverse populations, and the recognition that independent healthcare
decision-making in India often occurs later in adulthood, reinforcing the importance of targeting
the chosen age group. Ethical standards were strictly maintained, including informed consent,
voluntary participation, and the right to skip sensitive questions. Confidentiality and anonymity
were ensured throughout. This structured and iterative procedure enabled the researchers to
collect comprehensive demographic and experiential data, offering meaningful insights into the
challenges, patterns, and perspectives of patients accessing public healthcare services in India.
Ethical Considerations
The present survey was conducted as a part of the Health Psychology practicum for
third-year undergraduate students at Indraprastha College for Women, University of Delhi, with
the objective of understanding patients’ experiences during hospitalization in government
healthcare facilities. Given the sensitive nature of healthcare data and the involvement of human
participants, the survey was designed and executed in strict adherence to ethical standards
outlined by the American Psychological Association (APA, 2017), World Medical Association
(2013), and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR, 2017). At the beginning of the
Google Form, participants were provided with a detailed explanation of the study's purpose,
academic relevance, and voluntary nature. Informed consent was explicitly sought before
proceeding with the survey, and participants were informed of their right to withdraw at any
point without consequences. The questions were carefully framed to ensure they remained
respectful, non-intrusive, and emotionally considerate, especially given the sensitive nature of
topics like hygiene, treatment satisfaction, and personal health conditions. Optional or
open-ended formats were used where appropriate to further protect participant comfort.
Confidentiality and anonymity were strongly upheld throughout the process. No
identifiable information beyond the first name was requested, and even that was optional. All
data was securely stored and accessed only by the student researchers and supervising faculty,
with no external data sharing. The survey posed no physical or psychological risk, and its digital
format enabled participants to complete it at their own convenience, minimizing potential stress.
Ethical supervision was maintained throughout the practicum, ensuring compliance with
institutional and psychological research guidelines. The project was conducted in line with core
ethical principles—beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and confidentiality (APA, 2017;
BPS, 2021). This commitment to ethical integrity not only protected participant welfare but also
contributed to the academic validity and credibility of the research findings.
Discussion
The aim of the study is to understand the experience of patients in government hospital
settings, focusing on their perception, challenges, and overall satisfaction with healthcare
services. Responses were gathered through Google form survey from 100 participants who had
been hospitalized for at least two days in a government hospital, ensuring firsthand insights into
inpatient care experiences. The collected data were then analyzed to identify common domains
and areas for improvement, providing valuable insights into patient experiences in public
healthcare and supporting efforts to enhance service quality and patient-centered care.
This study provides valuable insights into patient experiences in public healthcare
facilities, contributing to efforts aimed at enhancing service quality and patient-centered care.The
demographic analysis reveals a diverse participant pool with a majority aged 25–34 (37%),
followed by equal representation in the 45–54 and 55–64 groups (22% each). Gender distribution
was nearly balanced (51% female, 49% male). Most respondents came from lower-income
backgrounds (71% earning under 8 lakhs annually), and the majority experienced moderate
hospital stays (82% for 2–7 days). Occupationally, private sector employees dominated (17%),
while education levels varied, with most having completed schooling (37%) or undergraduate
degrees (32%). Overall, the sample skews younger, working-class, and economically modest,
with balanced gender representation.
The demographics of the respondents can be interpreted as follows
Age
Figure A
Graph showing percentage distribution of responses of participants' age
The analysis of age distribution shows that the majority of respondents fall within the
25–34 age group, accounting for 37% (37 respondents) of the total sample. This is followed by
the 45–54 and 55–64 age groups, each comprising 22% (22 respondents). The 35–44 age group
has the fewest respondents, representing only 19% (19 individuals). This indicates that younger
adults between 25 and 34 years old were the most represented in the study, while those in the
35–44 age range were the least represented. Overall, the data suggests a relatively balanced
participation among the older age groups, with a noticeable peak in younger adult respondents.
This pattern highlights a positively skewed distribution, where younger individuals
dominate the sample, while older age groups are represented in smaller numbers. Overall, the
data suggests that the participant pool is age-diverse but skewed toward younger individuals,
particularly those around 25 years of age.
Gender
Figure B
Graph showing percentage distribution of responses of participants’ Gender
The analysis of gender distribution reveals a nearly equal representation of male and
female participants in the study. Female respondents slightly outnumber males, accounting for
51% of the sample, while males make up 49%. This minimal gender disparity suggests a
well-balanced sample in terms of gender, enhancing the generalizability of findings across both
sexes. Such balance is particularly important when analyzing health-related variables, as gender
can influence health experiences, access to care, and psychological outcomes. The near-equal
participation also helps ensure that both male and female perspectives are adequately represented
in the study.
Annual Family Income
Figure C
Graph showing percentage distribution of responses of participants Annual Family Income
The analysis of annual family income indicates that a majority of respondents fall within
the lower income brackets. Specifically, 36% reported an income of less than 4 lakhs annually,
while 35% reported earning between 4 to 8 lakhs. Together, these two groups account for 71% of
the total sample, suggesting that most participants come from lower to lower-middle income
families. A smaller proportion (19%) reported incomes between 8 to 12 lakhs, while only 8% fell
into the 12 to 20 lakhs category. Notably, just 2% of the respondents reported a high annual
family income of 20 lakhs or more. This income distribution suggests that the sample largely
comprises individuals from modest economic backgrounds, which may have implications for
their access to healthcare and other resources.
Duration of hospitalization
Figure D
Graph showing percentage distribution of participants’ Duration of Hospitalization
The analysis of duration of hospitalization shows that the majority of respondents, 82%,
were hospitalized for a period of 2 to 7 days. A smaller group, 18%, experienced hospitalization
for more than 7 days. Notably, there were no respondents in the “less than 2 days” category, as
this was part of the study’s exclusion criteria. This distribution indicates that most individuals
required a moderate length of stay in the hospital, which may reflect the nature of the medical
condition or the standard clinical practices for care and observation. The limited number of
long-term hospitalizations (more than 7 days) suggests that severe or complicated cases were less
common among the participants.
Occupational Status
Figure E
Graph showing percentage distribution of participants’ Occupational Status
The analysis of occupational status of participants displays a diverse professional
background. The largest group comprised private sector employees (17 respondents), followed
by entrepreneurs and those categorized under "other" occupations (13 each). Workers (12) and
government sector employees (10) also formed a significant portion of the sample. A smaller
representation was seen among professionals (6) and retired individuals (4). This spread
indicates that the majority of participants are actively employed across various sectors, with a
strong presence in both formal employment and entrepreneurial ventures. The relatively lower
number of retired participants suggests that the sample skews toward a working-age
demographic.
Educational Qualification
Figure F
Pie Chart Showing percentage distribution of Educational Qualifications of participants
The analysis of educational qualifications of participants reveal a diverse academic
background. The highest number of participants had completed schooling (37%), followed
closely by those with undergraduate degrees (32%). Postgraduates made up a significant portion
(21%), while only a small fraction (2%) held diploma or other qualifications. This spread
indicates that the sample includes individuals from varying educational levels, allowing for a
broad understanding of how education might intersect with health-related experiences. The
predominance of school- and undergraduate-educated individuals may reflect accessibility
patterns or socioeconomic factors influencing both education and healthcare engagement
No. of Hospitalisation
Figure G
Graph showing the percentage of distribution of no. of hospitalization in last one year
The analysis of data on hospitalizations in the past year reveals that the vast majority of
respondents (75 out of 100) experienced only one hospitalization. A smaller yet notable segment
(20 respondents) reported being hospitalized twice. Very few individuals reported higher
frequencies of hospitalization, with only 2 respondents indicating three hospitalizations, and just
1 respondent each reporting 5, 6, and 10 hospitalizations, respectively. This distribution suggests
that while hospital visits were common, recurrent hospitalizations were relatively rare, pointing
toward either successful recovery after initial treatment or limited chronic or severe health
conditions among most participants.
Responses
Figure 1
Frequency distribution of responses of participants to the question “Were the healthcare
professionals able to respond to all your queries and concerns satisfactorily?”
To the question “Were the healthcare professionals able to respond to all your queries
and concerns satisfactorily” 41 (41%) of the participants fell under the category of often, 29
(29%) participants reported that their concerns were always addressed, around 26 (26%) of
patients selected sometimes, 4 (4%) chose rarely and no participants chose “Never” as depicted
in figure 1. The above figure provides a clear picture of how patients perceived the
responsiveness of healthcare professionals in addressing their queries and concerns during
hospitalization in a government hospital. Examining the extremes, the highest percentage of
responses fell under often (41%) and always (29%), amounting to 70% of participants expressing
a favorable or positive response. Meanwhile, sometimes accounted for 26% which is a
considerable number, and 4% chose rarely, resulting in a response rate of just 4%. The absence
of responses in the never category is notable and suggests that at least minimal responsiveness
was experienced by all patients surveyed. These results reflect a generally satisfactory trend in
terms of patient-provider communication, though they also point to occasional inconsistencies in
communication quality.
This distribution is especially notable in the context of government hospitals, which often
face overcrowding, limited staff, and infrastructural challenges. Yet, as highlighted by Deshmukh
et al. (2016) and Jandavath & Byram (2016), effective provider communication remains a critical
factor in shaping patient satisfaction, even in resource-constrained settings. The fact that 70% of
patients reported their concerns were always or often addressed reflects a commendable effort
toward patient-centered care. This aligns with findings by Epstein & Street (2011) and Street et
al. (2009), who emphasize that good clinician-patient communication enhances trust,
understanding, and outcomes. Notably, these findings are consistent with responses to the
question on whether patients were given enough time, indicating that engagement from
healthcare professionals is valued and noticed.
