Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION FROM HOSPITAL
SERVICES: A STUDY OF MAJOR PRIVATE HOSPITALS
IN LUDHIANA
Research Project Report
Submitted to the Punjab Agricultural University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
in
MARKETING MANAGEMENT
(Minor Subject: Economics)
By
Mandeep Singh Ghuman
(L-2004-BS-19-MBA)
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The modern age can be called as the “Age of Consumers”. In
today’s cut-throat competition the consumer is considered as the
king. Many policies of various organizations are aimed at keeping
the consumer happy and satisfied. It is very important for each
and every organization to keep its consumers satisfied in order to
maintain its competitiveness in the market. Not only does this
help the organization to maintain the size of its share in the
market, it might even help it to increase the size of its share. It
might also be instrumental in increasing the overall market size.
This helps in increasing the overall profitability of the
organization. It also helps the long-term survival prospects of the
organization. Consumers when viewed on the macro level exhibit
similar traits. However when we take a closer look and come
down to the micro level, we find that the consumers vary as
compared to one another on one aspect or the other based on a
variety of attributes (Kotler, 2003).
In the present business scenario of cutthroat competition, customer
satisfaction has become the prime concern of each and every kind of industry.
Companies are increasingly becoming customer focused. Companies can win
2
customers and surge ahead of competitors by meeting and satisfying the needs of
the customers. World over businesses have realized that marketing is not the only
factor in attracting and retaining customers. Other major factors responsible for the
same are satisfaction through service quality and value. Even the best marketing
companies in the world fail to sell products and services that fail to satisfy the
customers’ needs. So customer satisfaction is the keyword in today’s fiercely
competitive business environment.
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
Whether the buyer is satisfied after purchase depends on the product’s
performance in relation to the buyer’s expectations. In general, satisfaction is a
person’s feelings of pleasure or disappointment resulting from comparing a
product’s perceived performance in relation to his or her expectations. If the
performance falls short of expectations, the customer is dissatisfied. If the
performance matches the expectations, the customer is satisfied. If the
performance exceeds expectations, the customer is highly satisfied or delighted.
The link between customer satisfaction and customer loyalty is not
proportional. Suppose customer satisfaction is rated on a scale from one to five. At
a very low level of customer satisfaction (level one), customers are likely to
abandon the company and even bad mouth it. At levels two to four customers are
fairly satisfied but still find it easy to switch when a better offer comes along. At
level five, the customer is very likely to repurchase and even spread good word out
3
of mouth about the company. High satisfaction creates an emotional bond with the
brand or company, not just a rational preference.
CUSTOMER EXPECTATIONS How do buyers form their expectations? From
past buying experiences, friends’ and associates’ advice, and marketers’ and
competitors’ information and promises. If marketers raise expectations too high,
the buyer is likely to be disappointed. However, if the company sets expectations
too low, it won’t attract enough customers. Some of today’s most successful
companies are raising expectations and delivering performances to match. These
companies are aiming for TCS- total customer satisfaction.
A customers’ decision to be loyal or to defect is the sum of many small encounters
with the company. The key to generating high customer loyalty is to deliver high
customer value. So a company must design a competitively superior value
proposition aimed at a specific market segment, backed by a superior value-
delivery system.
The value proposition consists of the whole cluster of benefits the company
promises to deliver; it is more than the core positioning of the offering. Whether
the promise is kept depends on the company’s ability to manage its value delivery
system. The value delivery system includes all the experiences the customer will
have on the way to obtaining and using the offering.
Customer satisfaction is a feeling of pleasure or disappointment on
the offers perceived performance in relation to buyers’ expectations. Expectation
is defined as what the customer wants/requires from the product/service and
4
perceived performance is the perception of the customer about the product/service
i.e. evaluation of the product/service after using it. So perception is what the
customer actually receives/gets from the product/service. The evaluation is done
by comparing the expectations with the perceived performance of the
product/service. Therefore customer satisfaction is a function of perceived
performance and customer expectations. Customers who are just satisfied find it
easy to switch over when a better offer comes than those who are highly satisfied.
For customer focused companies satisfaction is both a goal as well as a marketing
tool. What a consumer thinks about the product or services offered by a firm can
have a marked effect on the purchase of its products or services. So one of the
tasks before the management is to know what the consumer expect and what they
are getting in return.
Satisfaction is a judgment that a product or service feature, or the product
or service itself, provided (or is providing) a pleasurable level of consumption-
related fulfillment, including levels of under- or over fulfillment. The
expectations-disconfirmation paradigm provides the most popular explanation of
consumer satisfaction. However, and as is occasionally noted, if a customer
experiences disconfirmation after consuming a product, future expectations
regarding the product should be revised toward the performance perceived by the
customer. If expectations do not change in the face of disconfirmation, the
implication would be that the customer did not learn from their consumption
experience (Oliver, 1997).
5
MEASURING SATISFACTION
Although the customer oriented companies seek to create high customer
satisfaction that is not is main goal. If the company increases customer satisfaction
by lowering its price or increasing its services, the result may be lower profits. The
company might be able to increase its profitability by means other than increased
satisfaction. Also, company has many stakeholders, including employees, dealers,
suppliers, and stockholders. Spending more to increase customer satisfaction
might diverts funds from increasing the satisfaction of other partners.
Ultimately, the company must operate on the philosophy that it is trying to deliver
a high level of customer satisfaction subject to delivering acceptable levels of
satisfaction to the other stakeholders, given its total resources.
Table describes four methods companies use to track and measuring customer satisfaction:
Complaint and suggestion
system
A customer-centered organization makes it
easy for customers to register suggestion
and complaints.
Customer Satisfaction
Surveys
Responsive companies measure customer
satisfaction directly by conducting periodic
surveys. While collecting customer
satisfaction data, it is also useful to ask
additional questions to measures repurchase
6
intention and to measure the likelihood or
willingness to recommend the brand to
others.
Ghost Shopping Companies can hire people to pose as
potential buyers to report on strong and
weak points experienced in buying
company’s and competitors’ products.
Lost Customer Analysis Companies should contact customers who
have stopped buying or who have switched
to another supplier to learn why this
happened.
The measurement of customer satisfaction has become very important for
the health care sector also. The concept of customer satisfaction has encouraged
the adoption of a marketing culture in the health care sector in both developed and
developing countries. As large numbers of hospitals are opening up and the people
are becoming more aware and conscious of health, great competition has emerged
in this industry. So to retain their patients hospitals have to provide better
facilities/services to its customers. Various factors that can affect the patients’
satisfaction include behaviour of doctors, availability of specialised doctors,
7
behaviour of medical assistants, quality of administration, quality of atmosphere,
availability of modern facilities etc.
As grew the competition, so grew the trend of providing better facilities to
the customers by the hospitals. In last few years, a plethora of hospitals have
mushroomed in and around the city. These hospitals are advertising heavily about
the specialized treatments provided by tthese hospitals. There are various hospitals
that provide specialized treatments for various diseases. Because of neck to neck
competition between hospitals customers run to these hospitals for specialized
treatments. Interestiongly all hospitals claim to have a high success rate. They
claim to provide the best treatment and other essential facilities at reasonable cost
and in easy way to their customers. But how much of this is true and how many of
their claims are myth are not known to vast majority of customers.
As competition is increasing, the hospitals are making their best efforts to
provide quality health care services to its customers. They have begun practicing a
patient satisfaction strategy comprising consumer-oriented plans, policies and
practices to genuinely meet the needs of customers. Also, with increased
awareness and high expectations of the customers’ hospitals have to provide them
better facilities. Patients have begun to demand high quality of services i.e. a
consumer oriented approach.
These days patients have become more aware about their rights so they
want they should be better facilities like responding to their queries promptly,
8
friendly environment, understanding their problems, availability of specialized
doctors, maintaining cleanliness, regular repots etc. i.e. providing them every type
of essential facilities. So, if the hospitals want that their customers must be
satisfied, they have to provide not only better treatment but other facilities also.
The current study is focused on examining the various factors related to patient
satisfaction with the following specific objectives:
1. To study the customer expectations from hospital services.
2. To study the customer perception of hospital services.
3. To study the degree of satisfaction of customers from hospital services.
9
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Many studies have been conducted on the customer satisfaction. An attempt
has been made to present in brief, a review of literature on customer satisfaction in
general as well as on the customer satisfaction from hospital services.
Priscilla et al (1983) proposed a cognitive model to assess the
dynamic aspect of consumer satisfaction/ dissatisfaction in consecutive purchase
behavior. They found that satisfaction have a significant role in mediating
intentions and actual behavior for five product classes that were analyzed in the
context of a three- stage longitudinal field study. They found that repurchases of a
given brand is affected by lagged intention whereas switching behavior is more
sensitive to dissatisfaction with brand consumption.
David and Wilton(1988) have extended consumer satisfaction
literature by theoretically and empirically examining the effect of perceived
performance using a model first proposed by Churchill and Surprenant,
investigating how attractive conceptualizations of comparison standards and
disconfirmation capture the satisfaction formation process and exploring possible
multiple comparison processes in satisfaction formation. They suggest that
perceived performance exerts direct significant influence on satisfaction in
addition to those influences from expected performance and subjective
disconfirmation.
10
Saha (1988) made an attempt to investigate the interrelationships between
job-satisfaction, life satisfaction, life satisfaction-over-time and health. The
relationship among these four variables and biographical variables were also
examined. The study was conducted over the nurses in Nigeria. The data was
collected from the full time employees only because statements about job
satisfaction and other variables are different when supplied by retirees, part-time
nurses.
Bolton and Drew (1991) proposed a model of how customers with prior
experiences and expectations assessed service levels, overall service quality and
service value. They applied the model to residential customers of local telephone
services. Their study explored how customers integrate their perceptions of a
service to form an overall evaluation of that service. They developed a multistage
model of determinants of perceived service quality and service value. The model
described how customers expectations, perceptions of current performance and
disconfirmation experiences affected their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a
service, which in turn affected their assessment of service quality and value.
Boulding et al (1993) stated that the service quality relates to the retention
of customers at aggregate level. The author has offered a conceptual model of the
impact of service quality on particular behavior that signal whether customers
remain with of defect from a company. The results of the study show strong
11
evidence of their being influenced by service quality. The findings also reveal
difference in the nature of the service quality.
Aurora and Malhotra (1997) had done a comparative analysis of the
satisfaction level of customer of public and private sector banks, in order to help
the bank management to formulate marketing strategies to lure customers towards
them and hence increase customer base.
Grewal et al had expanded and integrated prior price perceived value
models within the context of price comparison advertising. More specifically, the
conceptual model explicates the effects of advertised selling and reference prices
on buyers’ internet reference prices, perceptions of quality, acquisition value,
transaction value, and purchase and search intentions. Two experimental studies
test the conceptual model. The results across these two studies, both individually
and combined, support the hypothesis that buyers’ internal reference prices are
influenced by both advertised selling and reference price as well as buyers’
perception of product quality. The authors also find that effect of advertised selling
price on buyers’ acquisition value was mediated by their perceptions of transaction
value. In addition, effects of perceived transaction value on buyers, behavioral
intentions were mediated by their acquisition value perceptions.
Voss (1998) had examined the rule of price, performance and expectations
to determine satisfaction in service exchange. When price and performance are
consistent, expectations have an assimilation effect on performance and
12
satisfaction judgments; when price and performance are inconsistent, expectations
have no effect on performance and satisfaction judgments. To examine these
issues authors develop a contingency model that they estimate using data from a
multimedia experimental design. The results generally support contingency
framework and provide empirical support for normative guidelines that call for
creating realistic performance expectations and offering money-back service
guarantees.
Garbarino and Johnson (1999) analyze that the relationships of satisfaction,
trust and commitment to component satisfaction attitudes and future intentions for
the customers of a New York off-Broadway repertory theater company. For the
relational customers ( individual ticket buyers and occasional subscribers), overall
satisfaction is the primary mediating construct between the component attitudes
and future intentions and for the high relational customers (consistent subscribers),
trust and commitment, rather than satisfaction, are the mediators between
component attitudes and future intentions.
Sharma and Chahal (1999) had done a study of patient satisfaction in
outdoor services of private health care facilities. They had done a survey to
understand the extent of patient satisfaction with diagnostic services. They have
constructed a special instrument for measuring patient satisfaction. The instrument
captures the behaviour of doctors and medical assistants, quality of administration,
and atmospherics. The role of graphic characters like gender, occupation,
13
education, and income is also considered. Based on their findings, they also
suggested strategic actions for meeting the needs of the patients of private health
care sector more effectively. In their study provided suggestions like becoming
more friendly and understanding to the problems of patients, maintaining
cleanliness in the units, both internally and externally, providing regular report
regarding the patients’ progress without waiting for them to demand, conducting
surveys to know about the attitude of the patients with regard to the employees and
adopting patient-oriented policies and procedures.
Simester et al (2000) have studied that multinational firm uses
sophisticated, state-of-the-art methods to design and implement customer
satisfaction improvement programs in the United States and Spain. Their
experiments reveals a complex and surprising picture that highlights
implementation issues, a construct of residual satisfaction not captured by
customer needs and the managerial need for combining nonequivalent controls and
nonequivalent dependent variables.
Ofir and Simonson (2001) in their study found that customer evaluations of
quality and satisfaction are critical inputs in development of marketing strategies.
Given the increasingly common practice of asking such evaluations, buyers of
products and services often know in advance that they subsequently will be asked
to provide their evaluations. In a series of field and laboratory studies, the authors
demonstrate that expecting to evaluate leads to less favorable quality and
14
satisfaction evaluations and reduces customer’s willingness to purchase and
recommend the evaluated services. The negative bias of expected evaluations is
observed when actual quality is either low or high, and it persist even when buyers
are told explicitly to consider both the positive and negative aspects.
