Patients’ satisfaction and quality of clinical laboratory services provision at public health facilities in northeast Ethiopia

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

Patient satisfaction is a key element of quality measures that has increasingly become acknowledged as an important tool for service improvement. This study aimed to assess the level of patients’ satisfaction and associated factors with clinical laboratory services provided at public health facilities. A cross-sectional study was conducted from May-June 2019 among clients attending 24 health centers and 8 hospitals, northeast Ethiopia. A total of 502 patients were selected using systematic random sampling. Patient’s satisfaction towards multiple aspects of laboratory services was assessed using structured exit interview questionnaire, on a rating scale of 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 points (very satisfied). We assessed test availability and laboratory practices using facility inventory, stepwise accreditation audit checklist and blinded slide rechecking. Data were entered and analyzed using EpiData ver3.1 and STATA ver14.1. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to determine the association of factors with overall satisfaction. Overall, majority of the respondents (73.5%) were found to be satisfied. Lowest mean ratings were obtained for waiting area (3.3), and information provided on specimen collection (3.5) and on how and when to receive results (3.7). Patients were more likely to be satisfied in health centers (75.2%) than in hospitals (68.6%) (AOR=1.9, 95%CI: 1.0-3.6, p =0.036). Patients’ timely receipt of results ( p =0.005) and laboratories’ accuracy of results ( p < 0.025) also showed significant positive associations with satisfaction. In conclusion, there were specific areas of deficiency that were driving dissatisfaction, particularly in the larger hospital laboratories. Therefore, more and balanced emphasis should be given to the patients’ experiences, alongside technical quality improvements, to reduce the disparities and enhance the overall quality of care.

Article activity feed

  1. Peer review report

    Title: Patients’ satisfaction and quality of clinical laboratory services provision at public health facilities in northeast Ethiopia

    version: 1

    Reviewer: I wish for this review to remain anonymous. While certainly imperfect, I believe that well- conducted reviews anonymous are preferable to signed reviews and free of the bias that may affect reviewers in a relatively small field.


    General assessment

    The authors report on an ambitious study that sought to rigorously assess the level of patient satisfaction with a representative sample of laboratory service facilities in the Amhara region of Ethiopia. The relevance of this topic is clearly explained and the role of patient satisfaction in the assessment and life cycle of laboratory services is likely underappreciated – particularly in low-resource settings. The …

  2. Peer review report

    Reviewer: Samuel Mayeden Institution: Ghana Health Service email: csmayeden@gmail.com


    Section 1 – Serious concerns

    • Do you have any serious concerns about the manuscript such as fraud, plagiarism, unethical or unsafe practices? No
    • Have authors’ provided the necessary ethics approval (from authors’ institution or an ethics committee)? Yes

    Section 2 – Language quality

    • How would you rate the English language quality? High quality

    Section 3 – validity and reproducibility

    • Does the work cite relevant and sufficient literature? Yes
    • Is the study design appropriate and are the methods used valid? Yes
    • Are the methods documented and analysis provided so that the study can be replicated? Yes
    • Is the source data that underlies the result available so that the study can be replicated? Yes
    • Is the statistical analysis and its …
  3. SciScore rigor report

    Sciscore is an AI platform that assesses the rigor of the methods used in the manuscript. SciScore assists expert referees by finding and presenting information scattered throughout a manuscript in a simple format.


    Not required = Field is not applicable to this study

    Not detected = Field is applicable to this study, but not included.


    Ethics

    IRB: 234 Ethical clearance was obtained from the regional Ethical Review Board of Amhara

    Consent: The general aim and purpose of the study was described to each 239 eligible patient and all voluntary participants gave verbal informed consent prior to 240 enrolment.

    Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

    Those 135 patients who were critically ill and unable to respond and those not voluntary to 136 participate were excluded.

    Attrition

    Those 135 patients who were critically ill and …