However, the 26% who responded sometimes and 4% who said rarely highlight areas of
concern. Research by Bjertnaes et al. (2012) and Han & Kim (2019) shows that uneven staffing
or time constraints can lead to inconsistent care experiences. In India, Das et al. (2015) and
Gadag & Iti (2023) have similarly pointed to variability in staff behavior and communication as
key drivers of dissatisfaction. Choi et al. (2022) further suggest that patients' sense of safety is
closely linked to how well their concerns are addressed. To bridge these gaps, training, standard
protocols, and improved staff management are essential—as supported by Rathert et al. (2013)
and Wolf et al. (2014).
In summary, while the overall data indicates a positive perception of responsiveness
among most patients, the variation in experience underlines the need for sustained and
standardized communication practices. By drawing upon existing evidence and aligning with
best practices in patient-centered care, public hospitals can continue to build trust and improve
health outcomes for a broader patient base.
Figure 2
Frequency distribution of participants' responses to the question “Did you feel that the
healthcare professionals give enough time during consultations”?
​
​
​
To the question, “Did you feel that the healthcare professionals give you enough time
during consultations?”, out of a total of 100 participants, 16% strongly agreed, 59% agreed, 13%
selected “Can’t Say,” and 12% disagreed, while 0% strongly disagreed, as depicted in Figure 2.
Overall, 75% (16% strongly agree, 59% agree) of respondents expressed a favorable perception
of the time provided during consultations. In contrast, 12% were dissatisfied, and 13% were
uncertain. The complete absence of “strongly disagree” responses suggests that while some
participants did experience dissatisfaction, it did not reach an extreme level of concern or
discontent.
This distribution reflects a generally positive evaluation of the consultation experience,
where the majority likely felt heard and not rushed. However, the responses from those who
disagreed indicate that there remain areas where consultation time may have felt insufficient,
possibly due to operational constraints such as heavy patient loads or limited staff availability.
These patterns resonate closely with responses to the statement “The medical conditions and
treatment procedures were explained to me clearly by healthcare professionals,” where 72%
(17% strongly agree and 55% agree) expressed agreement, while 18% selected “Can’t Say” and
10% disagreed. The similarities between these two sets of responses suggest a link between
sufficient consultation time and clear communication. When patients feel they have enough time
with healthcare professionals, they are more likely to receive and comprehend information
regarding their medical conditions and treatments.
These findings align with prior research conducted in India. For example, (Patel et al.,
2016), in a study across public hospitals in Gujarat, found that patients who reported longer
consultation times also rated healthcare communication and trust more positively. Similarly,
(Ghosh and Ghosh, 2014) observed in West Bengal that the perceived quality of care was
significantly influenced by how much time doctors spend with patients, even in under-resourced
settings. These studies reinforce the current findings by highlighting the importance of not just
medical treatment, but the relational and communicative aspects of healthcare delivery. In the
context of India’s often burdened public healthcare system, ensuring even modest improvements
in the time spent with patients may foster stronger engagement, clearer communication, and
overall greater satisfaction.
Together, these findings not only highlight that most patients felt adequately attended to
but also point to opportunities for strengthening communication, reducing inconsistencies, and
enhancing patient engagement in those cases where perceptions were neutral or negative.
Figure 3
Frequency distribution of participants' responses to the statement “The medical conditions and
treatment procedures were explained to me clearly by healthcare professionals.”
To the question, “The medical conditions and treatment procedures were explained to me
clearly by healthcare professionals,” participants expressed a range of opinions. As seen in the
distribution, 55% selected "Agree," suggesting that more than half of the patients found the
communication sufficiently clear. A further 17% opted for "Strongly Agree," indicating that a
notable portion found the explanation exceptionally clear. Meanwhile, 18% of respondents chose
"Can't Say," pointing to uncertainty or lack of recall regarding the communication. 10% of
participants selected "Disagree," showing that a minority felt inadequately informed, while none
of the respondents chose "Strongly Disagree” as depicted in figure 3.
The most frequently chosen response was "Agree" (55%), followed by "Can't Say"
(18%), and then "Strongly Agree" (17%). On the other end of the spectrum, no participants chose
"Strongly Disagree," marking the lowest extreme. Grouping the responses shows that 72% (55%
+ 17%) expressed a positive perception of how clearly the medical conditions and treatment
procedures were explained, while 10% gave a clearly negative response. The 18% who selected
"Can't Say" suggested uncertainty or a lack of memorable explanation, which may indicate
rushed consultations or limited interaction.
These findings suggest that while most patients experienced clear communication from
healthcare professionals, a significant number did not recall receiving such clarity or felt
uninformed. This aligns with existing literature that highlights communication as a critical
determinant of patient satisfaction and treatment adherence (Kourkouta & Papathanasiou, 2014).
Studies conducted in public healthcare settings in India also note that high patient loads often
compromise the time and clarity of doctor-patient interactions, leading to rushed consultations
and limited engagement (Patel et al., 2016). The fact that nearly one-third of the responses fall
outside the positive spectrum underscores the need for more standardized communication
practices, emphasizing patient understanding as a core component of care delivery. Integrating
patient-centered communication training for healthcare staff and allocating more time for
consultations could enhance clarity, reduce uncertainty, and improve overall patient satisfaction.
Figure 4
Frequency distribution of Participant's responses to the statement “The healthcare professionals
were sensitive to my individual needs and preferences while attending to me.”
To the question “Do you think the healthcare professionals were sensitive to your
individual needs and preferences?”52 (52%) of respondents selected either “Always” 17 (17%)
or “Usually” 35 (35%), indicating a generally favorable perception. A notable 38 (38%) chose
“Sometimes,” reflecting a more inconsistent experience. Meanwhile, only 7% selected “Rarely”
and 1 (1%) selected “Never,” representing the lowest end of the spectrum. This frequency
distribution is depicted in Figure 4, illustrating that while the majority experienced sensitivity
often, a considerable portion encountered it inconsistently.
At the extremes, the highest combined percentage 52% indicates a positive or consistent
experience with provider sensitivity. On the other hand, the lowest combined 8% (“Rarely”) and
1% (“Never”) responses reflect limited but present instances of negative experiences. Together,
63% of respondents provided favorable responses (“Always” + “Usually”), while 9% fell in the
unfavorable range. The remaining 38% in the “Sometimes” category represent a middle ground,
suggesting that nearly two-fifths of the participants experienced care that was situational or
inconsistent. These mixed responses imply that while many patients trust the healthcare system’s
ability to offer sensitive care, others feel this aspect of service is not always dependable.
These findings suggest that, despite the high patient footfall and systemic challenges
often associated with government hospitals, a significant majority of patients still perceive
healthcare professionals as being sensitive to their needs—an encouraging sign for the public
healthcare system. However, the presence of 38% in the “Sometimes” group and a small
percentage in the negative categories signals a need for improved consistency, especially in
communication and patient-centered practices. This aligns with responses to a related question
about whether patients felt given enough time during consultations, where similar patterns of
general satisfaction with room for improvement were observed. These patterns are also
supported by existing literature, such as Ferreira et al. (2023), which identifies communication,
interpersonal skills, and patient-centeredness as key contributors to patient satisfaction.
Furthermore, Jandavath & Byram (2016) highlights that public healthcare systems, though often
resource-strapped, can significantly improve patient trust and outcomes through structured staff
training and empathy-driven care approaches. Enhancing these areas, especially in government
settings, could help shift “Sometimes” responses to more favorable categories and reduce
negative patient experiences.
Figure 5
Frequency distribution of participants’ responses to the question “How would you rate the skills
and proficiency of the healthcare professionals?”
To the question "How would you rate the skills and proficiency of the healthcare
professionals?" 47 (47%) respondents selected “Good,” 30 (30%) selected “Average,” 20 (20%)
marked “Excellent,” 3 (3%) chose “Poor,” and none selected “Very Poor,” as depicted in Figure
5. This distribution suggests that the majority of respondents rated healthcare professionals
positively, with a considerable number expressing moderate satisfaction.
A closer look at the data reveals that the most frequent response was “Good” (47%),
followed by “Average” (30%) and “Excellent” (20%). On the other end of the spectrum, only 3%
rated the professionals as “Poor,” while “Very Poor” received no responses. When grouped, a
total of 67% (47% Good + 20% Excellent) gave a favorable rating, while only 3% (3% Poor +
0% Very Poor) expressed a negative opinion. This skew toward positive evaluations indicates a
generally satisfactory perception of healthcare providers' competence among the surveyed
population.
The results reflect a positive trend despite the challenging environment typically
associated with public healthcare facilities in India. Government hospitals are often
overcrowded, and staff operate under significant constraints; however, the majority of
respondents still acknowledged the professional competency of the medical staff. This could be
attributed to patients perceiving strong communication and attentiveness as proxies for skill.
Upon analyzing the data, significant associations were observed between certain domains.
Question 1 (communication and responsiveness), Question 2 (time spent in consultations), and
Question 3 (clarity in explaining treatments) all belong to the interpersonal and informational
dimensions of care. These consistently high ratings in communication-oriented areas correlate
with higher ratings in professional skill (Q5). This trend underscores a widely supported insight:
patients interpret good communication and attentiveness as markers of competence.
