I strongly agree with Kate Lorig's components, but I do not think they should be thought of as distinct in the sense that I'm pretty certain that there is interaction between factors within the control of managers of a system and factors in control of health care providers. A little over 30 years ago, I first did a patient satisfaction and experience study, which I now regret we did not publish. I was then a manager and clinician in a staff model HMO, Harvard Community Health Plan, which was like a small version of Kaiser Permanente. We employed and contracted with a number of surgeons, and most of the surgeons saw patients in more than one of our multi-specialty group practice sites. What we discovered was the following: First, there was variation in the overall satisfaction scores that our surgeons got. There also was variation in the scores that a surgeon got in different sites in which s/he practiced. The rank order of an individual surgeons' scores in relation to his/her peers tended to be preserved across sites, just not the absolute score. Why? The individual factors were pretty constant for a given individual surgeon; but the differences in the scores an individual surgeon got at site A vs. site B were highly related to the system differences between sites. For example, waiting times for appointments, which related highly to "supply" of surgeons at a given site, varied. And when it took less than two weeks for a patient to see the surgeon, the surgeon tended to receive a higher overall satisfaction rating - even though it was supposed to be satisfaction with the surgeon and not the overall visit - than if it took longer to get to see the surgeon.
Intuitively this made sense to me. When I was practicing internal medicine, I initially didn't try to control my own schedule and sometimes discovered that my assistants who made appointments had put barriers in the way of some patients so that it took many weeks for them to see me. I recall then meeting patients whose first words were, "you must be really special - it took me 6 weeks before I could see you." Those words were not said kindly; and I realized that the patient was entering the interaction with me with a chip on his/her shoulder. Fortunately, I was able to teach my assistants a way of scheduling that reduced my waiting times to a few days at most (so-called "open access" scheduling hadn't been described at that time, but my approach was similar); and from then on, my patients seemed to being the interaction in much better spirits.
Literature search online will yield you results in forms of reviews or original research articles, also try going through the reference section they also will have potential articles and links for your purpose.
You can also find an article i have co-authored in my contribution section here, titled " Barriers in Utilization of Oral Health Care Services Among Patients Attending Primary and Community Health Centres in Virajpet, South Karnataka''.
kebetulan saya bisa bahasa Indonesia, jadi saya akan menjawab dengan bahasa ini, semoga bisa dimengerti. Apakah anda mencari literature khusus untuk bahasa Inggris? dan bisa dicari di Google, dengan kata kunci "satisfaction of Primary Health Care". Namun untuk bahasa Indonesia, bisa dengan kata kunci "kepuasan kesehatan primer".
Semoga bisa membantu membuat literature review yang bermutu.
Hello, there are some good information in a book :" Family Physicians: Whats and Whys
Capacity Building in Health Network" . It is in Persian (Farsi) of course ! about primary health service in Iran. I do not know whether it is useful for you or not.
and there are different articles about measuring patients' satisfaction .
If I find new related resource I will inform you .
The advice that others have given already on doing a literature search is an excellent start. You should not only look at "patient satisfaction" but also "patient experience." Satisfaction is a subjective impression. Experience is a patient report of what she or he believe occurred. The two are related but not the same by any means.
In the US, we now place a lot of attention on patient experience. There is a U.S. government developed and approved survey instrument of patient experience in various clinical settings called "CAHPS." The CAHPS for Clinicians and Medical Groups is the focus of the item you can find at the following link: http://www.ahrq.gov/cahps/surveys-guidance/cg/improve/index.html The link takes you to an agency of the U.S. government, and it refers to a guide to improving patient experience that you can access. I suspect that all this could be adapted to Indonesia.
In the United States and my guess is that this is true in other places, there are two very distinct components of satisfaction. The first is satisfaction with the system and this includes everything from wait times, parking (transportation) cleanliness, greetings by staff to how long it takes to get an appointment. The second factor is the health care providers--do they listen, is there enough face time, did the patient get what they came for, did the providers appear caring etc.
I strongly agree with Kate Lorig's components, but I do not think they should be thought of as distinct in the sense that I'm pretty certain that there is interaction between factors within the control of managers of a system and factors in control of health care providers. A little over 30 years ago, I first did a patient satisfaction and experience study, which I now regret we did not publish. I was then a manager and clinician in a staff model HMO, Harvard Community Health Plan, which was like a small version of Kaiser Permanente. We employed and contracted with a number of surgeons, and most of the surgeons saw patients in more than one of our multi-specialty group practice sites. What we discovered was the following: First, there was variation in the overall satisfaction scores that our surgeons got. There also was variation in the scores that a surgeon got in different sites in which s/he practiced. The rank order of an individual surgeons' scores in relation to his/her peers tended to be preserved across sites, just not the absolute score. Why? The individual factors were pretty constant for a given individual surgeon; but the differences in the scores an individual surgeon got at site A vs. site B were highly related to the system differences between sites. For example, waiting times for appointments, which related highly to "supply" of surgeons at a given site, varied. And when it took less than two weeks for a patient to see the surgeon, the surgeon tended to receive a higher overall satisfaction rating - even though it was supposed to be satisfaction with the surgeon and not the overall visit - than if it took longer to get to see the surgeon.
Intuitively this made sense to me. When I was practicing internal medicine, I initially didn't try to control my own schedule and sometimes discovered that my assistants who made appointments had put barriers in the way of some patients so that it took many weeks for them to see me. I recall then meeting patients whose first words were, "you must be really special - it took me 6 weeks before I could see you." Those words were not said kindly; and I realized that the patient was entering the interaction with me with a chip on his/her shoulder. Fortunately, I was able to teach my assistants a way of scheduling that reduced my waiting times to a few days at most (so-called "open access" scheduling hadn't been described at that time, but my approach was similar); and from then on, my patients seemed to being the interaction in much better spirits.