Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 1997 May-Jun;112(3):206-10; discussion 211.

Use of a customer satisfaction survey by health care regulators: a tool for total quality management

Affiliations

Use of a customer satisfaction survey by health care regulators: a tool for total quality management

N Andrzejewski et al. Public Health Rep. 1997 May-Jun.

Abstract

Objectives: To conduct a survey of health care providers to determine the quality of service provided by the staff of a regulatory agency; to collect information on provider needs and expectations; to identify perceived and potential problems that need improvement; and to make changes to improve regulatory services.

Methods: The authors surveyed health care providers using a customer satisfaction questionnaire developed in collaboration with a group of providers and a research consultant. The questionnaire contained 20 declarative statements that fell into six quality domains: proficiency, judgment, responsiveness, communication, accommodation, and relevance. A 10% level of dissatisfaction was used as the acceptable performance standard.

Results: The survey was mailed to 324 hospitals, nursing homes, home care agencies, hospices, ambulatory care centers, and health maintenance organizations. Fifty-six percent of provider agencies responded; more than half had written comments. The three highest levels of customer satisfaction were in courtesy of regulatory staff (90%), efficient use of onsite time (84%), and respect for provider employees (83%). The three lowest levels of satisfaction were in the judgment domain; only 44% felt that there was consistency among regulatory staff in the interpretation of regulations, only 45% felt that interpretations of regulations were flexible and reasonable, and only 49% felt that regulations were applied objectively. Nine of 20 quality indicators had dissatisfaction ratings of more than 10%; these were considered priorities for improvement.

Conclusions: Responses to the survey identified a number of specific areas of concern; these findings are being incorporated into the continuous quality improvement program of the office.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Mt Sinai J Med. 1993 Oct;60(5):399-404 - PubMed
    1. Public Health. 1993 Jul;107(4):235-41 - PubMed
    1. J Community Health Nurs. 1993;10(2):67-76 - PubMed
    1. J Public Health Med. 1992 Sep;14(3):236-49 - PubMed
    1. Health Care Manage Rev. 1992 Summer;17(3):51-62 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources