Evaluation of the quality of service delivery in private sector, primary care clinics in Kenya: A descriptive patient survey.
General Practice Assessment Questionnaire (GPAQ)
Kenya
consultation
health care quality
patient satisfaction
primary care
private sector
service delivery
Journal
South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care
ISSN: 2078-6204
Titre abrégé: S Afr Fam Pract (2004)
Pays: South Africa
ID NLM: 9701104
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 10 2020
22 10 2020
Historique:
received:
02
06
2020
accepted:
08
08
2020
revised:
30
07
2020
entrez:
12
11
2020
pubmed:
13
11
2020
medline:
15
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The quality of service delivery in primary care (PC) is an important determinant of clinical outcomes. The patients' perspective is one significant predictor of this quality. Little is known of the quality of such service delivery in the private sector in Kenya. The aim of the study was to evaluate the quality of service delivery in private sector, PC clinics in Nairobi, Kenya. The study employed a descriptive cross-sectional survey by using the General Practice Assessment Questionnaire in 378 randomly selected patients from 13 PC clinics. Data were analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences. Overall, 76% were below 45 years, 74% employed and 73% without chronic diseases. Majority (97%) were happy to see the general practitioner (GP) again, 99% were satisfied with their consultation and 83% likely to recommend the GP to others. Participants (97%) found in receptionist helpful and the majority were happy with the opening hours (73%) and waiting times (85%). Although 84% thought appointments were important, only 48% felt this was easy to make, and only 44% were able to access a particular GP on the same day. Overall satisfaction was higher in employed (98%) versus those unemployed (95%), studying (93%) or retired (94%) (p 0.001). Patients reported a high quality of service delivery. Utilisation was skewed towards younger, employed adults, without chronic conditions, suggesting that PC was not fully comprehensive. Services were easily accessible, although with little expectation of relational continuity. Further studies should continue to evaluate the quality of service delivery from other perspectives and tools.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The quality of service delivery in primary care (PC) is an important determinant of clinical outcomes. The patients' perspective is one significant predictor of this quality. Little is known of the quality of such service delivery in the private sector in Kenya. The aim of the study was to evaluate the quality of service delivery in private sector, PC clinics in Nairobi, Kenya.
METHODS
The study employed a descriptive cross-sectional survey by using the General Practice Assessment Questionnaire in 378 randomly selected patients from 13 PC clinics. Data were analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences.
RESULTS
Overall, 76% were below 45 years, 74% employed and 73% without chronic diseases. Majority (97%) were happy to see the general practitioner (GP) again, 99% were satisfied with their consultation and 83% likely to recommend the GP to others. Participants (97%) found in receptionist helpful and the majority were happy with the opening hours (73%) and waiting times (85%). Although 84% thought appointments were important, only 48% felt this was easy to make, and only 44% were able to access a particular GP on the same day. Overall satisfaction was higher in employed (98%) versus those unemployed (95%), studying (93%) or retired (94%) (p 0.001).
CONCLUSION
Patients reported a high quality of service delivery. Utilisation was skewed towards younger, employed adults, without chronic conditions, suggesting that PC was not fully comprehensive. Services were easily accessible, although with little expectation of relational continuity. Further studies should continue to evaluate the quality of service delivery from other perspectives and tools.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33179953
doi: 10.4102/safp.v62i1.5148
pmc: PMC8378061
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e1-e12Références
Int J Qual Health Care. 1995 Jun;7(2):127-41
pubmed: 7655809
Br J Gen Pract. 2008 May;58(550):346-52
pubmed: 18482489
Br J Gen Pract. 2006 Apr;56(525):262-8
pubmed: 16611514
Cien Saude Colet. 2014 Dec;19(12):4851-60
pubmed: 25388193
Open Med. 2009;3(3):e165-73
pubmed: 21603049
Eur J Gen Pract. 2008;14(2):89-94
pubmed: 18821139
PLoS One. 2018 May 16;13(5):e0196643
pubmed: 29768441
SAGE Open Med. 2015 Oct 30;3:2050312115608338
pubmed: 27170843
BMJ. 2003 Nov 22;327(7425):1219-21
pubmed: 14630762
Br J Gen Pract. 1999 Feb;49(439):111-3
pubmed: 10326262
Can Fam Physician. 2014 Apr;60(4):e230-6
pubmed: 24733343
Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med. 2014 Dec 01;6(1):E1
pubmed: 26245386
Eval Program Plann. 1983;6(3-4):185-210
pubmed: 10299618
BMC Res Notes. 2018 Jul 27;11(1):507
pubmed: 30053830
Br J Gen Pract. 2010 Apr;60(573):286-92
pubmed: 20353673
Int J Health Geogr. 2004 Feb 26;3(1):3
pubmed: 14987337
Int J Qual Health Care. 2005 Dec;17(6):473-7
pubmed: 15985504
Milbank Q. 2005;83(3):457-502
pubmed: 16202000
Health Expect. 2015 Oct;18(5):1081-92
pubmed: 23721257
BMC Fam Pract. 2018 May 16;19(1):63
pubmed: 29769022
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013 Aug 13;13:162
pubmed: 23941203
PeerJ. 2017 Feb 21;5:e2983
pubmed: 28243527
Arthritis Rheum. 2002 Oct 15;47(5):494-500
pubmed: 12382297
BMC Fam Pract. 2018 Jul 19;19(1):122
pubmed: 30025537
Int J Health Sci (Qassim). 2015 Apr;9(2):163-70
pubmed: 26309435
Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med. 2018 Oct 04;10(1):e1-e7
pubmed: 30326721
Can Fam Physician. 2015 Jul;61(7):596-600
pubmed: 26380849
Fam Pract. 2019 May 23;36(3):310-316
pubmed: 30192946
Intern Med. 2015;54(12):1499-504
pubmed: 26073238
Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med. 2016 May 19;8(1):e1-e12
pubmed: 27247157