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

Introduction

Medical laboratory services are an essential component of strong national health systems. Laboratory diagnosis plays a crucial role for effective clinical management and control of major diseases of public health importance [1]. This requires quality diagnostic services to be available and properly utilized at different levels, and the test results to be accurate, reliable and timely [2,3]. However, despite the rapidly expanded access to health care, the quality of laboratory services has remained sub-optimal in many resource-limited countries like Ethiopia [4,5]. Where, laboratories are often faced with several challenges like poor infrastructure, lack of quality and competency among health professionals, and lack of standardized operations, hampering the quality care delivered to patients [6].

High-quality health care organizations strive to practice according to evidence-based standards, and thus meet the needs and expectations of patients, the ultimate beneficiaries of health services [7,8]. Patients’ satisfaction is a key aspect of health care quality that is being increasingly recognized for its importance [3,9]. Satisfied patients are more likely to return to the same facility; and this has direct impacts on customers’ loyalty, health insurance coverage and organizational sustainability. In today’s competitive environment, patient-centred care has got increasing focus as even the most technically competent care is meaningless if it does not satisfy the patients [2,3]. In addition, positive perceptions of care might often be translated into more positive adherence to recommended care and treatment; thereby enhancing patient health outcomes [10]. Quality management and accreditation standards also emphasize the importance of customers’ feedbacks in identifying opportunities for quality improvement [1,9].

In Ethiopia, laboratories are integrated structurally with the national health care system, which includes health centre, and primary, general and specialized hospitals [4,5]. Parallel to the rapidly expanded access to health care in the country, there is a growing need to improve quality of services [4,5,11]. However, availability of quality laboratory diagnostic services has been reported to remain suboptimal [12,13], where more than half of the laboratories were not capable of conducting all basic tests expected. Considerable efforts, including the WHO/AFRO’s stepwise accreditation, have been undertaken to strengthen quality systems of laboratories in such resource-limited countries of Africa [1,4]. However, the actual impact on quality of care and thus patient satisfaction has been less explored in local settings [6,14-16]. Laboratories are required to conduct customer satisfaction assessments to maintain their accreditation status in developed countries, yet not common in developing countries.

Quality health care is commonly viewed as having three closely inter-related dimensions: structural, process (inter-personal and technical), and outcome quality [8,17,18]. Where, patient satisfaction is acknowledged as an indispensable element of outcome quality measures, besides clinical health outcomes [7,19]. Insight into the different components is essential to efficiently detect quality problems, and this needs evaluating quality from multiple perspectives [7,20]. Two distinct approaches have been often employed in assessing quality performance: direct assessments and customer satisfaction surveys. A set of objective key performance indicators are used to directly measure specific areas of clinical practice as compared to published standards [1,21]. Customers’ satisfaction is a measure of the perceived quality of care received by patients as compared to the care expected by patients [20]. Different quality attributes have been considered as relevant determinants for measuring overall satisfaction, such as access to care, physical environment, readiness of services, quality system and reliability of the clinical or diagnostic care [8,20,22]. However, clients might fail to effectively discriminate between services that are different in quality, especially in technical quality, as they might often be more sensitive to inter-personal or tangible aspects [20,23-26].

A number of factors have been reported to influence the patients’ satisfaction with laboratory services, including socio-demographic characteristics like age, education and severity of illness [27,28], and patients’ visit-related experiences like turnaround time of results (TAT) [22,29], phlebotomy skills [13] and facility settings [30]. However, available evidence has been unclear on the correlation of patients’ experiences with objective measures of quality practice, and thus the reliability of patient-based measures remain debated [10,24,25,31]. Particularly, the previous studies conducted in Ethiopia and other resource-limited settings have rarely examined specific organizational factors that may drive satisfaction of laboratory users [14,15,22,30]. Comprehensive understanding of determinants at individual- and organizational-levels would provide more opportunities for improving service delivery and satisfaction in local settings [30,32]. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess patients’ satisfaction level and associated patient- and organizational-level factors at clinical laboratories of public health facilities in a resource-limited setting.

