Premium
Patient perception of nursing service quality; an applied model of Donabedian’s structure‐process‐outcome approach theory
Author(s) -
Kobayashi Hideyuki,
Takemura Yukie,
Kanda Katsuya
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
scandinavian journal of caring sciences
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.678
H-Index - 66
eISSN - 1471-6712
pISSN - 0283-9318
DOI - 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2010.00836.x
Subject(s) - nursing , patient satisfaction , reliability (semiconductor) , service (business) , data collection , quality (philosophy) , outcome (game theory) , service quality , nursing outcomes classification , nursing care , process (computing) , psychology , nursing research , medicine , computer science , team nursing , business , sociology , social science , power (physics) , philosophy , physics , mathematics , mathematical economics , epistemology , quantum mechanics , marketing , operating system
Scand J Caring Sci; 2011; 25; 419–425
Patient perception of nursing service quality; an applied model of Donabedian’s structure‐process‐outcome approach theoryBackground: Nursing is a labour‐intensive field, and an extensive amount of latent information exists to aid in evaluating the quality of nursing service, with patients’ experiences, the primary focus of such evaluations. To effect further improvement in nursing as well as medical care, Donabedian’s structure‐process‐outcome approach has been applied. Aims: To classify and confirm patients’ specific experiences with regard to nursing service based on Donabedian’s structure‐process‐outcomes model for improving the quality of nursing care. Methods: Items were compiled from existing scales and assigned to structure, process or outcomes in Donabedian’s model through discussion among expert nurses and pilot data collection. With regard to comfort, surroundings were classified as structure (e.g. accessibility to nurses, disturbance); with regard to patient–practitioner interaction, patient participation was classified as a process (e.g. expertise and skill, patient decision‐making); and with regard to changes in patients, satisfaction was classified as an outcome (e.g. information support, overall satisfaction). Patient inquiry was carried out using the finalized questionnaire at general wards in Japanese hospitals in 2005–2006. Reliability and validity were tested using psychometric methods. Results: Data from 1,810 patients (mean age: 59.7 years; mean length of stay: 23.7 days) were analysed. Internal consistency reliability was supported (α = 0.69–0.96), with factor analysis items of structure aggregated to one factor and overall satisfaction under outcome aggregated to one. The remaining items of outcome and process were distributed together in two factors. Inter‐scale correlation ( r = 0.442–0.807) supported the construct validity of each structure‐process‐outcome approach. All structure items were represented as negative‐worded examples, as they dealt with basic conditions under Japanese universal health care system, and were regarded as representative related to concepts of dissatisfaction and no dissatisfaction. Conclusion: Patients’ experiences with nursing service were confirmed using Donabedian’s approach and can therefore be applied to improve quality of nursing practice by practitioners, managers and policy makers.