Benchmarking client satisfaction with general practitioner services: results and lessons from a population based survey.Ciaran
O’Neill
|
|
|
Reader in
Health Economics and Health Policy School of Public Policy, Economics & Law, University of Ulster at Jordanstown, Shore Road, Newtownabbey Co. Antrim, BT37 0QB
|
Summary / Introduction /Method / Results / Conclusions / Table 1 / Table 2 / Appendix 1 / Appendix 2 References |
Client
satisfaction is an issue that in the interests of both the client and the
practitioner, GPs should have regard to. In this paper a population based
survey, accessible to GPs, is analysed to shed light on the issue of
satisfaction. Several factors significantly correlated with satisfaction are
identified. The value of such analyses in identifying factors under the GPs
control to enhance satisfaction is discussed. The importance of controlling for
other factors not under the GPs control when comparing a practice’s own client
satisfaction with that of others is highlighted. The existence of similar data
sets held in other countries is referred to.
Various studies have shown client satisfaction to be positively correlated with clinical outcomes and with service utilisation1-5. These are findings consistent with intuition, individuals whose experience of a service is positive being more likely to comply with the treatment recommended by its provider6-8, as well as to seek treatment in a timely fashion9,10. (By the same token individuals who have found a service to be effective are more likely to have higher levels of satisfaction with it.) Similarly, that dissatisfaction may deter use or see patients defect to other providers, is consistent with expectations. It, follows from these results that both in their own interests and those of the patient, practitioners may wish to monitor the degree of satisfaction experienced by clients (and do so against that of other practitioners) as well as identify the factors that influence this.
A number of studies have examined satisfaction specifically in a general practice contextr8,11-18. These have focused on issues of methodology16-18, the impact of specific services on satisfaction11-14 and the importance of satisfaction in marketing activities15. While shedding light on these issues, the studies are not particularly helpful in facilitating individual practitioners to benchmark their services against those of others i.e. to assess their relative performance. In assessing this or in signalling it to clients or policy makers, it follows that they are of limited value. In this paper I examine the potential of archived population based data to serve in this regard as well as to inform the practitioner on improvements to service delivery that will enhance satisfaction.
To investigate this issue reference was made to the Northern Ireland Social Attitudes Survey19. This is an annual survey of Northern Ireland households that examines population attitudes to a range of issues including client satisfaction with GP services. (Fuller details of the survey, the sampling procedure used etc are presented in Appendix 1 and full details discussed elsewhere19.) This data was used simply because of its accessibility to the author. An internet search revealed the existence of similar data sets in Great Britain (available through the Data Archive at the University of Essex), Australia (available through the Social Science Data Archives) and the US (available through the Inter University Consortium for Political and Social Research). It follows that the approach adopted here should be repeatable in other contexts.
A usable sample of 980 responses were available from the survey for analysis. (Only individuals providing usable responses to all the questions specified the function were included). In Table 1 the results of the regression analysis are reported and in Table 2 the nature and significance of the relationship between satisfaction and the various explanatory variables based on log-likelihood ratios are shown. (The latter allow for groups of variables e.g. those relating to income to be tested collectively.) The relative magnitudes of c2 values reported in Table 2 - the results of the likelihood ratio tests - can be used to infer the ordering of variables as determinants of satisfaction - a higher c2 value denoting a more significant determinant of satisfaction.
From Table 2 it can be seen that the key determinants of satisfaction with services were, in order of importance, education, perceptions as to the weight attached respondent wishes on hospital referral, expenditure on GP services per capita, age, perceptions as to the ease with which the respondent could change GP, that the health service treated members of Northern Ireland’s two communities equally, the number of GPs per head and the respondents sex. Other variables were not significant.
From the tables it can be seen that males were less likely to be satisfied with services than females (because of the ordering of satisfaction, a positive result should be interpreted as indicating lower satisfaction). Those with positive perceptions as to the ease with which they could change GP were more satisfied than those who had not. Those who perceived themselves to have a greater input into the decision of where they might be hospitalised (should the need arise) were more satisfied than those who had not. Satisfaction was also positively correlated with expenditures per head of population on GP services. Individuals less than 65 years of age, individuals , who believed health services were delivered differently to the two communities and individuals who were better educated were less satisfied with GP services than those who were not. Perhaps paradoxically, given the relationship between expenditures and satisfaction, the greater the number of GPs per head of population the lower was satisfaction with GP services. Income, religion and private medical insurance were unrelated to satisfaction as was whether the respondent had an under 5 year old, over 75 or a disabled person in their household.
Highest educational attainment was found to be the variable most strongly related to satisfaction. Better educated individuals were less likely to be satisfied with GP services. Intuitively, a number of plausible explanations for this result can be offered. Higher levels of education may be associated with higher expectations of GP services or higher levels of education may result in individuals having less confidence in the ability of their GP. For whatever reason the relationship exists, it is a result that is consistent with that reported elsewhere24. That this is neither a novel finding nor one that relates to a variable over which the practitioner has control could of course provide a basis for questioning its value. However, in as much as it is important to demonstrate the generality of this relationship (i.e. that it exists also in this context) and the need to control for its effect when making between practitioner comparisons in client satisfaction, it is contended it does have value. By extension the value of making similar (or dissimilar) findings in other specific contexts using similar data sets should not be underestimated. This is also the case with respect to client age and sex both mirroring results found elsewhere15 and both found to be significant or marginally significant here. In relation to client income and religion as well as to characteristics of the household, not found to be significantly related to satisfaction, the study allows the practitioner to identify this fact from data available to them and to consider ignoring such data when surveying own satisfaction. Thus again the exercise is seen to have value.