Materials and methods

Results

Characteristics of participated health facility laboratories

Twenty four health centres (75.0%) and eight hospitals (25.0%) were included in this study. Number of test menu capacity increased with increase from health centers to larger hospitals (Table 3 and Fig 1). However, only 15.8% of the health centers and 37.5% of hospitals provided ≥75% of the expected test menu as per the standard. Majority (87.5%) of the laboratories achieved zero star (i.e., score <55%) in implementing stepwise accreditation, while the remainder (12.5%) achieved one or two star grades. More percentage of hospitals achieved one or two star grades (37.5%) as compared to that of health centres (4.2%) (p= 0.024). Among the twelve quality system components, the lowest mean scores were observed for identification of non-conformities, evaluation, and continuous improvement (range from 6.2%±9.1 to 21.4%±26.1). Finally, the rate of agreement of malaria species diagnosis results showed huge variation across individual laboratories (range 25.0%-100.0%), and showed a tendency to decrease for hospitals (84.3% ±25.7) than that of health centres (94.8% ±10.1) (p= 0.157).

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 3. Descriptive summary of laboratory performance indicators by facility type, northeast Ethiopia, 2019 (N= 24 health centers, 8 hospitals).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1. Proportions of facilities with observed high levels of laboratory performance indicators by facility type.

Patients’ satisfaction level with clinical laboratory services

The overall percentage of patients satisfied with the clinical laboratory services received was 73.5% (95%CI: 71.8-75.7) (Table 4). In Likert rating scale, the overall mean score of satisfaction was 3.81 ±0.49, with ratings for specific aspects ranging from 3.3 to 4.2. Lowest mean ratings of satisfaction were obtained for the cleanness of latrines (3.3), adequacy of waiting area (3.4), and provision of information on when and how to receive results (3.5) and on procedures of specimen collection (3.7). As compared to health centres (75.2%), hospitals had a lower percentage of overall satisfied patients (68.6%) (p= 0.002) (Fig 2). Specific areas of significant difference with more dissatisfaction for the larger hospitals included all of the lowest rated aspects mentioned (all, p< 0.016).

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 4. Patient satisfaction levels towards different aspects of laboratory services, northeast Ethiopia, 2019 (N= 502 patients)^a.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2. Percentages of satisfied patients for different aspects of clinical laboratory services by facility type.

^aSatisfied defined as very satisfied plus satisfied responses, i.e., at a score of ≥4 as cut-off.

^bOverall satisfied patients defined at ≥4 of the “weighted average score” of the twelve items.

Discussion

This study assessed patients’ perceptions towards clinical laboratory services’ quality, and examined the effect of both individual- and organizational-level factors in a resource-limited setting, northeast Ethiopia. It has been revealed that specific gaps related to both patient experience and technical process quality play a role in driving dissatisfaction, especially in the larger hospitals. However, the patients’ socio-demographic characteristics (except distance) and inter-personal quality aspects, and the laboratories’ structural diagnostic capacity and stepwise accreditation levels were revealed to have a lesser or no role.

Overall, the majority (73.5%) of patients appeared to be satisfied with the laboratory services received (Table 4), which was consistent with finding from Ethiopia (73.0%-77.1%) [29,37]. The finding was higher than previous finding of most studies from the same country (54.1% to 60.4%) [13,28,38-41]. However, cautions should be considered when interpreting such client-based findings in general, as client feedbacks often tend to be positive due to social desirability bias or lack of technical expertise. On the other hand, the finding appeared lower when compared with finding of other studies from Ethiopia (78.6%-90.8%) [22,42-44]. However, the previous studies assessed specific laboratory services with more emphasis by vertical programs, employed a lower demarcation threshold, or excluded mid-point or neutral ratings (with a score of 3 point) from the denominator when dichotomizing satisfaction. Huge variations exist in the demarcation threshold techniques employed among existing literature, making percentage-based comparisons difficult. Probably, the more direct summary measures, like weighted average score, should be encouraged for such Likert scale-based data to be reported always.