Patient experiences are known to play a vital role in healthcare outcomes, both physical
and psychological (Andaleeb, 2001). Positive interpersonal experiences enhance treatment
adherence, trust in healthcare providers, and overall satisfaction. According to Taylor (2017),
these psychological factors are crucial for recovery and ongoing health-seeking behavior. In the
Indian context, especially in government hospitals catering to a socioeconomically diverse
population, these insights become even more important (Patel et al., 2015). The 67% favorable
rating in this study reflects relatively high trust and satisfaction, even in resource-constrained
settings. Nonetheless, the 30% “Average” and 3% “Poor” responses indicate room for
improvement, particularly through enhanced training, better communication, and reduced
administrative burdens. These findings echo existing literature that highlights communication,
hygiene, and responsiveness as critical determinants of patient satisfaction (Rao et al., 2018;
Dhingra & Dutta, 2020).
Figure 6
Bar Graph Representing the Responses of Individuals to the Question: "Were the Healthcare
Professionals Up to Date with the Latest Medical Procedures and Knowledge?"
To the question “Were the Healthcare Professionals Up to Date with the Latest Medical
Procedures and Knowledge?”13 (13%) respondents selected Strongly Agree, 51 (51%) selected
Agree, 30 (30%) selected Can’t Say, 6 (6%) selected Disagree, and 0 (0%) selected Strongly
Disagree—as depicted in Figure 6. This means that a combined total of 64 (64%) people gave a
favorable response, suggesting that the majority perceived the healthcare professionals as
competent and current in their knowledge. In contrast, 6 (6%) gave a negative response by
choosing Disagree, while a significant 30 (30%) were unsure, selecting Can’t Say. These
numbers serve as a quantitative snapshot of how visible and accessible medical expertise
appeared to patients during their care.
The highest percentage was from those who Agreed (51%), and the lowest from those
who selected Strongly Disagree (0%). A combined 64% (13% Strongly Agree + 51% Agree)
gave a positive/favorable response, whereas 6% (Disagree) gave a negative one. Meanwhile,
30% remained neutral or unsure, indicating uncertainty in assessing the knowledge level of their
doctors. This suggests that while a clear majority had confidence in the system, there exists a
notable group whose perceptions may be shaped less by the actual quality of care and more by its
communication. For instance, those who Strongly Agreed (13%) may have encountered doctors
who explicitly referenced new medical advancements or used updated technologies. However,
the large Can’t Say group likely reflects patients who lacked sufficient interaction, explanation,
or contextual cues to evaluate their provider’s expertise. This group may include individuals
from rural areas or those with limited medical literacy, underscoring the importance of making
knowledge more visible and understandable.
This question lies at the heart of patient trust and the overall quality of healthcare
services. When patients assess whether their doctors and nurses are knowledgeable and skilled,
they’re often also judging how well they were treated, how clearly things were explained, and
how personally cared for they felt. The fact that 64% of patients perceived their healthcare
professionals as updated suggests a generally positive service experience. This suggests that, for
most respondents, their experience with medical professionals reflected a sense of competence,
trustworthiness, and current expertise. It is likely that these patients observed modern equipment,
updated treatment protocols, or received clear, evidence-based answers to their questions. Such
responses reinforce a patient’s confidence in the system, especially in an age where access to
online medical knowledge makes patients more aware and inquisitive. However, the 30% neutral
and 6% negative responses highlight an ambiguity which might not stem from lack of expertise,
but rather from gaps in communication; patients may not have been given enough information to
confidently assess whether their doctor was using the latest practices. Stewart et al. (2000) found
that communication is often a better predictor of patient satisfaction than clinical outcomes, and
Levinson et al. (1997) showed that doctors who explain clearly and involve patients in decisions
face fewer complaints. This points to the importance of transparent, explanatory communication
in building trust and clarity. This uncertainty may not reflect the actual knowledge of the doctors,
but instead the perceived visibility of that knowledge. Patients who feel left out of the
decision-making process, or those who don’t receive enough explanation about their treatment,
may struggle to evaluate their doctor's competence, even if the treatment was appropriate. In the
Indian context, Rao et al. (2006) observed that patients in public hospitals felt more satisfied
when doctors engaged in explanatory and participatory care, even amid resource constraints.
Thus, improving communication strategies, especially in busy public hospitals, is key to
strengthening the bridge between perceived and actual quality of care. It also aligns with the
modern push toward patient-centered care, where competence is not only practiced but also
clearly demonstrated.
While most patients do believe their doctors are knowledgeable and up to date, there is a
clear need for improvement in making that knowledge visible and accessible. Greater trust in the
doctor’s abilities often stems from clear communication of their credentials, educational
background, and practical experience, which helps patients feel more confident and secure in the
care they receive. The healthcare system must continue to evolve—not just in terms of science
and technology, but also in how it conveys competence, compassion, and collaboration to every
patient. Building this bridge between expertise and patient perception is key to modern, effective,
and truly holistic healthcare.
Figure 7.1
Showing the percentage distribution of responses of participants to the question “how would you
rate the coordination among the healthcare professionals to provide seamless care?”
To the question, "How would you rate the coordination among the healthcare professionals to
provide seamless care?", 65% of participants rated coordination as either Excellent (16%) or
Good (49%), suggesting a generally positive perception of interprofessional collaboration. In the
Indian healthcare context, similar patterns have been observed. Sharma et al. (2020) found that
68% of healthcare workers in tertiary hospitals reported effective communication across
departments, especially where structured handover protocols and multidisciplinary team
meetings were implemented. However, 2% of respondents rated coordination as either Poor or
Very Poor. This finding aligns with Chatterjee and Srinivasan (2013), who reported that
hierarchical structures, inadequate communication systems, and professional silos often hinder
effective coordination, particularly in government-run hospitals.
Meanwhile, 33% of participants rated coordination as Average. This suggests that while care was
generally competent, gaps in communication, unclear role definitions, and fragmented teamwork
occasionally limited the seamlessness of care. Gupta et al. (2019) similarly observed that while
large metropolitan hospitals in India demonstrated better interdisciplinary practices, secondary
and district-level hospitals continued to face significant challenges, often due to staff shortages
and inconsistent team training.
Figure 8.1
Bar graph showing the average rating of various facilities by participants to the question “How
would you rate the cleanliness and hygiene of the following - toilets, waiting rooms, wards,
OPDs/OTs, food services, water ?”
Figure 8.2
Stacked Bar Graph showing the percentage distribution of ratings of various facilities by
participants to the question “How would you rate the cleanliness and hygiene of the following toilets, waiting rooms, wards, OPDs/OTs, food services, water ?”
To the question, “How would you rate the cleanliness and hygiene of the following toilets, waiting rooms, wards, OPDs/OTs, food services, water?”, the participants expressed
varied levels of satisfaction. As depicted in figures 10.1 and 10.2, the cleanliness of toilets
received mixed responses, with a large number of participants out of 100 rated them as Average
(40%) and Good (26%), but a noticeable portion still rated them as Poor (15%) and Very Poor
(4%). Only 15% marked them Excellent. The mean score was 3.33, and the standard deviation
was 1.04, showing that patient experiences varied significantly. This suggests that while a
portion of patients found the toilets satisfactory or better, there is a considerable population that
experienced poor standards, pointing toward inconsistencies in cleanliness across different
hospitals.
For waiting rooms, the most common rating was again Average (45%), followed by Good
(34%) and Excellent (11%), while Poor (9%) and Very Poor (1%) were low. The mean rating
was 3.45 with a standard deviation of 0.85, indicating a slightly better than average perception
and relatively consistent experiences among participants. The low percentage of "Very Poor" and
a narrower spread in responses reflect that while the area is not ideal, most users find it
acceptable. However, the high percentage of "Average" ratings implies room for improvement.
The patient wards were generally well-rated, with 44% rating them as Good, followed by
37% as Average, 11% as Excellent, and just 5% as Poor, while 3% rated it Very Poor. The
mean rating stood at 3.6 with a standard deviation of 0.85, suggesting overall satisfaction and
relatively consistent perceptions. Compared to other facilities, the wards seem to be better
managed in terms of cleanliness and hygiene. Nonetheless, the hospital should aim to shift the
“Average” ratings toward “Good” and “Excellent” by focusing on sanitation frequency, linen
hygiene, odor control, and pest management.
The OPDs/OTs category emerged as one of the best-performing areas in terms of
cleanliness and hygiene, with 37% rating them as Good, 33% as Average, and a significant 20%
as Excellent. Only 7% gave a negative rating, with 3% being "Very Poor". The mean was 3.76,
the highest among all facilities, and the standard deviation was 0.89, indicating high satisfaction
and relatively tight clustering around the mean. This reflects positively on the hospital’s
implementation of hygiene standards in critical areas such as operation theatres and outpatient
departments.
Among all facilities, food services received the most mixed and polarized feedback by
100 participants. A high 42% rated food as Average, but nearly 30% rated it negatively (Poor:
19%, Very Poor: 5%). Only 10% felt it was Excellent. The mean score was 3.15, the lowest
among all facilities, and the standard deviation was 1.01, suggesting varied and polarized
experiences. This highlights a clear concern among patients regarding the cleanliness and
hygiene of food being served.
Drinking water facilities received moderately positive responses, with 36% of
participants rating them as Good, 32% as Average, and 18% as Excellent. Only a small
proportion rated them as Poor (11%) or Very Poor (3%). The mean was 3.55, and the SD was
1.01, reflecting decent access to clean drinking water but still with some variability. While the
overall satisfaction appears stable, the relatively high variability indicates differences in
experience across different government hospitals.
The mean scores range from 3.15 (food services) to 3.76 (OPDs/OTs), showing that while
some departments meet or exceed expectations, others fall short. This variability points toward
non-uniform maintenance standards across government hospitals or even within different
facilities of the same hospital. With the highest mean score (3.76) and a relatively low percentage
of negative ratings, OPDs and OTs are perceived as the cleanest and best-maintained areas. This
reflects positively on government hospitals’ prioritization of hygiene in critical care areas, likely
driven by stricter protocols and higher oversight. Wards (mean: 3.6) and drinking water (mean:
3.55) received mostly positive or average ratings, suggesting they are functioning adequately,
though still with noticeable room for improvement. Their moderate standard deviations show
that experiences are relatively consistent, but some disparities persist due to non-uniform
maintenance across hospitals. Toilets and food services stand out as areas with the most
dissatisfaction. Toilets (mean: 3.33) had 19% of participants rating them as Poor or Very Poor,
reflecting persistent sanitation challenges. Food services (mean: 3.15) not only had the lowest
average rating, but also the highest spread in responses (SD: 1.01), revealing polarized
experiences and a lack of quality control. Across nearly all facilities, "Average" was the most
common response because of the high burden of public health on government facilities which are
unable to meet the demands probably due to staff shortage, unstandardized protocols and
monitoring. This suggests that while patients aren’t overwhelmingly dissatisfied, they aren’t
impressed either. The government hospitals appear to be functioning at a basic level, but rarely
exceed expectations. These findings emphasize the urgent need for standardization, monitoring,
and accountability in non-clinical services across government hospitals. While clinical areas like
OPDs and OTs show commendable cleanliness, basic patient amenities like toilets and food
services are lagging, affecting overall patient satisfaction and trust. Improving hygiene in these
areas doesn’t just enhance comfort — it prevents infection, promotes recovery, and reflects
dignity in care delivery. For government hospitals striving toward universal, quality public
healthcare, this survey provides a clear call to invest in infrastructure, sanitation staff training,
and quality control mechanisms across all departments.
Figure 9
Frequency distribution of participants' responses to the statement “Were the protocols pertaining
to sanitisation and hygiene (use of sterilised equipment, disposable gloves, masks, hand
sanitisers etc) followed”
To the question, “How frequently are sanitisation protocols followed in government
healthcare facilities?”, participants expressed a range of opinions. As depicted in Figure 9, 43%
of respondents reported that these protocols were always followed, making it the most common
response. This was followed by 35% who said protocols were often followed, while 20%
indicated they were followed sometimes. Only 1% each reported that protocols were rarely or
never followed.
The most frequently selected response was “Always,” chosen by 43% of participants,
indicating a strong perception of consistent adherence to sanitisation and infection control
measures. In contrast, only 1% of participants reported that protocols were never followed,
suggesting very few instances of complete non-compliance. When categorized, the data shows
that 78% of participants gave a positive response regarding adherence to protocols (“Always”
and “Often”), 20% held an inconsistent view (“Sometimes”), and just 2% gave negative
responses (“Rarely” and “Never”). The very low percentage of negative feedback suggests that
only a small minority of respondents experienced lapses in hygiene practices.
These findings reveal that the majority of patients perceive sanitisation protocols to be
consistently implemented in government healthcare facilities, reflecting overall satisfaction with
infection control standards. This positive perception is likely influenced by visible staff efforts,
adequate availability of hygiene supplies, and regular monitoring, as also noted in responses to
related questions about staff responsiveness and the time spent with patients. However, the
presence of neutral and negative responses points to some variability in protocol implementation,
possibly due to high patient loads, resource constraints, or occasional lapses in staff vigilance.
These inconsistencies indicate that while the facility generally performs well in maintaining
hygiene, there remains room for improvement in ensuring uniform standards and addressing
occasional gaps in practice. Targeted interventions such as ongoing staff training, stricter
supervision, and better resource allocation could help bridge these gaps, ultimately enhancing
patient trust and safety. The results highlight the importance of sustaining high standards in
hygiene and infection control while continuously working to eliminate inconsistencies that affect
the overall patient experience.
Figure 10.1
Bar Graph showing the average rating of various facilities of participants to the question How
would you rate the adequacy (availability and quality) of the following
Figure 10.2
Stacked Bar Graph Showing the percentage distribution of ratings of various facilities of
participants to the question, “How would you rate the adequacy (availability and quality) of the
following
To the question, “satisfaction with various hospital services such as Pharmacy, Diagnostic
Procedures, Emergency Care, Room Facilities, Equipment, and others”, participants expressed a
range of responses indicating varied levels of satisfaction.”
Pharmacy services were rated positively by 74% of the 100 respondents, with 24% marking
them as Excellent and 50% as Good. The mean score stood at 3.95, suggesting high levels of
satisfaction with the availability and efficiency of medicines. Only a minimal number of
participants rated it as Very Poor (2 respondents), and one chose “Cannot Say”, indicating low
dissatisfaction and uncertainty. These findings reflect effective management of prescription
services and timely drug delivery in the hospital.
Diagnostic Procedures also received largely favorable feedback, with 69% of participants
rating them as Good (53%) or Excellent (16%). The mean score of 3.87 reflects a generally
positive experience with lab and medical testing services. Only 4 respondents rated them as Poor
and 2 as “Cannot Say”, highlighting a small scope for improvement in operational clarity and
wait times.
Emergency Care services were rated positively by 63% of the participants, with 28%
giving an Excellent rating and 35% selecting Good. The mean rating was 3.80. However, 27%
marked it as Average, while 9% rated it as Poor or Very Poor, indicating that although critical
care was appreciated by most, there may be inconsistencies in delivery, particularly during
high-demand periods.
Room facilities received mixed responses. While only 15% marked them as Excellent,
the majority (50%) gave an Average rating. The overall mean was 3.55, with only 2 respondents
each marking Poor or Very Poor. These ratings suggest that although rooms meet the basic
standards, they may lack in areas like comfort or cleanliness, contributing to a neutral experience
for many patients.
Equipment stood out as one of the most positively rated categories, with 71 participants
(25% Excellent and 46% Good) providing favorable feedback. With a mean of 3.95, this was one
of the highest-rated areas, demonstrating strong confidence in the hospital’s medical
infrastructure. Notably, none of the respondents rated equipment as Very Poor, and only 5 gave a
Poor rating, reflecting minimal dissatisfaction.
In contrast, Facilities for Attendants received more moderate ratings. Only 46% rated them
positively (12% Excellent, 34% Good), while a proportion (37%) marked them as Average. The
mean score of 3.34 and a combined 17% rating of Poor or Very Poor highlight the need for better
amenities and accommodation options for accompanying family members.
Direction Boards and Sign Boards were rated fairly well, with a mean score of 3.84. A
total of 61% rated them as Excellent or Good, while 35% selected Average. This suggests that
while navigation within the hospital is generally manageable, some participants still found
signage to be unclear or insufficient.
Disability Access emerged as an area with mixed perceptions. The mean score was 3.37,
with only 19% rating it Excellent and 31% as Good. However, 35% marked Average and 12%
indicated Poor or Very Poor. This reflects the need for enhanced infrastructure such as ramps,
elevators, and accessible restrooms to better support patients with physical disabilities.
Administrative Processes were moderately rated, with a mean score of 3.32. While 44%
gave positive ratings (Excellent or Good), a number (40 respondents) rated it as Average. This
indicates that while the system is functional, it may be hindered by inefficiencies in paperwork,
billing, or procedural delays.
Amenities for patients such as internet access, television, or reading materials received
comparatively lower ratings. The mean stood at 3.03, with only 35% rating them positively and
33% marking Average. A combined 24% rated these as Poor or Very Poor, reflecting clear
dissatisfaction with non-clinical aspects of the hospital stay.
Waste Disposal services received a mean of 3.38, with 49% giving a positive rating.
However, 22% marked Average and 18% indicated Poor or Very Poor. These results suggest
inconsistency in hygiene practices and waste management protocols across hospital areas.
The mean scores across services ranged from 3.03 (Amenities) to 3.95 (Pharmacy and
Equipment), indicating a generally high level of satisfaction with clinical services, while
non-clinical services showed significant room for improvement. Clinical services such as
Pharmacy (mean: 3.95), Diagnostic Procedures (mean: 3.87), and Equipment (mean: 3.95)
received the highest ratings, reflecting strong performance in medical care delivery. These areas
showed relatively low dissatisfaction rates, suggesting effective infrastructure, timely service,
and good management practices in core hospital operations. In contrast, services tied to comfort
and patient support such as Room Facilities (mean: 3.55), Facilities for Attendants (mean: 3.34),
and Amenities (mean: 3.03) received more moderate or lower ratings, highlighting areas where
hospitals fall short in addressing the holistic patient experience. Waste Disposal (mean: 3.38) and
Disability Access (mean: 3.37) similarly reflected persistent challenges in infrastructure and
sanitation, with noticeable proportions of poor ratings.
These patterns mirror broader trends observed in India’s public healthcare system, where
government hospitals often deliver reliable clinical treatment but lag in providing supportive
amenities and patient-centered services. Factors such as high patient load, limited resources, and
inadequate infrastructure investment contribute to this imbalance. While critical care remains a
priority, the neglect of comfort and accessibility elements affects overall patient satisfaction and
trust. Therefore, strengthening non-clinical services, upgrading facilities, and ensuring
accessible, hygienic environments are crucial for enhancing the quality of public healthcare
delivery in India.
Figure 11
Showing percentage distribution of responses to the question, “Was your Privacy and Dignity
maintained during the hospital stay?”
To the question “Was your privacy and dignity maintained during the hospital stay?” 53
(53%) of the 100 participants responded with “Agree” and 13 (13%) with “Strongly Agree,”
together comprising 66 (66%) of respondents who reported a positive perception regarding the
maintenance of their privacy and dignity. In contrast, 6 (6%) selected “Disagree” and 3 (3%)
chose “Strongly Disagree,” representing a combined 9 (9%) who expressed negative
experiences. Additionally, 22 (22%) of respondents chose “Cannot say,” indicating ambivalence
or uncertainty in their perception of privacy and dignity. This distribution of responses is
depicted in Figure 12.2.
The highest frequency was observed for “Agree” (53%), followed by “Cannot say”
(22%) and “Strongly Agree” (13%), indicating that a substantial 66% of respondents had a
favorable perception of privacy and dignity during hospitalization. Conversely, only 3% chose
“Strongly Disagree,” the lowest frequency in the response spectrum, while an overall 9%
expressed dissatisfaction. These findings suggest that the majority of patients felt that their
privacy and dignity were respected during their hospital stay. With a mean score of 3.73 on the
5-point Likert scale, a median and mode of 4, the overall trend leaned towards agreement. A
standard deviation of 0.89 indicates moderate variability, reflecting that although the dominant
sentiment was positive, experiences were not uniformly consistent.
The responses suggest that most patients experienced a respectful and considerate
environment, where healthcare providers likely upheld personal boundaries and ensured
confidentiality. The relatively high rate of agreement may reflect staff training, policy adherence,
and cultural sensitivity in patient care. However, the 9% of participants who expressed
dissatisfaction indicate room for improvement, possibly pointing to lapses in communication,
overcrowding, or procedural oversights that may have led to feelings of exposure or disrespect.
The 22% who responded with “Cannot say” are also significant, as their uncertainty
could stem from inconsistent experiences or a lack of awareness about their rights. This suggests
the need for better patient education and staff reinforcement of privacy protocols. Similar to
trends observed in responses to questions about patient safety and communication, these findings
reinforce the importance of a holistic approach to patient-centered care. As emphasized by
Taylor and Bury (2007), dignity and respect are foundational to quality healthcare experiences,
and their presence can significantly influence emotional well-being and satisfaction.
Additionally, Stewart et al. (2000) highlight that clear, respectful interactions with providers
contribute positively to patient perceptions of being valued and cared for.
Figure 12.1
Bar graph representing percentage distribution of Participant's responses to the question did you
feel safe and secure during your hospital stay?
Figure 12.2
Bar graph representing the gender variation to the question "Did you feel safe and secure during
your hospital stay?"
To the question “Did you feel safe and secure during your hospital stay?” 54 (54%) of
the 100 participants responded with “Agree” and 19 (19%) with “Strongly Agree,” together
comprising 73 (73%) of respondents who reported a positive sense of safety and security during
their hospital stay. In contrast, 8 (8%) selected “Disagree” and 3 (3%) chose “Strongly
Disagree,” representing a combined 11 (11%)
who expressed negative experiences.
Additionally, 16 (16%) of respondents chose “Cannot say,” indicating either ambivalence or
uncertainty in their perception of safety. This distribution of responses is depicted in Figure 12.1.
The highest frequency was observed for “Agree” (54%), followed by “Strongly Agree”
(19%), indicating that a substantial 73% of respondents had a favorable perception of safety
during hospitalization. In contrast, only 3% chose “Strongly Disagree,” marking the lowest
frequency, with an overall 11% expressing negative sentiments. These findings suggest that a
clear majority of patients felt reasonably secure, both physically and emotionally, during their
stay. With a mean score of 3.78 on the 5-point Likert scale, along with a median and mode of 4,
the general trend leaned toward agreement. The standard deviation of 0.94 suggests moderate
variability in perceptions, indicating that while positive experiences were dominant, they were
not uniformly shared.
The responses highlight a generally reassuring environment in government hospital
settings, even amidst the high patient volume and structural limitations often associated with
public healthcare institutions. The high agreement rate may point toward the presence of
attentive staff, effective protocols, and a perceived atmosphere of safety. Nonetheless, the 11%
expressing dissatisfaction cannot be overlooked, as this segment likely reflects systemic gaps
such as inadequate communication, insufficient attention to patient needs, or environmental
stressors that compromised their sense of security. Notably, the 16% who responded “Cannot
say” also warrant attention, as their indecisiveness may stem from inconsistent care or limited
awareness of patient rights and safety procedures. This finding aligns with findings from Q3, in
which 72% agreed that their medical conditions and treatment procedures were clearly
explained. This parallel suggests that clear communication significantly contributes to patients’
perception of safety, as understanding one’s diagnosis and care plan reduces uncertainty and
builds trust. As Stewart et al. (2000) highlight, effective provider-patient communication is
associated with better emotional outcomes and heightened satisfaction, both of which are
essential to a patient’s sense of security. Similarly, Taylor and Bury (2007) emphasize that when
information is delivered in a clear and respectful manner, patients are more likely to experience
the healthcare setting as safe and supportive.
Gender-based as shown in figure 12.2 differences revealed that female respondents were
more likely to report feeling safe, while male respondents were more likely to express
dissatisfaction or uncertainty. This trend aligns with findings by Roter and Hall (2004), who
observed that women generally report higher satisfaction in healthcare settings, potentially due to
more proactive engagement and better relational dynamics with providers.
Figure 13.1
Graph showing percentage distribution of participants responses to the question “Did you
receive prompt care and treatment during your hospital stay?”
To the question, “Did you receive prompt care and treatment during your hospital
stay?”, out of a total sample of 100 respondents, 50 (50%) agree. This is the largest segment,
showing that nearly half of the participants felt they received prompt care. This is a positive sign
for the hospital's responsiveness. 22 (22%) strongly agree. A significant portion strongly agreed,
which reinforces the above point—about 72 (72%) (combined) had a positive experience. 15
(15%) cannot say. This indicates uncertainty or variability in experience. It could mean
inconsistent care, lack of clarity, or limited interaction.10% disagree and 3% strongly disagree.
About 13% of respondents had a negative experience, suggesting room for improvement in
ensuring timely care for all, as depicted in Fig. 13.
The survey responses reveal that a majority of the participants had a positive experience
with the promptness of care in government hospitals. Specifically, 50 (50%) of the respondents
agreed, and 22 (22%) strongly agreed, indicating that over 72 (72%) perceived the care as timely
and adequate. One significant aspect is that timely and prompt care cannot always be guaranteed
in a government setup like this. However, despite challenges such as the large patient load and an
imbalanced doctor-patient ratio, the high rate of positive responses (72%) is quite impressive.
However, 15 (15%) were uncertain, suggesting variability in their experiences or a lack of clarity
regarding the responsiveness of services. Additionally, 10 (10%) disagreed, and 3 (3%) strongly
disagreed, reflecting a combined 13 (13%) who felt dissatisfied with the promptness of care.
These respondents represent a significant minority whose concerns warrant closer
attention. Their responses may reflect real issues such as delays in service delivery, overcrowded
facilities, understaffing, or poor communication between healthcare providers and patients. Each
of these factors can directly impact not only the actual timeliness of care but also the patient’s
perception of it. This dissatisfaction also has broader implications, potentially eroding public
trust in government healthcare services and pushing patients toward private options that may not
be affordable. Furthermore, when considered alongside the 15 (15%) of respondents who were
uncertain about the promptness of their care, it suggests that the actual level of concern may be
even higher than reported. These responses highlight gaps that may be due to delays,
overcrowding, understaffing, or lack of communication, in government hospitals. These findings
suggest that while most patients had favorable experiences, there remains a notable proportion
who either did not receive timely care or were unsure about the quality of responsiveness,
highlighting the need for greater consistency and communication in patient care delivery.
Figure 14.1
Frequency Distribution of Participants' responses to the question: “How would you rate the
grievance redressal mechanism during your stay?”
To the question ‘How would you rate the grievance redressal mechanism during your
stay?’, this question was designed to evaluate participants' experiences with the grievance
redressal mechanism provided during their stay, most likely in a healthcare or institutional
setting. Out of 100 participants, 42% rated the mechanism as Good, 27% selected Cannot Say,
19% as Poor, 11% Excellent, and 1% as Very Poor. These percentages reflect the varying degrees
of satisfaction with how concerns, complaints, or service-related issues were acknowledged and
addressed by the institution during their stay.
A combined total of 53% (Excellent + Good) reflects a generally positive perception of
the grievance redressal system. This suggests that more than half the participants found the
mechanism effective and satisfactory in addressing complaints. In contexts such as healthcare or
institutional settings, this could indicate a moderate level of trust in the complaint handling
process, with adequate responsiveness and support experienced by a majority of respondents.
However, 20% of participants rated the system negatively (Poor + Very Poor), indicating that one
in five had a dissatisfactory experience. This proportion points to concerns such as delays in
response, lack of proper communication, or unresolved grievances. Such shortcomings can affect
participants’ overall experience, leading to feelings of neglect or frustration, especially in
sensitive settings like hospitals or care facilities. Additionally, 27% responded with “Cannot
Say,” suggesting a lack of awareness or experience with the mechanism. This indicates the need
for clearer communication and more visibility of grievance processes among those staying in
such settings.
An analysis of grievance redressal mechanisms reveals deeper insights into institutional
functionality and equity. While 53% of respondents rated the mechanism positively, suggesting
basic effectiveness, this may reflect superficial complaint handling that inflates satisfaction
without resolving core issues (Reader et al., 2014). The 20% negative responses, aligned with
Reader et al.’s (2014) taxonomy of systemic failures, indicate issues like dismissive interpersonal
care and delayed resolutions, suggesting inconsistency in the system’s implementation. In public
healthcare settings, such barriers are often exacerbated by resource constraints, low health
literacy, and hierarchical systems. Additional factors include poor communication practices, lack
of provider accountability, organizational defensiveness, and inadequate learning from
complaints (Reader et al., 2014). These issues collectively contribute to a cycle where grievances
are either inadequately addressed or systematically suppressed, hindering long-term quality
improvement.
Figure 15.1
Showing percentage distribution of Participant's responses to the question “Were you provided
with adequate follow up care, instructions and support ?”
The majority of participants (68%) responded positively, with 51% agreeing and 17%
strongly agreeing that they received adequate follow-up care, instructions, and support in
government hospitals. This indicates a general sense of satisfaction with the continuity of care
and guidance provided after initial treatment.
However, a notable 18% of respondents selected “Cannot say,” which points to
uncertainty or inconsistency in their experience. This indicates that some patients were unsure of
whether the care they received qualified as adequate or may have had varied experiences with
different staff members or departments.
Meanwhile, 14% of respondents (12% disagree + 2% strongly disagree) had negative
experiences, indicating they did not feel adequately supported post-treatment. These cases are
critical to highlight as they reflect potential shortcomings in hospital discharge processes,
communication, or follow-up mechanisms.
While the majority of respondents reported receiving adequate follow-up care and
discharge instructions, the high percentage of uncertain responses and some dissatisfaction point
to important gaps, especially in the Indian healthcare context. In India, challenges like
overcrowded hospitals, limited doctor-patient interaction time, and the diversity of patient
backgrounds often hinder effective communication. Discharge instructions are frequently
hurried, filled with medical jargon, and not always tailored to patients’ literacy levels. As a
result, many patients and families are discharged without a clear understanding of medication
routines, potential warning signs, or necessary follow-up steps, which can compromise home
care management and hinder the patient’s overall recovery.
Figure 16.1
Frequency Distribution of Participants' Responses to the Question: "Did the treatment outcome
meet your expectations?"
​
To the question, “Did the treatment outcome meet your expectations?”, participants
expressed varied levels of satisfaction. As depicted in Figure 16, 14% of the respondents stated
that the outcome exceeded their expectations, while 49% said it met their expectations . A further
23% selected the option “Can’t say” , suggesting uncertainty or ambivalence. Meanwhile, 13%
of participants rated the outcome below their expectations , and only 1% reported that it did not
meet expectations at all .
This indicates that 63% (49%+14%) of the respondents gave a favorable or positive
response, suggesting that nearly two-thirds of the sample felt that their healthcare experience was
satisfactory or better, suggesting a generally positive alignment between anticipated and actual
care received. In contrast, 14% (13% + 1%) provided a negative response, highlighting a section
of patients who felt that the treatment outcomes did not meet their anticipated standards. The
remaining 23% who selected “Can’t say” reflect a significant group experiencing
uncertainty—suggesting a lack of clarity, mixed feelings, or difficulty in evaluating the
effectiveness of the treatment.
These findings become especially relevant when considered in the broader context of
patient care within government hospital settings. Despite the high patient load, the fact that a
majority (63%) still reported satisfactory or better outcomes is noteworthy. It reflects positively
on the system’s ability to deliver core medical outcomes, even within the constraints of
overcrowding and limited resources. However, the 37% of respondents who were either
dissatisfied or uncertain pointed to opportunities for improvement not just in care delivery, but in
how care is communicated, explained, and personalized. The uncertainty reported through “Cant
say” responses by a sizable number of respondents suggests that some participants may have had
mixed experiences or struggled to evaluate the effectiveness of their treatment in relation to their
expectations. It may not necessarily indicate poor outcomes, but rather a lack of engagement or
clarity in the explanation of care , which prevents them from accurately judging or trusting their
outcomes. Such responses could reflect issues like inadequate communication, unmet
informational needs, or varied emotional responses to care.
Overall, the data suggest that while the majority of patients had their expectations met or
exceeded, there remains a significant portion who experienced uncertainty or dissatisfaction.
These insights underscore the importance of personalized care, clear communication, and
attention to individual needs in enhancing patient satisfaction across diverse groups.
Figure 17.
Bar graph representing percentage of responses on the question: Have you used any other form
of treatment method other than allopathy for the current problem?
Out of a sample of 100 respondents, for the 17th question, the survey reveals that when
asked if they had used any other form of treatment method besides allopathy (like homeopathy,
ayurvedic, etc.) for the health problem they were hospitalized for- 40 respondents (40%)
indicated that they had used other forms of treatment. Conversely, 60 respondents (60%)
reported that they had not used any other treatment methods alongside allopathy.
The majority of the respondents, 60 individuals (60%), relied solely on allopathic
treatment for their health issues requiring hospitalization. This could indicate a strong trust in
conventional medicine, a lack of awareness or access to other treatment alternatives, or a specific
recommendation from their healthcare providers.
On the other hand, a portion of the sample, 40 individuals (40%), reported using
treatment methods beyond allopathy like ayurveda, faith healing etc. This suggests an interest or
perceived need for alternative or complementary approaches during a period of hospitalization.
Figure 18.1
Alternative treatment methods used by the patients (n=40)
To the question, “Have you used any other form of treatment method other than allopathy
(like homeopathy, ayurvedic, etc.) for the current problem for which you were hospitalized? If
yes, then which?”, out of 100 participants, 40 responded affirmatively. Among these 40, 19
(44%) mentioned using Homeopathy, 17 (40%) reported Ayurveda, 5 (12%) opted for Faith
Healing, and 1 (2%) each cited Naturopathy and Don’t remember exactly. As depicted in Figure
18, Homeopathy and Ayurveda emerged as the most commonly adopted alternatives, together
comprising 90% of the responses.
Homeopathy received the highest number of responses at 44%, followed closely by
Ayurveda at 40%, indicating strong preference for these systems. The lowest frequencies were
for Naturopathy and the Don’t remember category, each with 1 (2%) respondent. Faith Healing
was chosen by 5 (12%) respondents. When combined, 36 (90%) respondents favored either
Homeopathy or Ayurveda, suggesting a predominant inclination toward traditional systems. The
remaining 4 (10%) responses, including Faith Healing, Naturopathy, and Don’t remember, reflect
less common but still present alternative approaches.
This distribution suggests a noteworthy cultural and psychological alignment with
traditional practices even during hospitalization in formal medical settings. The dominance of
Homeopathy and Ayurveda (90%) reflects a deep-rooted trust in natural or holistic healing
methods, aligning with Indian cultural and historical contexts. The use of spiritual and faith
healing, in particular, may reflect emotion-focused coping strategies that help patients manage
stress and promote a sense of well-being during hospitalization. These findings highlight the
importance for healthcare providers to acknowledge and understand patients’ beliefs and
preferences, and potentially explore integrative care models that combine conventional medicine
with trusted traditional practices to enhance overall patient satisfaction and recovery outcomes. It
also points to a growing trend where biomedical interventions are complemented by traditional
or holistic methods, reflecting the evolving landscape of health behavior in hospitalized
populations.
Figure 19.1
Frequency distribution of participants' responses to the question “How would you rate overall
experience of the care you received?”
​
Figure 19 illustrates the frequency distribution of participant responses to the question, “How
would you rate the overall experience of the care you received?”, based on a sample of 100
individuals. The response category Good was the most frequently selected, with 50% of
respondents indicating a generally favorable perception of the care received. In addition, 32% of
participants evaluated their experience as Average. Notably, 13% reported an Excellent
experience. In contrast, 4% of respondents rated their care as Poor, while 1% expressed a Very
Poor experience.9
These findings suggest that a majority of participants (63%, combining Excellent and
Good) had a positive experience with the care received. The 32% who chose Average imply that
a significant portion found the care adequate, though not exceptional. The small percentages for
Poor (4%) and Very Po9or (1%) indicate limited but noteworthy dissatisfaction among a
minority which suggests that schemes initiated by the government like PM- Ayush works well in
fulfilling the expectations of people who are visiting public hospitals. Overall, the distribution
demonstrates a predominantly favorable appraisal of care, while also reflecting the diversity in
patient experiences.
The data show that 63% of participants expressed satisfaction with Excellent and Good
ratings, indicating most perceived effective and commendable healthcare services. This aligns
with Jalali et al. (2016), who found high patient approval for physician and nursing competence
in a North Indian tertiary care setting. Conversely, 5% rated their experience Poor or Very Poor, a
small but significant group pointing to issues like inadequate communication or clinical errors.
The 32% selecting Average suggest unmet expectations or brief encounters, consistent with a
review on patient-provider interactions in oncology settings (Das et al., 2018) , emphasizing
empathy’s role in satisfaction. A mean score of 3.67, between Average (3) and Good (4) on a
5-point scale (5 = Excellent, 1 = Very Poor), reflects a positive trend, with a standard deviation
of 0.86 indicating moderate variability in service quality across respondents
The 63% positive evaluations (Excellent and Good) reflect strengths in the healthcare
system, likely due to professional staff conduct and resource allocation, consistent with Jalali et
al. (2016). However, 5% of responses (Poor and Very Poor) indicate dissatisfaction, possibly due
to diagnostic inaccuracies or protocol lapses, as noted in Das et al. (2018). The 32% Average
responses suggest a need to enhance services beyond adequacy. Improved patient-centered
communication, as highlighted in Prip et al. (2018), could boost satisfaction. The mean (3.67),
median, and mode (Good) indicate a positive perception, but a standard deviation of 0.86 reveals
variable service quality. Targeted measures like empathy-focused training and quality assurance
could reduce dissatisfaction, elevate average ratings, and ensure consistent, high-quality care.
Figure 20
Frequency distribution of responses of participants to the question “ On the basis of your
experience would you recommend the healthcare facility to others?”
To the question, “On the basis of your experience, would you recommend the healthcare
facility to others?”, participants expressed varied opinions. As depicted in Figure 20, 40%
selected "Probably," making it the most common response, followed by 22% who chose
"Definitely." Additionally, 29% responded with "Maybe," while 7% selected "Unlikely," and
only 2% chose "Not at all."
The most commonly selected response was "Probably," chosen by 40% of participants,
indicating a general inclination toward recommending the healthcare facility. In contrast, only
2% of participants were clearly dissatisfied, as reflected in their response of "Not at all." When
categorized, the data shows that 62% of participants expressed a positive likelihood of
recommending the facility ("Definitely" and "Probably"), 29% held a neutral stance ("Maybe"),
and just 9% gave negative responses ("Unlikely" and "Not at all"). The low percentage of
strongly negative feedback suggests that only a small portion of participants had unfavorable
experiences
The findings reveal that a majority of patients would recommend the healthcare facility to
others, reflecting overall satisfaction with their experiences. This positive inclination appears
strongly linked to patients' perceptions of healthcare professionals' competence, clear
communication about medical conditions and treatments, and the responsiveness of staff during
consultations and care delivery. However, the choice to recommend government facilities often
reflects financial constraints - those with limited resources may reluctantly endorse public
services despite shortcomings, while those with means typically prefer private alternatives. This
disparity serves as an important indicator of underlying perceptions about healthcare quality
being tied to economic status. Additionally, feelings of safety, adherence to hygiene protocols,
and effective coordination among healthcare teams further contributed to patients' willingness to
endorse the facility as evident in the responses of other questions too. The presence of ‘maybe’
(29%) responses and negative (9%) responses suggests variability in service quality, particularly
in areas such as cleanliness, grievance resolution, and post-discharge support. These
inconsistencies indicate that while the facility excels in core clinical and communication aspects,
there remains room for improvement in ensuring uniform service standards and addressing gaps
in patient follow-up and amenities. Enhancing these areas could not only strengthen patient trust
and increase unequivocal recommendations, but also potentially shift perceptions about
government healthcare quality among those with financial alternatives. The results underscore
the importance of maintaining high standards in medical expertise and patient interactions while
addressing logistical and administrative aspects that shape the overall healthcare experience and
influence recommendation patterns across different socioeconomic groups.
This study offers important insights into patients' perceptions of care within government
hospital settings. By exploring different aspects of healthcare delivery—such as communication
and facility conditions ,it highlights both the strengths and the areas that require improvement in
India’s public healthcare system.Communication(Q1, 2 )with healthcare professionals was
generally viewed positively, with most patients reporting that their queries were addressed and
procedures clearly explained . This aligns with research emphasizing empathy and clarity as
central to patient satisfaction (Street et al., 2009). In India, where hierarchical doctor-patient
relationships are common, such clear communication is often valued as a sign of respect and
reassurance. However, the inconsistency in how individual needs (Q4) were addressed, and the
limited follow-up care(Q 15), reflect a gap in the transition from traditional provider-driven care
to modern patient-centered models (Rathert et al., 2013). Culturally, patients may hesitate to
voice dissatisfaction or expect detailed personalized attention, particularly in overcrowded
government settings, which could mask deeper unmet needs.
Hygiene-related feedback was mixed(Q9) . While wards and outpatient departments fared
reasonably well, concerns about toilet sanitation and food quality were widespread. These issues
mirror longstanding infrastructural and resource limitations within public health facilities
(Jandavath & Byram, 2016). In rural and semi-urban settings, patients often normalize or tolerate
unhygienic conditions due to lowered expectations from public institutions. Moreover, the
cultural stigma around “dirty hospitals” may discourage some from expressing complaints or
seeking redress.
Gender disparities were also evident. Women reported lower satisfaction with safety (Q
12) and grievance redressal mechanisms(Q 14), suggesting not only service gaps but also the
influence of societal gender roles. In Indian families, women often have less autonomy in
healthcare decision-making and are more vulnerable to feeling unsafe in public spaces, including
hospitals (Roter & Hall, 2004). These concerns are often underreported due to internalized norms
of silence and endurance, especially among lower-income women.
Patients expressed strong confidence in the competence (Q6)and coordination of
healthcare professionals (Q7) , highlighting trust in the biomedical system. However, moderate
satisfaction such as bureaucratic delays, staff shortages, and logistical hurdles—that hinder
seamless care delivery. These are commonly accepted as "the way things work" in government
institutions, contributing to patient resignation rather than active demand for improvement.
Patients reported using traditional or alternative treatments alongside allopathy (Q 17 ) ,
underscoring the deep-rooted medical pluralism in India (Kumar et al., 2023). Trust in Ayurveda,
homeopathy, and spiritual healing is culturally ingrained, especially among older generations and
rural populations. These systems often offer a more holistic and culturally familiar approach,
sometimes compensating for the impersonality patients feel in formal hospital environments.
While 63% of respondents reported overall satisfaction(Q 19 ), many were hesitant to
strongly recommend the facility (Q20) , revealing an undercurrent of distrust or compromise.
This reflects a cultural tendency to “adjust” with public services—where expectations are already
tempered by years of systemic inadequacies, and gratitude for access often outweighs the desire
to critique.
Overall, while clinical care in government hospitals is often robust, patient experiences
are significantly shaped by sociocultural norms, infrastructural limitations, and gendered
expectations. Addressing these deeper issues—by improving hygiene, ensuring sensitive
communication, empowering female patients, and integrating culturally competent care—can
help build greater trust and alignment with patient-centered care models (Rathert et al., 2013).
Limitations
While this study offers meaningful insights into patient experiences in government
hospitals, several limitations must be acknowledged. The exclusion of patients hospitalized for
less than 48 hours is another limitation, as it overlooks feedback from individuals who sought
emergency or short-term care, an important component of public hospital functioning. Moreover,
the study relied on self-reported data, which is inherently vulnerable to recall bias and social
desirability bias. Patients may underreport dissatisfaction due to cultural norms of gratitude,
perceived power imbalances, or fear of negative consequences.
The cross-sectional nature of the study restricts its ability to capture changes over time or
establish causal relationships between variables. Additionally, the study did not address the
financial dimension of healthcare, such as insurance coverage or out-of-pocket expenses, which
are often critical factors influencing patient perceptions especially in low-income settings.The
lack of qualitative data, such as open-ended narratives or interviews, limits a deeper
understanding of patient voices, emotions, and context behind the numbers.
Finally, as the study was conducted within a specific cultural and geographic setting, the
findings may not be fully applicable to private hospitals or healthcare systems in other countries.
To strengthen the robustness and relevance of future research, larger randomized samples,
longitudinal designs, and mixed-method approaches combining both quantitative and qualitative
data are recommended.
Implications ​
​
The study’s findings underscore the urgent need for more patient-centered reforms in
government hospitals, particularly in areas like communication, hygiene, and grievance
redressal. Lower satisfaction levels among certain groups—especially women—highlight
systemic issues such as gender bias, cultural insensitivity, and safety concerns that must be
addressed to ensure equitable care. Improving staff training in empathetic communication and
implementing stricter hygiene protocols could significantly enhance patient trust and overall
satisfaction. Moreover, regional disparities in healthcare delivery point to the importance of
tailoring interventions to local needs, recognizing that a one-size-fits-all approach may not be
effective in a country as diverse as India. These insights can inform more inclusive policies and
resource allocation decisions that directly improve patient experiences and health outcomes in
the public healthcare system.
Future Research
To build on these implications, future research should prioritize longitudinal studies that
can capture how patient satisfaction evolves over time, particularly among those with chronic
conditions or repeated hospital visits. Mixed-methods approaches, combining surveys with
qualitative interviews, would provide a fuller picture of the emotional, cultural, and practical
dimensions of hospital care. Research exploring regional and cultural variations across urban and
rural settings could help develop more context-specific interventions. Gender-focused studies are
also needed to understand and address the unique challenges women face in public hospitals.
Additionally, examining the integration of traditional healing practices with allopathic medicine
could support more culturally resonant healthcare models. Intervention-based studies assessing
the impact of targeted reforms, such as training programs or post-discharge support systems,
would yield practical insights into what works best. Finally, policy-focused research evaluating
the cost-effectiveness and feasibility of these reforms in resource-constrained environments will
be key to ensuring sustainable improvements.
Conclusion
This study provides valuable insights into patient experiences within government
hospitals in India, highlighting both strengths and areas needing improvement. The findings
reveal that while a majority of patients reported satisfactory communication, trust in healthcare
professionals' skills, and overall positive treatment outcomes, significant gaps remain in hygiene
standards, grievance redressal mechanisms, and post-hospitalization support. Gender disparities
were evident, with female patients expressing lower satisfaction in safety and responsiveness,
pointing to systemic inequities that require targeted interventions. Additionally, the widespread
use of alternative treatments alongside allopathy underscores the need for culturally sensitive,
integrative healthcare approaches. Despite moderate overall satisfaction, patients’ hesitancy to
strongly recommend these facilities suggests underlying dissatisfaction with systemic
inefficiencies. Addressing these concerns through improved infrastructure, empathetic
communication, gender-sensitive care, and robust follow-up systems can enhance patient trust
and healthcare quality. Future research should adopt longitudinal and mixed-method designs to
explore regional variations and evaluate the impact of policy reforms, ensuring a more
patient-centered and equitable public healthcare system in India.