Dholakia and Morwitz (2002) have examined the scope and persistence of
the effect of measuring satisfaction on consumer behavior over time. In an
experiment conducted in a financial services setting, they found that measuring
satisfaction changes one-time purchase behavior, changes relational customer
behaviors and results in effects that increase for months afterward and persist even
a year later. Their results raised questions concerning the design, interpretation and
ethics in the conduct of applied marketing research studies.
Sharma and Chahal (2003) stated that due to increased awareness among
the people patient satisfaction had become very important for the hospitals. The
authors examined the factors related to patient satisfaction in government
outpatient services in India. They said that there are four basic components which
had impact on the patient satisfaction namely, behaviour of doctors, behaviour of
medical assistants, quality of atmosphere, and quality of administration. They also
provided strategic actions necessary for meeting the needs of the patients of the
government health care sector in developing countries.
Folkes and Patrick (2003) in their study showed converging evidence of a
postivity effect in customers’ perceptions about service providers. When the
15
customer has little experience with the service, positive information about a single
employee leads to perception that the firm’s other service providers are positive to
a greater extent than negative information leads to perception that the firm’s other
service providers are similarly negative. Four studies were conducted that varied
in the amount of information about the service provider, the firm, and the service.
The positivity effect was supported despite differences across studies in methods
as well as measures.
Vernoer (2003) had investigated the different effects of customer
relationship perceptions and relationship marketing instruments on customer
retention and customer share development over time. Customer relationship
perceptions are considered evaluations of relationship strength and a supplier’s
offerings, and customer share development is the change in customer share
between two periods. The results show that affective commitment and loyalty
programs that provide economic incentives positively affect both customer
retention and customer share development, whereas direct mailings influence
customer share development. However, the effect of these variables is rather
small. The results also indicate that firms can use the same strategies to affect
customer satisfaction that can have impact on both customer retention and
customer share development.
Anderson et al (2004) developed a theoretical framework that specifies how
customer satisfaction affects future customer behaviour and, in turn, the level,
16
timing, and risk of future cash flows. Empirically, they find a positive association
between customer satisfaction and shareholder value. They also find significant
variation across industries and firms.
Reinartz et al (2004) in their study of Customer Relationship Management
Process had stated that it is very important for maintaining healthy relations with
the customers in order to provide them satisfaction. In their study, they (1)
conceptualize a construct of the CRM process and its dimensions, (2)
operationalize and validate the construct, and (3) empirically investigate the
organizational performance consequences of implementing the CRM processes.
Their research questions are addressed in two cross-sectional studies across four
different industries and three countries. The key outcome is a theoretically sound
CRM process measure that outlines three key stages: initiation, maintenance, and
termination.
Homburg et al (2005) conducted two experimental studies (a lab
experiment and a study involving a real usage experience over time) which reveal
the existence of a strong, positive impact of customer satisfaction on willingness
to pay and they provide support for a nonlinear, functional structure based on
disappointment theory. In addition, the second examines dynamic aspects of the
relationship and provides evidence for the stronger impact of cumulative
satisfaction rather than of transaction-specific satisfaction on willingness to pay.
17
Mithas et al (2005) evaluates the effect of customer relationship
management (CRM) on customer knowledge and customer satisfaction. They
analyze archival data of a cross-section of U.S firms which shows that the use of
CRM applications is positively associated with improved customer knowledge and
improved customer satisfaction. They also found that gains in customer
knowledge are enhanced when firms share their customer related information with
their supply chain partners.
Gustafsson et al (2005) in their study of telecommunications services
examine the effect of customer satisfaction, affective commitment, and calculative
commitment on retention and the potential for situational conditions to moderate
the satisfaction-retention relationship. Their results support consistent effects of
customer satisfaction, calculative commitment and prior-churn on retention.
Gruca and Rego (2005) strengthen the chain of effects that link customer
satisfaction to shareholder value by establishing the link between satisfaction and
two characteristics of future cash flows that determine the value of the firm to
shareholders: growth and stability. By using the longitudinal American Customer
Satisfaction index and COMPUSTAT data and hierarchical Bayesian estimation
they found that satisfaction creates shareholder value by increasing future cash
flow growth and reducing its variability. They also test the stability of findings
across several firm and industry characteristics and assess the robustness of the
results using multi-measure and multi-method estimation
18
Thompson (2005) in his study had shown that consumers often misjudge
their health risks owing to a number of well-documented cognitive biases. These
studies assume that consumers have trust in the expert systems that culturally
define safe and risky behaviours. Consequently, this research stream does not
address choice situations where consumers have reflexive doubts toward
prevailing expert risk assessments and gravitate toward alternative model of risk
reductions. This study explores how dissident health risk perceptions are culturally
constructed in the natural childbirth community, internalized by consumers as a
compelling structure of feeling, and enacted through choices that intentionally run
counter to orthodox medical risk management norms.
19
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The present chapter describes the research methodology of the study. It includes
the Research Framework, Sample design and selection, Collection of Data,
Research vehicle and Methods for analysis of data. It also points out the
limitations of present study.
To study consumers’ expectations, perception and their satisfaction
level it was required to examine the following aspects
(i) Patients’ expectations from the behaviour of the doctors,
(ii) Patients’ expectations from the behaviour of the medical assistants,
(iii) Patients’ expectations from the quality of administration of hospitals,
(iv) Patients’ expectations from the services provided by the hospitals,
(v) Patients’ perceptions for the behaviour of the doctors,
(vi) Patients’ perceptions for the behaviour of the medical assistants,
(vii) Patients’ perceptions for the quality of administration of hospitals,
(viii) Patients’ perceptions for the services provided by the hospitals,
(ix) Patients’ satisfaction level for the behaviour of the doctors,
(x) Patients’ satisfaction level for the behaviour of the medical assistants,
(xi) Patients’ satisfaction level for the quality of administration of hospitals and
(xii) Patients’ satisfaction level for the services provided by the hospitals,
20
3.1 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
The present study is based on explorative and descriptive research design
with the objective of measuring the satisfaction level of patients’ of five major
private hospitals in Ludhiana. The study uses both primary and secondary
information. As it is clear from the objectives of the study, the study was divided
into three parts i.e. patients’ expectations, perceptions from the hospital services
and then measuring their satisfaction level from the hospital services. For both the
first and second objective of study i.e. the customers’ expectations and their
perceptions of hospital services, primary data was collected through a structured
questionnaire. Then to meet the third objective of the study proper statistical tools
were used on the information collected for the first two objectives of the study.
