Exhibit 5 g clinic patient satisfaction with hiv

This preview shows page 209 - 213 out of 549 pages.

Exhibit 5-G Clinic Patient Satisfaction With HIV Services With the change in the natural course of HIV/AIDS resulting from the use of highly active antiretroviral therapy, individuals with HIV/AIDS are living longer and receiving ambulatory care for longer periods as well. Recognizing the importance of client satisfaction to the delivery of high-quality services, the largest ambulatory clinic in Australia set out to develop a multidimensional measure of client satisfaction and administer a survey using those measures. The measures and the survey responses are shown in the table below. The clients were generally satisfied with the services and the personnel delivering services, except for wait time on arrival. However, client satisfaction varied for different subgroups. For example, clients involved with the clinic for shorter periods and those who visited the clinic less frequently were more satisfied. From qualitative interviews that were conducted alongside the surveys, the evaluators found that “good rapport [between the client and the health care provider] was the main reason for staying with the same [health care provider].” Satisfaction Ranking of 16 Aspects of Service Satisfaction Ranking of 16 Aspects of Service 209
Ranking Aspect Percentage of Satisfied Respondents Mean Satisfaction Score (Range = 1–5) 1 Maintenance of confidentiality 97 4.45 2 Knowledge of HCP 96 4.74 3 Overall satisfaction 95 4.46 4 Attitude of HCP 94 4.73 5 HCP understood clients’ needs 94 4.68 6 Physical environment (waiting areas) 93 4.22 7 Suitable appointment time 91 4.29 8 Management of staff (waiting areas) 91 4.21 9 Location 91 4.27 10 Advice given during consultation 90 4.53 11 Included clients’ decisions in treatment 89 4.56 12 Length of 84 4.45 210
12 Length of consultation time 84 4.45 13 Uninterrupted consultation 83 4.31 14 Availability of HCP 83 4.28 15 Benefited more than expected 79 4.15 16 Waiting time on arrival 34 2.74 Overall mean (excluding “Waiting time on arrival”) 90 4.42 Overall mean (including “Waiting time on arrival”) 86 4.32 Source : Adapted from Chow, Li, and Quine (2012). Note : HCP = health care provider. Another potential pitfall has to do with the interpretation of the outcome indicator data. Given a range of factors other than program performance that may influence those indicators, interpretations made out of context can be misleading and, even with proper context, can be difficult. To provide suitable context for interpretation, outcome indicators must generally be accompanied by other information that provides a relevant basis for comparison or explanation. We discuss the kinds of information that can be helpful in the following section. Interpreting Outcome Data Outcome data collected through routine outcome monitoring can be especially difficult to interpret if not accompanied by information about changes in client mix, relevant demographics, local economic trends, and the like. Job placement rates, for instance, are more accurately interpreted as a program performance indicator in light of information about the 211
market. A low placement rate may not reflect poorly on program

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture