Ayşen EKER
Burak Erdi ÇELİK
Fırat CİNDEMİR
Tuğçe HAYRET
Oğuzhan ALTUN
Pınar TOPSEVER
The concepts of quality and patient
satisfaction
Family Health Unit Groups
Infrastructure/ FHU Group
A
B
C
D
Wihtout
ranking
Presence of waiting room
+
+
+
+
-
Presence of hand wash basin in examination room
+
+
+
+
-
Nursing room
+
+
+
+
-
Ramp for wheelchair
+
+
+
+
-
Vaccination room
+
+
+
-
-
Electronic queue follow up system
+
+
-
-
-
Intrauterine device certificate
+
+
-
-
-
A seperate intervention room for each three doctor
+
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
Website
In this study, the primary objective was to determine
patient satisfaction in primary healthcare services by family
health unit group.
Study design: Descriptive, cross- sectional
Time: 07.12.2013- 21.04.2013
Data collection: 19.02.2013 and 26.02.2013
Data processing: April 2013
The study universe: The population of all the family
health centers in Maltepe
Sample size :The family health units were selected
randomly based from a list of all family health units by
grouping. There was no a priori- sample size
calculation
All consenting men and women between the ages of 1865 applying to the selected family health units between
19.02.1013 and 26.02.2013 were enrolled in a fort
following patient.
Data Collected Tools:
# EUROPEP survey
# socio- demographical survey
Acıbadem University Student Research
Congress
8
Acıbadem University Student Research
Congress
9
Acıbadem University Student Research
Congress
10
The inclusion criteria:
Between the ages of 18-65 people
The excluding criteria:
Younger than 18 years or older than 65 years people
People with cognitive and mental disabilities
Dependent variables:


Scores of EUROPEP satisfaction survey
Independent variables:








Group of family health unit
Gender
Age
Marital Status
Education Level
Income Level
The reason for admission
•Applications
do not bear any risk to participants and
they do not require any cost.
Acıbadem University Student Research
Congress
13
Mean EUROPEP scores of the participants depending
on variables
Variable
Mean
Gender
Female=4,0±0.7, Male=4,0±0.7
Marital Status
Married=4,1±0.7, Single=3,9±0,8
Education Level
moderate-to-high educated=3,9±0.8, loweducated=4,1±0.7
Income Level
Low=4,0±0.8, Moderate=4,0±0.8, High=4,0±0.8
Reason for Admission
Non-clinical Care=3,9±0.7, Clinical Care=4,1±0.7
Acıbadem University Student Research
Congress
14
FIGURE 1: The distribution of the participants according to FHU group
(N=406)
Acıbadem University Student Research
Congress
15
FIGURE 3: Mean EUROPEP scores of the
participants according to marital status
Mean Value of EUROPEP score
Mean Value of EUROPEP score
FIGURE 2: Mean EUROPEP scores of
the participants according to gender
There was no significant correlation
between gender and EUROPEP scores
(p=0,380).
There was no significant correlation between
marital status and EUROPEP scores (p=0,058).
Acıbadem University Student Research
Congress
16
FIGURE 5: Mean EUROPEP scores of the
participants according to income level
Mean Value of EUROPEP score
Mean Value of EUROPEP score
FIGURE 4: Mean EUROPEP scores of the
participants according to education level
There was no significant correlation
between education level and EUROPEP
scores (p=0,109).
There was no significant correlation
between income level and EUROPEP
scores (p=0,625).
Acıbadem University Student Research
Congress
17
FIRURE 6: Mean EUROPEP score of the participants
according to participants’ age
There was no
significant correlation
between participants’
age and EUROPEP
scores (p=0,260).
Acıbadem University Student Research
Congress
18
Mean Value of EUROPEP score
FIGURE 7: Mean EUROPEP scores of the participants
according to reason for admission
There was significant correlation between reason for admission and EUROPEP
scores (p=0,048).
*Prescription re-fills, referrals, health reports etc.
**Physical examination+diagnostics, vaccinations, well child visits
etc.
19
Multi ple Comp ariso ns
Dependent Variable: europeptotal
LSD
(I) Grup
A
B
C
D
Sinif siz
(J) Grup
B
C
D
Sinif siz
A
C
D
Sinif siz
A
B
D
Sinif siz
A
B
C
Sinif siz
A
B
C
D
Mean
Dif f erence
(I-J)
,15248
,20905
,04078
,57829*
-,15248
,05656
-,11171
,42581*
-,20905
-,05656
-,16827
,36924*
-,04078
,11171
,16827
,53751*
-,57829*
-,42581*
-,36924*
-,53751*
Std. Error
,12477
,11060
,12677
,12340
,12477
,11520
,13080
,12753
,11060
,11520
,11736
,11371
,12677
,13080
,11736
,12949
,12340
,12753
,11371
,12949
Sig.
,222
,059
,748
,000
,222
,624
,394
,001
,059
,624
,152
,001
,748
,394
,152
,000
,000
,001
,001
,000
95% Conf idence Interv al
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
-,0928
,3978
-,0084
,4265
-,2084
,2900
,3357
,8209
-,3978
,0928
-,1699
,2830
-,3688
,1454
,1751
,6765
-,4265
,0084
-,2830
,1699
-,3990
,0624
,1457
,5928
-,2900
,2084
-,1454
,3688
-,0624
,3990
,2829
,7921
-,8209
-,3357
-,6765
-,1751
-,5928
-,1457
-,7921
-,2829
* . The mean dif f erence is signif icant at the .05 lev el.
Acıbadem University Student Research
Congress
20
Multi ple Comp ariso ns
Dependent Variable: europeptotal
LSD
(I) Grup
A
B
C
D
Sinif siz
(J) Grup
B
C
D
Sinif siz
A
C
D
Sinif siz
A
B
D
Sinif siz
A
B
C
Sinif siz
A
B
C
D
Mean
Dif f erence
(I-J)
,15248
,20905
,04078
,57829*
-,15248
,05656
-,11171
,42581*
-,20905
-,05656
-,16827
,36924*
-,04078
,11171
,16827
,53751*
-,57829*
-,42581*
-,36924*
-,53751*
Std. Error
,12477
,11060
,12677
,12340
,12477
,11520
,13080
,12753
,11060
,11520
,11736
,11371
,12677
,13080
,11736
,12949
,12340
,12753
,11371
,12949
Sig.
,222
,059
,748
,000
,222
,624
,394
,001
,059
,624
,152
,001
,748
,394
,152
,000
,000
,001
,001
,000
95% Conf idence Interv al
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
-,0928
,3978
-,0084
,4265
-,2084
,2900
,3357
,8209
-,3978
,0928
-,1699
,2830
-,3688
,1454
,1751
,6765
-,4265
,0084
-,2830
,1699
-,3990
,0624
,1457
,5928
-,2900
,2084
-,1454
,3688
-,0624
,3990
,2829
,7921
-,8209
-,3357
-,6765
-,1751
-,5928
-,1457
-,7921
-,2829
* . The mean dif f erence is signif icant at the .05 lev el.
Acıbadem University Student Research
Congress
21
Mean Value of EUROPEP score
The satisfaction scores of Group A FHU (4.2±0.7), group B FHU (4.1±0.8), group C
FHU (4.0±0.8) group D FHU (4.2±0.6) were all significantly higher as compared to
the score of the FHU “without ranking” (3.6±0.8, p=0.001).
Acıbadem University Student Research
Congress
22
•
In the studied sample, the average patient
satisfaction score was high, and seemed related to
infrastructure of the FHU (higher satisfaction in
better equipped FHUs). Patients receiving clinical
care seemed to be more satisfied as compared to
people attending the FHU for administrative
purposes like prescription refills, referrals or health
reports.
Acıbadem University Student Research
Congress
23
•
Other studies conducted with EUROPEP survey;
•
Kosovar
• Young participants were more satisfied.
• There was no significant correlation between age, education
level and satisfaction.
•
Rio de Janeiro:
• Old participants and highly educated participants were more
satisfied.
Acıbadem University Student Research
Congress
24
Acıbadem University Student Research
Congress
25