3.2 SAMPLE DESIGN AND SELECTION
3.2.1 Population and Sample:
In view of the fact that this was a one person survey to be completed within
limited resources the present study was restricted to only those hospitals which
were located in Ludhiana. The population of this study comprised of the indoor
patients only. Five major private hospitals in Ludhiana were selected namely:
1. Dayanand Medical College and Hospital
2. Christian Medical College and Hospital
3. Satguru Partap Singh Apollo Hospital
21
4. Mohan Dai Oswal Cancer Hospital
5. Guru Teg Bahadur Charitable Hospital
3.2.3 Selection of Respondents
From these hospitals primary data was collected from the respondents. The
respondents were either the patients themselves or their relatives. For sample
selection, a multistage sampling procedure was followed. At the first stage, sample
units consisted of total number of general wards and private wards in the hospital.
10% of the general wards and 10% private, wards were selected randomly. Then
from each selected general ward 3 to 5 patients were chosen and from each
selected private ward one patient was chosen. The information was collected
through a pre-designed, structured questionnaire. A sample of 80 respondents
selected from these hospitals on the basis of their convenience for the first
objective and the second objective. To suggest solutions to the problems observed
during the survey is done through secondary data.
Table 3.1 Sampling Plan
SELECTION OF WARDS
HOSPITAL (A) TOTAL
GENERAL
WARDS
SELECTED
GENERAL
WARDS
(10% OF A)
(B)TOTAL
PRIVATE
WARDS
SELECTED
PRIVATE
WARDS
(10% OF A)
APOLLO 6 1 71 7
22
GRU TEG BAHADUR 5 1 46 5
DMC 17 2 98 10
OSWAL CANCER 26 3 68 7
CMC 16 2 76 18
TOTAL 70 9 359 47
SELECTION OF RESPONDENTS
HOSPITAL RESPONDENT FROM
GENERAL WARD
(3 TO 5 FROM EACH)
RESPONDENTS
FROM PRIVATE
WARD
(1 FROM EACH)
TOTAL
RESPONDENTS
APOLLO 1*5=5 7*1=7 12
GRU TEG BAHADUR 1*5=5 5*1=5 10
DMC 2*5=10 10*1=10 20
OSWAL CANCER 2*5 + 1*3=13 7*1=7 20
CMC 2*5=10 8*1=8 18
TOTAL 43 37 80
In this way data was collected from 80 respondents that comprise of the indoor
patients themselves or their attendants.
23
3.3 DATA COLLECTION
Before an attempt was made to collect the information from the sample, the
desk research was conducted to see the literature and other library material
available on the subject. Various studies were reviewed to have a through
knowledge before considering how to collect the information from the
respondents. After having the background knowledge a structured questionnaire
was prepared to obtain answer pertinent to the objectives of the study. For the
purpose of the study, eighty indoor patients were selected and interviewed from
the five private hospitals.
Secondary data was also collected from various books, journals, magazines
etc.
3.4 ANALYSIS OF DATA
The data / information contained in the questionnaire were first transferred
to master table which facilitated tabulation of data in desired form. The collected
data was then grouped into tables and analyzed using various statistical tools like
mean scores. Other statistical tool used includes T-test for measuring whether
there is significant difference between the mean scores of attributes i.e. between
expectations and perceptions of a factor. Reaction of the respondents towards the
different factors given was studied using a structured, non-disguised and well-
24
defined questionnaire designed for the patients or their attendants. The
questionnaire contained rating questions. Each factor was rated over a scale of 1 to
9 i.e. likert scale was used. The respondents were asked to rate the factors
according to what they expect and what they had perceived from the hospital
services.
Mean score was calculated for the questions asked on a 9-point scale. In case of 9-
point scale where the respondents were asked to indicate their degree of
importance/unimportance for expectations and degree of bad/good for the
perceptions, scores were assigned from 1to 9. Frequencies were multiplied with
their respective weights and aggregate values found out. Mean score was
calculated using the formula:
Mean Score = (∑Wifn)/n
i = 1 to 9
n = 80
Where, Wi = Weight attached for degree of importance/unimportance and
good/bad.
fn = Associated frequency
n = Number of respondents
T-test was used to see whether there is significant difference between the means
of a factor for the two data samples at 5% level of significance. T-test was used
because the both the data samples were collected from the same selected
individuals. First the data was collected from a patient for his expectations from
the various factors taken for the study and then from same patient data is collected
for his perceptions for the hospital services. Similarly, the data was collected from
25
the other patients. So, the data in two samples was dependent as data in one
sample was collected from the same individual as in other sample.
3.5 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
Any study based on consumer survey through a pre-designed questionnaire
suffers from the basic limitation of the possibility of difference between what is recorded
and what is the truth, no matter how carefully the questionnaire has been designed and
field investigation has been conducted. This is because the consumers may not
deliberately report their true preferences and even if they want to do so, there are bound
to be differences owing to problems in filters of communication process. The error has
been tried to be minimized by conducting interviews personally yet there is no full proof
way of obviating the possibility of error creeping in. So, the study suffers from some
limitations also. As such generalizing the results, the following limitations of the study
should be taken into the account.
1. As the study was to be completed in a short time, the time factor acted as
a considerable limit on the scope and the extensiveness of the study.
2. The information provided by respondents may not be fully accurate due
to unavoidable biases.
3. The lack of corporation shown by the respondents, because of this
optimum number of responds not collected, so the sample was to be
shortened.
26
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
This chapter contains the analysis and discussion of the primary data
collected from the respondents. The study is conducted to see the satisfaction level
of the patients from the services provided by the hospitals. This chapter is divided
into three parts:
(1) Expectations of the patients
In this part analysis of expectations of patients regarding the
behavior of doctors, medical assistants, quality of administration and
services provided by the hospitals is done.
(2) Perception of the patients (i.e. what they had actually received)
In this part analysis of perceptions of patients regarding the behavior
of doctors, medical assistants, quality of administration and services
provided by the hospitals is done.
(3) Satisfaction level of the patients
In this part satisfaction level of the patients regarding the behavior of
doctors, medical assistants, quality of administration and services
provided by the hospitals is found. To find the satisfaction level
difference between the mean scores of attributes of expectations and
perceptions are calculated.
27
4.1 Expectations of the Patients
4.1.1 Expectations of Patients from the Behaviour of Doctors
To study the expectations of patients from the behaviour of doctors, patients were
asked to rate their expectations in the scale of 1 to 9 for the various attributes
given below in the table 4.1.1 for this factor. The mean rating for each attribute is
given in this table.
Table 4.1.1 Expectations of patients from the behaviour of doctors
Attributes Expectations
(Mean Value)
Availability 8.98
Knowledge 8.94
Handling of
Queries
8.51
Cooperation 8.53
Politeness 8.71
Impartial attitude 8.39
Examination Comfort 8.79
Thorough Check-Up 8.98
Empathy 7.31
Individual Consideration 6.70
Experience 8.64
Average 8.46
28
Form the table4.1.1 it is clear that the mean scores for the attributes availability of
doctors, knowledge of doctors, thorough check-up and examination comfort are
8.98, 8.93, 8.98 and 8.78 which show that patients consider these attributes very
important. So, their expectation level for these attributes is very high. Mean scores
for the attributes politeness, experience, cooperation, handling of queries and
impartial attitude are 8.71, 8.64, 8.54, 8.51 and 8.39 respectively also shows that
patients also consider these attributes very important. So, a doctor must try to
fulfill these expectations in an efficient manner. For the attributes empathy and
individual consideration mean scores are 7.31 and 6.70 respectively which are not
very high but patients still consider these attributes important. So, it is clear that
attributes availability and knowledge have maximum mean score of 8.98 and
attribute individual consideration has minimum mean score of 6.70. The overall
mean score for expectations from the factor ‘Behaviour of Doctors’ comes out to
be 8.46 which is very high on the scale of 9. So, it can be concluded here that the
expectations of patients from the doctors are very high
4.1.2 Expectations of Patients from the Behaviour of Medical
Assistants
To study the expectations of patients from the behaviour of medical assistants,
patients were asked to rate their expectations in the scale of 1 to 9 for the various
attributes given in the table4.1.2 for this factor. The mean rating for each attribute
is given in this table.
29
Table 4.1.2 Expectations of patients from the behaviour of medical assistants
Attributes Expectations
(Mean Value)
Availability 9
Knowledge 8.56
Cooperation 8.65
Politeness 8.79
Impartial attitude 8.49
Maintenance of Record 8.71
Handling of Queries 8.44
Experience 7.45
Dress 6.9
Average 8.33
Mean score for the attribute availability of medical assistants is 9, which means all the
patients had given rating 9 to this attribute i.e. they consider this factor very important
and their level of expectations for this attributes are very high. Politeness, maintenance
of records and cooperation with patients are given the mean scores as 8.79, 8.71 and 8.65
respectively which means that patients also consider these factors very important.
Attribute experience has the mean score 7.45. So this shows that patients consider this
30
attribute important but not as much as the above mentioned attributes and the mean score
for the attribute dress of medical assistants is lowest among all the other attributes which
is 6.9. This explains that patients do not consider this attribute very important but they
had not rated this attribute low. So this is also an important attribute. The overall mean
score for the factor Behaviour of medical assistants is 8.33 and this is high.
4.1.3 Expectations of Patients from the Quality of
Administrations
To study the expectations of patients from the Quality of Administration, patients
were asked to rate their expectations in the scale of 1 to 9 for the various attributes
given below in the table 4.1.3 for this factor. The mean rating for each attribute is
given in this table.
Table 4.1.3 Expectations of patients from the quality of the administration
Attributes Expectations
(Mean Value)
Convenient Office Hours 6.53
Check Up Procedure 8.85
Over Crowding 8.26
Welcome Your Ideas 7.31
Fee 7.10
Grievances Handling System 8.45
Billing Procedure 8.78
31
Check Out Procedure 8.78
Behaviour of Clerical Staff 8.89
Behaviour of Security Staff 8.85
Average 8.17
The overall mean score for all the attributes for this factor is 8.17. So it is true to say that
patients consider the ‘Quality of Administration’ an important aspect of the hospitals and
their level of expectation from this factor is also high. Expectation level for the attribute
behaviour of clerical staff is highest among all the other attributes with the mean score
8.89. Check up procedure, behaviour of security staff, check out procedure, billing
procedure was also considered very important by the patients. The mean scores for these
attributes are 8.85, 8.85, 8.78 and 8.78 respectively. Patients said that these procedures
must be simple i.e. they are not very complex. Grievances handling system i.e. how the
complaints of patients are handled was also given high rating of 8.45. Mean score for the
attributes welcome your ideas, which means that whether the hospitals listen their ideas
carefully or not and fee are 7.31 and 7.1 respectively. Convenient office hours had been
rated lowest among all the attributes with the mean score 6.53. This means that patients
did not consider this attribute as important as other attributes.
32
4.1.4 Expectations of Patients from the Services/ Facilities
provided by the hospitals
To study the expectations of patients from the services and facilities provided by
the hospitals, patients were asked to rate their expectations in the scale of 1 to 9 for
the various attributes given in the table4.1.4 for this factor. The mean rating for
each attribute is given in this table.
Table 4.1.4 Expectations of patients from the services and facilities provided by
the hospitals
Attributes Expectations
(Mean Value)
Proper Sitting Arrangements 8.98
Bedding Arrangements 9
Staff Appearance 6.55
Natural Light 8.36
Dust Boxes 9
Flies & Mosquitoes 9
Outer & Inner Appearance 7.44
Parking 8.71
Well Equipped Units 8.33
33
Marking On Walls 8.07
Eating Places 8.69
Average 8.37
The table4.1.4 shows that expectation level of patients for the attributes bedding
arrangements, dust boxes and flies and mosquitoes is highest among all the other
attributes as all the three attributes has a mean score of 9. Here it is also clear that
all the patients had rated these attributes with a score 9. Mean score of 8.98 for the
proper sitting arrangements also shows that patients consider this attributes as
important as the above mentioned three attributes. Patients also thought that
parking, eating places, natural light, well equipped units and marking on walls are
other important attributes. Mean scores for these attributes are 8.71, 8.68, 8.36,
8.33 and 8.07 respectively. Outer and inner appearance of the hospital has average
score of 7.44 which is quiet lower than other attributes. Attribute staff appearance
has got the lowest mean score of 6.55 among all the attributes.
34
4.2. Perceptions of the Patients for various Factors
4.2.1 Perceptions of Patients for the Behaviour of Doctors
To study the perceptions of patients from the behaviour of doctors, patients were
asked to rate their perceptions in the scale of 1 to 9 for the various attributes given
below in the table 4.2.1 for this factor. The mean rating for each attribute is given
in this table.
Table 4.2.1 Expectations of patients from the behaviour of doctors
Attributes Perceptions
(Mean Value)
Availability 7.78
Knowledge 7.11
Handling of
Queries
6.60
Cooperation 6.75
Politeness 6.86
Impartial attitude 7.46
Examination Comfort 7.76
Thorough Check-Up 7.88
Empathy 5.85
Individual Consideration 6.10
Experience 6.80
Average 6.99
35
Table 4.2.1 shows that attribute thorough check-up has the maximum mean score
7.88. It is quiet high score which means that patients’ perception about this feature
is good. Then this followed by attributes availability of doctors, examination
comfort and impartial attitude of the doctors. The mean scores for these attributes
are 7.78, 7.76 and 7.46 respectively. Knowledge has the average score 7.11 which
shows that patients’ perception about this factor also tends to be quiet good. Mean
scores for the politeness, experience, cooperation with the patients and handling of
queries are 6.86, 6.80, 6.75 and 6.60 respectively which means that perception of
the patients of the attributes are not so good. Individual consideration and empathy
has moderate scores 6.10 and 5.85 respectively among all the attributes. So it
means that perception of the patients’ regarding these attributes is neither good nor
bad. The overall mean score for all these attributes is 6.99 which means that
perception of the patients for the factor behaviour of doctors is not very good but it
is mildly good.