Lowest satisfaction ratings were obtained for sanitation of latrines and sitting arrangements of waiting areas followed by the provision of instructions on specimen collection and on result receipt (Table 4). This reflect the poor attention often given by facility administrators and providers for physical environment [22,37,40,42] and information provision [22,39,44]. These problems were especially more aggravated in the larger hospitals (Fig 2), which might also be in part related to the higher number of clients or deficiency of time to provide explanations in such settings [28,40]. Failure to communicate relevant information to patients could result in poor quality of specimens to be submitted by patients, or could leave users with biased expectations of TATs leading to customer dissatisfaction. Therefore, providers should improve their attitudes on the role of providing clear and complete information and advisory services to customers, that would improve quality of the technical output as well as the users’ experience.

Receipt of results within the claimed TAT showed significant independent effect on the overall satisfaction level of patients (Table 5), in line with findings of many studies done in Ethiopia [11,22,29,38,40,42,45]. More percentage of patients reported to receive results out of the claimed TAT (45.4%) and to encounter results lost (30.0%) in the larger hospitals (Table 2). This could be due to inefficient systems and work processes especially in larger organizations with heavy workloads, or biased expectations of clients with lack of awareness on agreed TATs, as mentioned above. Delayed services could delay clinical decision making besides distressing customers, and thus impacting patient health outcomes besides service utilization. Therefore, targeted interventions should consider redesigning work flows and availing improved technologies for efficient handling and communication of laboratory information. Laboratory providers need also to establish acceptable TATs for all test menu, clearly post and communicate it to customers, and monitor routine performance for continuous improvement.

The patients’ satisfaction level showed significant reduction with increase across facility levels (Table 5), revealing that the larger hospitals are not providing quality laboratory services as perceived by patients. As compared to primary health centres, larger facilities with better structural diagnostic capacities (Table 3 and Fig 1) were rather more likely to deliver poor actual experiences (Table 2) and satisfaction ratings (Fig 2). The finding suggests the bare availability of more advanced facilities may be less likely to guarantee improved perceptions of care [22,46,47], which is in contrast with previous findings [13,24,48-50]. The lower satisfaction could be explained by the biased or higher expectation of clients from the higher level hospitals, or by the actual poor quality of care in specific aspects by the existing larger hospitals with higher client loads. The other explanation could be in part due to the focus of the current policies of the country to strengthen primary health care services that are more accessible and familiar to the communities [46]. Given those hospital patients are often referral cases with critical conditions that may require urgent or advanced care, the poor acceptability of the care may be playing a big role in forcing people to prefer costly private providers [47]. The poor quality of the care may also be playing a role in health outcomes, as such patients are often at risk of more detrimental consequences. Therefore, clients should be encouraged to utilize primary level facilities for their routine care, while ensuring availability of comprehensive health care services at such community levels. Probably, there may also be a need to redesign the standard ranges of services so that the higher level hospitals will focus solely on more advanced and emergency care services, that may facilitate efficiency and continuity of care delivery [46].

The patients’ satisfaction level showed significant positive relationship with technical accuracy of the laboratory diagnosis results, as measured by blinded slide rechecking (Table 5). The observed accuracy of laboratory results tended to increase for the primary health centres (Table 3 and Fig 1), where better patient experiences (Table 2) and satisfaction ratings were obtained (Table 4), as mentioned. Evidence from existing literature remain argued on the reliability of clients’ judgements to reflect the actual quality of care, as clients might be more sensitive to behavioural or tangible aspects rather than clinical quality [23-25]. However, for example, providers with good technical competence could be more likely to be confident and thus to have good inter-personal qualities [26]. The current findings support evidence that suggest patient experiences to be closely linked with objective technical measures [10,31,51] validating customer feedbacks as meaningful and appropriate complements for organizational quality improvement. On the other hand, the observed mean rate of agreement in malaria species identification was unacceptable particularly for larger hospitals (84.2% ±25.7); which was lower when compared with previous reports from the same region (94.6%-96.6%) [35,36]. This problem could be related to poor technical competence of providers, or deficiency of time and negligence to examine sufficient fields due to work overloads.

We did not find association between the laboratories’ stepwise accreditation or star grade levels and the overall level of patients’ satisfaction (Table 5). Better quality systems were observed in the larger hospital laboratories (Table 3 and Fig 1), where patient experiences (Table 2) and satisfaction ratings were rather poorer (Table 4), as mentioned above. In contrast to previous findings [15,52], this finding supports questions raised on the claimed benefits of stepwise accreditation to improve quality of care and thus patient satisfaction especially in resource-limited settings [14,16,48]. Accreditation might be critiqued for the more focus on structure and process rather than customer focus and patient outcomes, and the demand for huge paper work [14,16,48], which may need further investigation. The lack of impact visible to patients in the present study setting could be explained in part by the fact that the overall implementation level was in infancy stage (Table 3 and Fig 1); or the lowest scores were observed particularly for measurement and continuous improvement related activities, which may be the key drivers for change.

Several limitations of this study should be kept in mind. First, the patients were recruited from the health facilities, not the communities. Such clients might tend to conceal much of their dissatisfactions due to social desirability bias. Second, a sample 12 size of 32 government facilities was not big enough to further compare between different hospital levels, and a survey of patient customers may not fully reflect the views of other stakeholder groups. Third, there might be other important variables that we did not consider in the present study, such as the patient’s severity of illness and workloads of the facilities. Further larger studies are thus needed to expand the scope to include private laboratories and other customer groups like physicians and the laboratory providers, themselves. Finally, client-based evaluations like most human judgments may not also be fully reliable to reflect the actual quality of care due to lack of technical expertise or lower expectations. Despite that, we tried to additionally examine objective measures of technical quality, that enable us provide more comprehensive and thus robust findings with substantial implications for clinical practice, policy and further research in such resource-limited settings.

Conclusions

Overall, the majority (73.5%) of patients were satisfied with the services provided by the clinical laboratories. However, most of the dissatisfaction comes from the larger hospital settings. The main drivers of dissatisfaction were the cleanliness of latrine, adequacy of waiting area, ease of accessing service locations and place to put personal things, information provision, timely receipt of results and encounter of results lost, as well as the accuracy of the laboratory work. Therefore, policy-makers, health managers and providers should focus on improving the specific deficiencies related to both patient experience and technical process quality, that would have the highest impact towards enhancing the overall quality of care. Training, EQA and performance-based motivation systems should be considered to improve technical competence and efficiency of providers. In addition, redesigning the standard service ranges and client flows may need to be devised to optimize efficiency of care processes and systems, with special attention to larger hospital settings. The positive correlation observed with objective technical measures justifies importance of the patients’ perspective for driving organizational quality improvement efforts. Clinical laboratories are thus encouraged to conduct customers’ satisfaction assessments and use feedbacks in planning targeted interventions. Ultimately, further improvement efforts need to give more, and yet balanced, emphasis to customer focus, along with objective quality improvements, to reduce the disparities and enhance both satisfaction and overall care delivery.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ Contributions

DDA & HBG conceived the study. DDA performed analysis and drafted the manuscript. All authors participated during the planning and conduction of the study including data collection and analysis. All authors have also reviewed and approved the final manuscript before submission.

Authors’ Information

DDA: danieldagne72{at}yahoo.com, +251914064499

MMT: minwuyeletmaru{at}gmail.com, +251920199165

ATA: addisutesfie{at}yahoo.com, +251912026722

AEZ: abebe.abt.eyasu{at}gmail.com, +251913275076

SLH: seidmphn2009{at}gmail.com, +251913645489

HBG: hailaytrid{at}gmail.com, +251913577917