References
American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of
Conduct. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code
Andaleeb, S. S. (2001). Service quality perceptions and patient satisfaction: A study of hospitals
in a developing country. Social Science & Medicine, 52(9), 1359–1370.
Bertnaes, O. A., Sjetne, I. S., & Iversen, H. H. (2012). The association between nurse staffing
and patient experiences with care: A systematic review. BMJ Open, 2(6), e001891.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001891
Boulding, W., Glickman, S. W., Manary, M. P., Schulman, K. A., & Staelin, R. (2011).
Relationship between patient satisfaction with inpatient care and hospital readmission
within
30
days.
The
American
journal
of
managed
care
https://europepmc.org/article/med/21348567
British Psychological Society. (2021). BPS Code of Human Research Ethics (4th ed.).
https://www.bps.org.uk
Chatterjee, P., & Srinivasan, V. (2013). Healthcare communication in India: Barriers and
opportunities.
Health
Policy
and
Planning,
28(8),
784–793.
https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czs118
Choi, E., Lee, H. Y., & Lee, J. (2022). Patients’ perceptions of safety during hospitalization: A
qualitative
study.
Journal
of
Patient
Safety,
18(1),
e1–e8.
https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000000904
Coughlan, M., Cronin, P., & Ryan, F. (2009d). Survey research: Process and limitations.
International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 16(1), 9–15.
https://doi.org/10.12968/ijtr.2009.16.1.37935
Das, J., Holla, A., Mohpal, A., & Muralidharan, K. (2015). Quality and accountability in
healthcare delivery: Audit-study evidence from primary care in India (NBER Working
Paper No. 21405). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Das, A., Sil, A., & Sarkar, M. (2018). Patient-provider interactions and perceived empathy in
oncology care: A review. Indian Journal of Palliative Care, 24(4), 489-495.
https://doi.org/10.4103/IJPC.IJPC_73_18
Deshmukh, P. R., Dongre, A. R., & Sinha, N. (2016). Communication skills and professionalism:
A cross-sectional study of patients’ perceptions. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary
Care, 5(1), 64–68. https://doi.org/10.4103/2249-4863.184625
Deshmukh, V., Lahariya, C., Krishnamurthy, S., Das, M. K., Pandey, R. M., & Arora, N. K.
(2016). Taken to health care providers or not, under-five children die of preventable
causes: Findings from cross-sectional survey and social autopsy in Rural India. Indian
Journal of Community Medicine, 41(2), 108. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-0218.177527
Dhingra, M., & Dutta, A. (2020). Patients’ satisfaction in Indian government hospitals: Issues
and implications. Indian Journal of Public Health Research & Development, 11(5),
222–227.
Doyle, C., Lennox, L., & Bell, D. (2013). A systematic review of evidence on the links between
patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness. BMJ open, 3(1), e001570.
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/3/1/e001570.short
Epstein, R. M., & Street, R. L. (2011). The values and value of patient-centered care. The Annals
of Family Medicine, 9(2), 100-103. https://www.annfammed.org/content/9/2/100.short
Ferreira, D. C., Vieira, I., Pedro, M. I., Caldas, P., & Varela, M. (2023). Patient Satisfaction with
Healthcare Services and the Techniques Used for its Assessment: A Systematic Literature
Review
and
a
Bibliometric
Analysis.
Healthcare,
11(5),
639.
https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11050639
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/how-to-conduct-surveys/book234146
Gadag, V., & Iti, S. N. (2023). Patient satisfaction and perception of violence against doctors in a
government hospital of North Karnataka. Indian Journal of Community Medicine, 48(1),
123–128.
Ghosh, S., & Ghosh, S. (2014). Patient satisfaction with quality of care in government health
facilities in West Bengal, India. International Journal of Community Medicine and Public
Health, 1(1), 51–57. https://doi.org/10.5455/2394-6040.ijcmph20140210
Groves, R. M., Fowler Jr, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R.
(2011). Survey methodology. John Wiley & Sons.
Gupta, N., Kaur, P., & Singh, S. (2019). Challenges to interdisciplinary teamwork in Indian
secondary healthcare settings: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Health Management,
21(3), 387–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972063419855639
Han, K., & Kim, J. (2019). Institutional trust and patient experiences of hospital care: A
multilevel
analysis.
Social
Science
&
Medicine,
242,
112585.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112585
Indian Council of Medical Research. (2017). National Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical and
Health Research Involving Human Participants. https://ethics.ncdirindia.org
Jalali, R., Ravichandran, K., & Nagaraj, G. (2016). Patient satisfaction with quality of care in a
tertiary care cancer center in India. Indian Journal of Medical and Paediatric Oncology,
37(2), 105-112.https://doi.org/10.4103/0971-5851.180527
Jandavath, R. K. N., & Byram, A. (2016). Healthcare service quality effect on patient satisfaction
and behavioural intentions in corporate hospitals in India. International Journal of
Pharmaceutical
and
Healthcare
Marketing,
10(1),
48–74.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ijphm-07-2014-0043
Kourkouta, L., & Papathanasiou, I. V. (2014). Communication in nursing practice. Materia
socio-medica, 26(1), 65.
Kumar, G., Talukdar, A., Turuk, A., Bhalla, A., Mukherjee, S., Bhardwaj, P., Bhatnagar, T., &
Mukherjee, A. (2023). Determinants of post discharge mortality among hospitalized
COVID-19 patients: Nested matched case-control analyses from the National Clinical
Registry for COVID-19. The Indian Journal of Medical Research, 158(2), 136.
https://doi.org/10.4103/ijmr.ijmr_973_23
Kumar, S., Bharali, A., Sarma, H., Kushari, S., Gam, S., Hazarika, I., Prasad, S. K., & Laloo, D.
(2023). Traditional complementary and alternative medicine (TCAM) for diabetic foot
ulcer management: A systematic review. Journal of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine,
14(4), 100745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaim.2023.100745
Levinson, W., Roter, D. L., Mullooly, J. P., Dull, V. T., & Frankel, R. M. (1997).
Physician–patient communication: The relationship with malpractice claims among
primary
care
physicians
and
surgeons.
JAMA,
277(7),
553–559.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1997.03540310051034
Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (7th
Ed.). New York: Pearson Education
Patel, P. B., Rathod, H., & Patel, N. K. (2016). A study on satisfaction of patients attending
government hospitals in western India. International Journal of Community Medicine and
Public Health, 3(9), 2485–2490. https://doi.org/10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20163079
Prinja, S., Chauhan, A. S., Karan, A., Kaur, G., & Kumar, R. (2017). Impact of publicly financed
health insurance schemes on healthcare utilization and financial risk protection in India: a
systematic
review.
PLoS
ONE,
12(2),
e0170996.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170996
Prip, A., Møller, K. A., Nielsen, D. L., Jarden, M., Olsen, M. H., & Danielsen, A. K. (2018). The
patient-healthcare professional relationship and communication in the oncology outpatient
setting: A systematic review. Cancer Nursing, 41(5), E11-E22.
Rao, K. D., Peters, D. H., & Bandeen-Roche, K. (2006). Towards patient-centered health
services in India—a scale to measure patient perceptions of quality. International Journal
for Quality in Health Care, 18(6), 414–421. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzl058
Rao, K. D., Sheffel, A., & Shroff, Z. C. (2018). Quality of clinical care in Indian public
hospitals: Implications for universal health coverage. BMJ Global Health, 3(5), e000619.
Rathert, C., Wyrwich, M. D., & Boren, S. A. (2012). Patient-Centered care and Outcomes.
Medical
Care
Research
and
Review,
70(4),
351–379.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077558712465774
Rea, L. M., & Parker, R. A. (2014). Designing and conducting survey research: A comprehensive
guide. John Wiley & Sons.
Reader, T. W., Gillespie, A., & Roberts, J. (2014). Patient complaints in healthcare systems: A
systematic review and coding taxonomy. BMJ Quality & Safety, 23(8), 678–689.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002437
Roter, D. L., & Hall, J. A. (2004). Doctors talking with patients/patients talking with doctors:
Improving communication in medical visits (2nd ed.). Praeger.
Sharma, S., Sharma, M., & Singh, P. (2020). Interprofessional collaboration among healthcare
workers in tertiary hospitals in India: A cross-sectional study. Indian Journal of Public
Health, 64(4), 336–341. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijph.IJPH_489_19
Stewart, M., Brown, J. B., Donner, A., McWhinney, I. R., Oates, J., Weston, W. W., & Jordan, J.
(2000). The impact of patient-centered care on outcomes. Journal of Family Practice,
49(9), 796–804.
Street Jr, R. L., Makoul, G., Arora, N. K., & Epstein, R. M. (2009). How does communication
heal? Pathways linking clinician–patient communication to health outcomes. Patient
education
and
counseling,
74(3),
295-301.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0738399108006319
Taylor, D., & Bury, M. (2007). Chronic illness, expert patients and care transition. Sociology of
Health & Illness, 29(1), 27–45.
Taylor, S. E. (2017). Health psychology (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Wolf, J. A., Niederhauser, V., Marshburn, D., & LaVela, S. L. (2014). Reexamining “Defining
patient experience”: The human experience in healthcare. Patient Experience Journal,
1(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.35680/2372-0247.1002
World Medical Association. (2013). Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical
Research
Involving
Human
https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki
Subjects.
Appendix
A.​ Informed Consent
B.​ Excel Response Sheet
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15KEPSm4_KXSRkGJReKZ1By1u2bQikGA4RBugg7s
KI3c/edit?usp=sharing