The study has provided four findings worthy of note. First, there exists data to which GPs can gain access that contains information on satisfaction with GP services. Second, these data can be used to identify factors over which the GP may have little control but that may nevertheless affect satisfaction with his/her services. When comparing client satisfaction between practitioners, when reporting this information to clients or policy makers and when considering the need to respond to dissatisfaction among clients it is important that the practitioner be aware of these. Third, these data can be used to identify the impact on satisfaction of factors under the GP’s control. From this the GP can devise strategies to enhance the satisfaction of their clients. Finally, estimating the function within the practitioners own context – Northern Ireland, GB, the US etc. - will produce results more meaningful to practitioners and - if they have surveyed their clients’ satisfaction – provide results permitting comparison of their performance with that of others with whom they may compete.
Results
of Ordered Logistic Regression of Respondent Satisfaction on
Explanatory Variables (very satisfied = 0, satisfied = 1,
neither satisfied/dissatisfied = 2, dissatisfied = 3, very dissatisfied = 4)
|
Variable
|
Coefficient |
Z-value |
Probability |
|
Constant |
8.1717 |
2.46 |
0.01 |
|
GPCHANGE1 |
0.5495 |
2.17 |
0.03 |
|
GPCHANGE2 |
0.5167 |
2.84 |
0.00 |
|
GPCHANGE3 |
0.2069 |
1.46 |
0.15 |
|
WCHHOSP1 |
-1.0353 |
-3.63 |
0.00 |
|
WCHHOSP2 |
-0.4075 |
-2.24 |
0.02 |
|
WCHHOSP3 |
-0.2469 |
-1.57 |
0.12 |
|
AGE1 |
0.6446 |
3.04 |
0.00 |
|
AGE2 |
0.5936 |
3.01 |
0.00 |
|
AGE3 |
0.4853 |
2.18 |
0.03 |
|
INCOME1 |
0.3723 |
1.75 |
0.08 |
|
INCOME2 |
0.0577 |
0.29 |
0.77 |
|
INCOME3 |
0.3844 |
1.72 |
0.08 |
|
INCOME4 |
0.1918 |
0.84 |
0.4 |
|
INCOME5 |
0.2117 |
0.74 |
0.46 |
|
RSEX |
0.2126 |
1.70 |
0.09 |
|
RISK |
-0.0579 |
-0.46 |
0.65 |
|
CATH |
-0.556 |
-0.43 |
0.67 |
|
NHSPREJ |
0.5448 |
2.27 |
0.02 |
|
PRIVMED |
-0.0822 |
-0.32 |
0.75 |
|
CSEO |
0.0598 |
0.36 |
0.72 |
|
ADEG |
0.5719 |
3.18 |
0.00 |
|
DEGREE |
0.7694 |
2.56 |
0.01 |
|
GPPH |
0.0116 |
1.84 |
0.07 |
|
GPEXPPH |
-0.4163 |
-2.73 |
0.01 |
|
m1 |
2.3477 |
9.21 |
0.00 |
|
m2 |
2.9797 |
8.94 |
0.00 |
|
m3 |
4.310 |
8.76 |
0.00 |
N= 980
Collective
Significance of Variables
|
Variable
|
Nature
of Relationship With Satisfaction |
Wald
Statistic |
|
GPCHANGE |
Positive
|
10.34** |
|
WCHHOSP |
Positive
|
15.3*** |
|
AGE |
Negative
|
11.02** |
|
INCOME |
- |
6.42 |
|
RSEX |
Positive
|
3.0* |
|
RISK |
- |
0.44 |
|
CATH |
- |
0.18 |
|
NHSPREJ |
Negative |
3.58* |
|
PRIVMED |
- |
0.12 |
|
EDUCATION |
Negative |
17.04*** |
|
GPPC |
Negative |
3.5* |
|
GPEXPPC |
Positive |
8.14*** |
* indicates significant at 90% level of confidence, ** significant at 95% level of confidence and *** significant at 99% level of confidence. Wald statistic based on the difference in the Log-likelihood values of the function with and without a variable present in the estimated function.
The
NISA survey is based on a stratified random sample of households drawn from the
local government rating lists. In 1994/95, the year for which the current study
draws data, 2400 households were selected for interview of which 233 proved to
be vacant properties. Of the remaining 2167 contacted, interviews were achieved
with respect to 1519 though not all households were surveyed with respect to
each aspect of the questionnaire. Comparisons of responses to the NISA survey
with those to much larger surveys of the NI population such as the Continuous
Household Survey and the Northern Ireland Census suggest that there is no reason
to believe non-response bias with respect to socio-economic, age or religious
grouping was evident in the sample. This can be seen, for example, by reference
to the table below and would suggest it is representative of the Northern
Ireland population.
|
Characteristic |
NISA Survey (1994) % |
NI Census 1991 % |
Continuous Household Survey
(1993-94) % |
Male
|
50 |
48 |
47 |
|
Female |
50 |
52 |
53 |
Age
18-24 |
15 |
16 |
13 |
|
25-34 |
20 |
21 |
20 |
|
35-44 |
19 |
18 |
18 |
|
45-54 |
17 |
15 |
16 |
|
55-59 |
7 |
6 |
7 |
|
60-64 |
5 |
6 |
6 |
|
65+ |
18 |
18 |
19 |
|
Roman Catholic |
36 |
38 |
36 |
|
Working |
53 |
49 |
49 |
|
Unemployed |
6 |
9 |
6 |
|
Inactive |
39 |
42 |