4.2.2 Perceptions of Patients for the Behaviour of Medical
Assistants
To study the perceptions of patients for the behaviour of medical assistants,
patients were asked to rate their perceptions in the scale of 1 to 9 for the various
attributes given in the table2.2 for this factor. The mean rating for each attribute is
given in this table.
36
Table 4.2.2 Perceptions of patients from the behaviour of medical assistants
Attributes Perceptions
(Mean Value)
Availability 7.89
Knowledge 6.46
Cooperation 6.71
Politeness 6.88
Impartial attitude 7.04
Maintenance of Record 7.99
Handling of Queries 6.10
Experience 6.35
Dress 9.00
Average 7.16
It is clear from the above table that attribute dress is the highest rated attribute with
mean score 9. From this it is clear that patients’ perception about the dress of
medical assistants is very good i.e. they think medical assistants wear neat and
clean dresses. Mean scores of the attributes maintenance record and availability
are 7.99 and 7.89 respectively. These are very good score on a scale of 9 which
means that patients’ had perceived these attributes of medical assistants as good.
37
Impartial attitude has the average score 7.04 which is not bad. Politeness and
cooperation have the scores 6.89 and 6.71 respectively. This means that medical
assistants’ dealing with patients is not very good. Mean scores 6.46 and 6.35 for
knowledge and experience shows that medical assistants are lacking on these
attributes. Handling of queries has the least score among all the other factors and it
is quiet less which means that the queries of patients’ are not properly handled by
the medical assistants. Overall average score for all the attributes comes out to be
7.16. so it can be concluded that patients’ perception about the behaviour of
medical assistants is moderately good i.e. there is need for the medical assistants to
improve their behaviour.
4.2.3 Perceptions of Patients for the Quality of Administration
To study the perceptions of patients for the Quality of Administration, patients
were asked to rate their perceptions in the scale of 1 to 9 for the various attributes
given below in the table4.2.3 for this factor. The mean rating for each attribute is
given in this table.
Table 4.2.3 Perceptions of patients from the quality of the administration
Attributes Perceptions
(Mean Value)
Convenient Office Hours 8.26
Check Up Procedure 6.35
38
Over Crowding 7.95
Welcome Your Ideas 6.23
Fee 5.48
Grievances Handling System 6.01
Billing Procedure 7.66
Check Out Procedure 7.80
Behaviour of Clerical Staff 7.15
Behaviour of Security Staff 8.48
Average 7.14
Average scores for the behaviour of clerical staff and convenient office hours are
8.48 and 8.26 respectively, which are very high and so it can be conluded that
hospitals are doing well on these two attributes. Over crowding and check out
procedure have the scores 7.95, 7.80 and 7.66 which means that patients’
perception about these attributes are good. 7.15 is the score of attribute Behaviour
of clerical staff which is less than the above mentioned factors. So hospitals need
to improve on this. Mean scores for the check up procedure, welcome your ideas
and grievances handling system are 6.35, 6.23 and 6.01 respectively. So we can
say that perception of patients’ for these is moderately good. The lowest mean
score 5.48 is scored by the attribute fee which is not good and this shows that
patients’ thought the fee of the hospitals are high. It is clear from the table that
overall mean score for all the attributes is 7.14 which shows that perception of the
patients’ towards the quality of administration tends to be good.
39
4.2.4 Perceptions of Patients for the Services/ Facilities
provided by the hospitals
To study the perceptions of patients for the services and facilities provided by the
hospitals, patients were asked to rate their perceptions in the scale of 1 to 9 for the
various attributes given below in the table4.2.4 for this factor. The mean rating for
each attribute is given in this table.
Table4.2.4 Expectations of patients from the services and facilities provided by the
hospitals
Attributes Perceptions
(Mean Value)
Proper Sitting Arrangements 8.54
Bedding Arrangements 8.66
Staff Appearance 7.66
Natural Light 7.24
Dust Boxes 8.55
Flies & Mosquitoes 8.43
Outer & Inner Appearance 7.41
Parking 8.05
Well Equipped Units 7.09
Marking On Walls 7.78
40
Eating Places 8.43
Average 7.99
Mean scores for the bedding arrangements, dust boxes, proper sitting
arrangements, flies & mosquitoes , eating places and parking are 8.66, 8.55, 8.54,
8.42, 8.42 and 8.05 respectively which means that perception of the patients’ about
these attributes are very good. So we can say that hospitals are providing these
facilities to the patients in a proper way. Marking on walls, staff appearance, outer
and inner appearance and natural light scores are 7.78, 7.66, 7.41 and 7.24
respectively and it shows that patients’ perception about these attributes are good.
7.09 is the lowest score scored by the attribute well equipped units but this score is
not bad and we can say that perception of the patients’ toward this tends to be
good. 7.99 is the overall mean score for perception of patients about the
services/facilities provided by the hospitals.
41
4.3 Satisfaction Level of the Patients for the various Factors
4.3.1 Satisfaction Level of the Patients for the Behaviour of
Doctors
To measure the satisfaction level of patients from the behaviour of doctors, the
differences between the mean scores of expectations and perceptions for each
attribute is calculated and then t-test is applied to see whether the difference
between the two mean values is significant or not at 5% level of significance. The
calculated values are given in the table4.3.1.
Table4. 3.1 Satisfaction level of patients for the behaviour of doctors
Attributes Expectations
(Mean Value)
Perceptions
(Mean Value)
Difference T-value
Availability 8.99 7.78 1.21 6.48*
Knowledge 8.98 7.11 1.83 7.11*
Handling of Queries 8.51 6.60 1.91 8.41*
Cooperation 8.54 6.75 1.79 10.01*
Politeness 8.71 6.86 1.85 10.05*
Impartial attitude 8.39 7.46 0.93 5.48*
Examination Comfort 8.79 7.76 1.03 7.92*
Thorough Check-Up 8.98 7.88 1.10 9.25*
Empathy 7.31 5.85 1.46 5.93*
42
Individual Consideration 6.98 6.10 0.88 5.04*
Experience 8.64 6.80 1.84 8.31*
*there is significant difference at 5% level of significance (t-critical =1.66)
The table4.3.1 shows that difference between the mean values of expectations and
perceptions for the attributes handling of queries, politeness, experience, knowledge,
cooperation and empathy are 1.91, 1.85, 1.84, 1.82, 1.79 and 1.46 respectively. The t-
values for these attributes at 5% level of significance show that there is significant
difference in the mean values of expectations and perceptions for these attributes. For the
attributes availability, thorough check up and examination comfort differences between
there mean values for expectations and perceptions are 1.21, 1.1 and 1.02 respectively.
There corresponding t-values indicates this is a significant difference. 0.93 and 0.88 are
the differences for the impartial attitude and individual consideration respectively and t-
values for these attributes also shows that there is significant difference between the
means scores of expectation and perceptions. So, it is clear that highest difference is for
the handling of queries and lowest for the attribute individual consideration.
4.3.2 Satisfaction Level of the Patients from the Behaviour of
Medical Assistants
To measure the satisfaction level of patients from the behaviour of medical
assistants, the differences between the mean scores of expectations and
perceptions for each attribute is calculated and then t-test is applied to see whether
43
the difference between the two mean values is significant or not at 5% level of
significance. The calculated values are given in the table4.3.2.
Table 4.3.2 Satisfaction level of patients from the behaviour of medical assistants
Attributes Expectations
(Mean Value)
Perceptions
(Mean Value)
Difference T-value
Availability 9.00 7.89 1.11 5.90*
Knowledge 8.56 6.46 2.10 8.98*
Cooperation 8.65 6.71 1.94 9.43*
Politeness 8.79 6.89 1.91 9.93*
Impartial attitude 8.49 7.04 1.45 5.93*
Maintenance of Record 8.71 7.99 0.73 4.94*
Handling of Queries 8.44 6.10 2.34 11.11*
Experience 7.45 6.35 1.10 3.99*
Dress 6.90 9.00 -2.10 -13.23*
*there is significant difference at 5% level of significance (t-critical =1.66)
It is clear from the table4.3.2 that difference between the mean values for expectations
and perceptions are highest for the attribute handling of queries which is 2.34 and its
corresponding t-value is very large and it shows that this difference between the values is
significant. This means that patients had not received what they have expected from this
particular attribute. Differences for the knowledge, cooperation and politeness are 2.1,
1.94 and 1.91 respectively and there respective t-values indicate that these differences are
44
quiet significant which means that perceptions of these attributes are less than the
expectation of patients’ from these attributes. 1.45, 1.11 and 1.10 are the differences
between the mean scores of expectations and perceptions for the attributes impartial
attitude, availability and experience respectively and t-values corresponding to these
attributes are larger than the t-critical at 5% level of significance. This means that
differences are significant. The difference for the attribute maintenance of record is 0.73
and t-value for it shows that difference is quiet significant i.e. patients’ perception about
this factor is lower than their expectations. Dress has the difference -2.1, which shows
that patients’ perception for this attribute is higher than their expectations.
4.3.3 Satisfaction Level of the Patients for the Quality of
Administration
To measure the satisfaction level of patients from the quality of administration, the
differences between the mean scores of expectations and perceptions for each
attribute is calculated and then t-test is applied to see whether the difference
between the two mean values is significant or not at 5% level of significance. The
calculated values are given in the table4.3.3.
Table 4.3.1 Satisfaction level of patients for the behaviour of doctors
Attributes Expectations
(Mean Value)
Perceptions
(Mean Value)
Difference T-value
Convenient Office
Hours
6.53 8.26-1.74
-7.27*
45
Check Up
Procedure
8.85 6.352.50
9.84*
Over Crowding 8.26 7.95 0.31 1.92*
Welcome Your
Ideas
7.31 6.23 1.08 4.99*
Fee 7.10 5.48 1.62 4.49*
Grievances
Handling System
8.45 6.01 2.44 11.19*
Billing Procedure 8.78 7.66 1.11 7.47*
Check Out
Procedure
8.78 7.80 0.98 7.08*
Behaviour of
Clerical Staff
8.89 7.15 1.74 7.88*
Behaviour of
Security Staff
8.85 8.48 0.38 3.10*
*there is significant difference at 5% level of significance (t-critical =1.66)
This table shows that differences between the mean values of expectations and
perceptions for the check up procedure and grievances handling system are 2.50 and 2.44
respectively which are quiet big differences. So we can say that expectations of patients’
from these attributes are higher than their perceptions. For the attributes behaviour of
clerical staff and fee difference between expectations and perceptions are 1.74 and 1.63
respectively which are not small. So it is true to say that expectations are higher than
perceptions of these attributes. 1.11, 1.08 and 0.98 are the differences for the billing
procedure welcome your ideas and check out procedure respectively. Behaviour clerical
46
staff and over crowding has the difference 0.38 and 0.31 between the mean values for
expectations and perceptions. Attribute convenient office hour has the negative difference
between mean values of expectations and perceptions which means that patients’
perception about the attributes is higher than their expectations.
4.3.4 Satisfaction Level of the Patients for the Services and
Facilities Provided by the Hospitals
To measure the satisfaction level of patients from the services and facilities
provided by the hospitals, the differences between the mean scores of expectations
and perceptions for each attribute is calculated and then t-test is applied to see
whether the difference between the two mean values is significant or not at 5%
level of significance. The calculated values are given in the table4.3.4.
Table 4.3.4 Satisfaction level of patients for the behaviour of doctors
Attributes Expectations
(Mean Value)
Perceptions
(Mean Value)
Difference T-value
Proper Sitting
Arrangements
8.98 8.540.44
5.04*
Bedding
Arrangements
9.00 8.66 0.34 4.48*
Staff Appearance 6.55 7.66 -1.11 -4.44*
Natural Light 8.36 7.24 1.13 4.52*
Dust Boxes 9.00 8.55 0.45 5.07*
Flies &
Mosquitoes
9.00 8.43 0.58 6.13*
47
Outer & Inner
Appearance
7.44 7.410.03
0.10
Parking 8.71 8.05 0.66 3.80*
Well Equipped
Units
8.33 7.09 1.24 5.63*
Marking On
Walls
8.08 7.780.30
1.56
Eating Places 8.69 8.43 0.26 2.70*
*there is significant difference at 5% level of significance (t-critical =1.66)
This table shows that largest differences between expectations and perceptions are 1.24
and 1.12 for the attributes well equipped units and natural light respectively among all the
other attributes. This means that expectations of patients are higher than their perceptions
for these attributes. 0.66, 0.58, 0.45 and 0.44 are the differences for the parking, flies &
mosquitoes, dust boxes and proper sitting arrangements respectively. The attributes
bedding arrangements, marking on walls and eating places have small differences of
0.34, 0.30 and 0.26 respectively between the mean values of expectations and
perceptions. For inner and outer appearance the difference is .025 which is very small and
it can be concluded that patients’ perception and expectation for this attribute are
approximately same. But attribute staff appearance has negative value which is -1.11 and
it is true to say that patients’ expectations are lower for this attribute than their
perceptions.
48
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONLUSIONS
In the present business scenario of cutthroat competition, customer
satisfaction has become the prime concern of each and every kind of industry.
Companies are increasingly becoming customer focused. Companies can win
customers and surge ahead of competitors by meeting and satisfying the needs of
the customers. World over businesses have realized that marketing is not the only
factor in attracting and retaining customers. Other major factors responsible for the
same are satisfaction through service quality and value. Even the best marketing
companies in the world fail to sell products and services that fail to satisfy the
customers’ needs. So customer satisfaction is the keyword in today’s fiercely
competitive business environment.
The measurement of customer satisfaction has become very important for
the health care sector also. The concept of customer satisfaction has encouraged
the adoption of a marketing culture in the health care sector in both developed and
developing countries. As large numbers of hospitals are opening up and the people
are becoming more aware and conscious of health, great competition has emerged
in this industry. So to retain their patients hospitals have to provide better
facilities/services to its customers. Various factors that can affect the patients’
satisfaction include behaviour of doctors, availability of specialized doctors,
49
behaviour of medical assistants, quality of administration, quality of atmosphere,
availability of modern facilities etc. So, if the hospitals want that their customers
must be satisfied, they have to provide not only better treatment but other facilities
also. The current study is focused on examining the various factors related to
patient satisfaction with the following specific objectives:
1. To study the customer expectations from hospital services.
2. To study the customer perception of hospital services.
3. To study the degree of satisfaction of customers from hospital services.
In order to accomplish the objectives of the study, the primary data was
collected. The population of this study comprised of the indoor patients only. Five
major private hospitals in Ludhiana were selected namely:
1. Dayanand Medical College and Hospital,
2. Christian Medical College and Hospital,
3. Satguru Partap Singh Apollo Hospital,
4. Mohan Dai Oswal Cancer Hospital, and
5. Guru Teg Bahadur Charitable Hospital
From these hospitals primary data was collected from the respondents. The
respondents were either the patients themselves or their relatives. For sample
selection, a multistage sampling procedure was followed. At the first stage, sample
units consisted of total number of general wards and private wards in the hospital.
10% of the general wards and 10% private, wards were selected randomly. Then
50
from each selected general ward 3 to 5 patients were chosen and from each
selected private ward one patient was chosen. The information was collected
through a pre-designed, structured questionnaire. A sample of 80 respondents
selected from these hospitals on the basis of their convenience for the first
objective and the second objective. To suggest solutions to the problems observed
during the survey is done through secondary data. The collected data was then
grouped into tables and analyzed using various statistical tools like mean scores.
Other statistical tool used includes T-test for measuring whether there is
significant difference between the mean scores of attributes i.e. between mean
values of expectations and perceptions of an attribute.
Major Findings & Conclusions
1. Expectation level is very high and nearly same for almost all the factors i.e.
for behaviour of the doctors, behaviour of medical assistants, quality of
administration and service/facilities provided.
2. Mean score for the expectations from all the four factors is 8.30 which is
very high on the scale 9.
3. Under behaviour of doctors attribute availability and thorough check up has
the highest score 8.98 and empathy and individual consideration have 7.31
and 6.70 respectively.
51
4. Attribute convenient office hours has lowest expectation score of 6.53 and
behaviour of clerical staff has the highest 8.89 among all the attributes of
factor quality of administration.
5. Bedding arrangements, dust boxes and flies and mosquitoes has score 9 for
expectations for these attributes of factor services provided by the hospitals.
6. Overall mean score for perceptions of patients’ about the four factor is 7.31
which is considered good on the scale of 9.
7. Empathy with score 5.85 has the minimum score and thorough check up
with score 7.89 has highest score among all the attributes of factor
behaviour of doctors.
8. Perception about the dress of medical assistant is very good with score 9
and handling of queries is lowest with score 6.1.
9. Fee has the lowest level of perception and behaviour of security staff has
the highest level of perception.
10. Perceptions of patients’ about the attributes of factor services/facilities
provided by the hospitals are almost good.
11. The largest difference between expectations and perceptions is 1.91 for
attribute handling of queries and lowest for individual consideration 0.88
under factor behaviour of doctors.
12. For behaviour of medical assistants the largest difference is for the attribute
handling of queries and lowest for maintenance of record. Also dress has
negative difference which means perceptions are larger than expectations.
52
13. Attribute convenient office hours of factor quality of administration is
negative, largest difference is for the attribute check up procedure and
lowest for behaviour of security staff.
14. Outer & inner appearance has the lowest difference 0.025 and well
equipped units have the highest 1.24. and attribute staff appearance has the
negative difference of 1.11.
53
References
Aurora S and Malhotra M (1997) Customer satisfaction: A comparative analysis of the satisfaction level of customer of public and private sector banks. Decision 24: 109-30.
Anderson E W, Fornell C and Mazvancheryl S K (2004) Customer satisfaction and shareholder value. J Mktg 68: 172-85.
Bolton R and Drew J H (1991) A multistage model of customer’s assements of service quality and value. J Consumer Res 17: 375-84.
Boulding W, Kalra A, Staelin R and Zeithmal VA (1993) A dynamic process model of service quality: from expectations to behavioral intentions. J Mktg 30: 7-27.
David K and Wilton P C (1988) Models of consumer satisfaction formation: An extension. J Mktg Res 25: 204-10
Dholakia A M and Morwitz G (2002) The scope and persistence of mere-measurement effects: Evidence from a field study of consumer satisfaction measurement. J Consu Res 29: 159-67
Folkes V S and Patrick V M (2003) The postivity effect in perceptions of services: Seen one, seen them all? J Consumer Res 30: 125-137.
Grewal D, Monroe K B and Krishnan R (1998) The effects of price-comparison advertising on buyers, perceptions of acquisition value, transaction value, and behavioral intentions. J Mktg 62: 46-59
Garbarino E and Johnson M S (1999) The different roles of satisfaction, trust and commitment in customer relationships. J Mktg 63: 70-87
Gruca T S and Rego L L (2005) Customer satisfaction, cash flow, and shareholder value. J Mktg 69: 115-130
54
Gustafsson W, Johnson M D and Roos I (2005) The effects of customer satisfaction, relationship, commitment, dimensions and triggers ion customer retention. J Mktg 69: 210-215
Homburg C, Koschate N and Hoyer W D (2005) Do satisfied customers really pay more? A study of the relationship between customer satisfaction and willingness to pay. J Mktg 69: 84-96
Labarbera P A and Mazursky (1983) A longitudinal assessment of customer satisfaction/dissatisfaction: The dynamic aspect of the cognitive process. J Mktg Res 2: 393-404
Ofir C and Simonson I (2001) In search of negative customer feedback: The effect of expecting to evaluate on satisfaction evaluations. J Mktg Res 38: 170-182
Vernoer P C (2003) Understanding the effect of customer relationship management efforts on customer retention and customer share development. J Mktg 67: 30-45
Reinartz W, Krafft M, and Hoyer W D (2004) The customer relationship management process: Its measurement and impact on performance. J Mktg Res 42: 293-305.
Saha A.K. (1988) Satisfaction with life- A study of nurses Nigeria. Decision 15: 61-64
Sharma R D and Chahal H (1999) A study of patient satisfaction in outdoor services of private health care facilities. Vikalpa 24: 69-76
Simester D I, Hauser J H, Wernerfelt B and Rust R T (2000) Implementing quality improvement programs designed to enhance customer satisfaction : Quasi – Experiment in United States and Spain. J Mktg Res 37: 102-112
Sharma R D and Chahal H (2003) Patient satisfaction in government outpatient services in India. Decision 30: 109-28.
Voss D (1998) Role of price performance and expectation in service. J Mktg Res 36: 45-51.
55
Thompson C J (2005) Consumer risk perceptions in a community of reflexive doubt. J Consumer Res 32: 235-245
56
