IJCRR - Vol 06 Issue 21, November, 2014
SATISFACTION AMONG USERS (DOCTORS & NURSES ) WITH LABORATORY SERVICES AT A TERTIARY CARE HOSPITAL
Author: Malik Aubid, Manhas Anil K., Haroon Rashid, Qadri G. J., Malik Amina, Hamid Shahnawaz
Objective: To study satisfaction among users (doctors and nurses) with laboratory services at a tertiary care hospital.
Material and Methods: a cross sectional study was carried out for a period of six months among the cadre of professionals who utilized the services of central laboratory at skims, where biochemistry and hematological investigations are performed. Simple Random sampling was used for selection of users. Results: the satisfaction survey had a response rate of 96%. Among faculty the overall satisfaction score ranged from 1.31 to 2.88 with mean score of 2.04. Among residents the overall satisfaction score ranged from 1.37 to 2.7 with a mean score of 2.17. Satisfaction score in nursing supervisors ranged from 2.17 to 2.55 with a mean score of 2.37. Among incharges/nursing staff, the satisfaction score ranged from 1.7 to 2.6 with a mean score of 2.04. Conclusion: communication of laboratory services which included communication of relevant information and notification of significant abnormal results was considered weak by both faulty and resident doctors (17.77% and 14.03% of satisfaction respectively). This highlights the need for improving the communication skills among laboratory staff and users(doctors and nurses) to improve quality in laboratory services. Further researches must be conducted on communication in laboratories to identify the communications.
Keywords: User satisfaction, Laboratory communication
Malik Aubid, Manhas Anil K., Haroon Rashid, Qadri G. J., Malik Amina, Hamid Shahnawaz. SATISFACTION AMONG USERS (DOCTORS & NURSES ) WITH LABORATORY SERVICES AT A TERTIARY CARE HOSPITAL International Journal of Current Research and Review. Vol 06 Issue 21, November, 18-22
1. Leanne Mumford, Australian standard 2243. Safety in laboratories. Risk management office. University of Sydney 2001.
2. Richard Juel. What Laboratory services should be offered. The clinical pathologists point of view: Quality Assurance in Health care – A critical approval of clinical chemistry, AACC, CAP 1980 : 81-94.
3. Brauer G. A and Rand R. N. Techniques For defining and measuring quality in clinical chemistry: QA in Health Care – A critical Appraisal of clinical chemistry, AACC, CAP 1980 : 207.
4. Feigenbaum AV: What is total quality control: QA in Health care – A critical appraisal of clinical chemistry, AACC, CAP 1980 : 11.
5. Jones B A, MD; Leaonas G. Bekeris, MD; Raouf E. Nakeleh, MD; Molly K. Walsh, phD; Paul N. Valenstein, MD; Physician Satisfaction with Clinical Laboratory Service. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009; 133:38-48.
6. Laboratory general checklist. Laboratory Accrediation Programme. Northfield, I11 college of Americal Pathologists; 2006. GEN. 20368.
7. Comprehensive Accreditation Manual for Laboratory and Point-of-Care Testing. Oakbrook Terrace, III: Joint Commission on Accreditation for Healthcare Organization; 2005- 2006.
8. Richard J. Zarbo, Raouf E. Nakeleh, Molly Walsh; Quality practices committee, College of American Pathologists: Ann 1st super Sanita. 1996;32 (2) : 207-14.
9. Raouf E Nakeleh, Rohna Soures, Stephen G.Ruby-Physcian Satisfation with Surgical pathology reports: Arch Pathol Lab Med November 2008; vol. 132, No. 11, PP. 1719-1722.
10. Richard J. Zarbo MD, DMD; Raouf E. Nakeleh, MD; Molly Walsh, phD – Customer satisfaction in Anatomic Pathlogy. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003; 127; 23-29.