Complaints management increasing perceived quality and satisfaction

Complaints management increasing perceived quality and satisfaction Complaints management increasing perceived quality and satisfaction

Complaints Management Increasing Perceived Quality and Satisfaction

Thi Le Ha Nguyen

VNU University of Medicine and pharmacy, Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Vietnam

ABSTRACT

The current paper examined the impact of perceived service quality (PSQ) and patient

complaint (PC) on patient satisfaction (PS) The study was carried out at the highest-level

hospital, Vietnam The self-administered questionnaire was distributed to inpatients who

were used in health service in April 2018 The SPSS (version 25.0) statistical software was

used for the data analysis The confirmatory factor analysis was performed for the structural

equation modeling, using the Amos 25.0 program Findings suggest PSQ direct influence

on PC and PS; PC influences PS Complaints handling should consider when improving

service quality to increase satisfaction.

Introduction

Service quality is the competition factor in the

service industry that focuses on consumer

satis-faction and loyalty (Birhanu et al 2010; Moisescu

and Gica 2014) Therefore, providers should

understand the needs and wants of the customers

to get competitive benefits (Jeong, Park, and

Hyun 2019; Sabblah et  al 2019; Shirzad et  al

2019) There was a gap between expectation and

perceived quality on service quality of provider

(Lin et  al 2009) One of the most important

factors impacting customer satisfaction is product

and service (Bogale, Kassa, and Ali 2015) It is

one of the main keys that drive customer

satis-faction and loyalty (Fida et al 2020) The strategy

to keep the customer’s satisfaction as the

cus-tomers need wants and expectation is changing

all the time (Larson et  al 2014) Therefore,

ser-vice quality is task improve continue day-by-day

(Silver et  al 2016)

Complaints handling as a tool to improve

product and service quality of providers with the

aim of increasing satisfaction and customer

loy-alty (Ahmed and Amir 2011) Complaint

han-dling related to satisfaction and repurchase

intention (Nagel and Santos 2017; Salim et  al

2018) It aims to return the belief by customer

and customer retaining (Nagel and Santos 2017; Santos and Fernandes 2008) Customer com-plaints have a significant effect on satisfaction and loyalty (Salim et  al 2018; Shammout and Haddad 2014) Complaint management aims to avoid the spread of negative word of mouth and lose dissatisfied customers (Duygun and Mentes 2015)

Customer satisfaction is an antecedent of cus-tomer loyalty (Rahman, Khan, and Haque 2012) Service quality is the assessment made by the consumers’ perceptions and expectations of received services (Jeong, Park, and Hyun 2019; Lin et  al 2009) Service quality has related to customers’ satisfaction (Bogale, Kassa, and Ali 2015) It is has a positive influence on the out-come of service (Shirzad et  al 2019) Hence, service quality is an antecedent to customers’ satisfaction and loyalty (Fida et al 2020; Rahman, Khan, and Haque 2012) Customer satisfaction is

a tool to measure service quality (Birhanu

et  al 2010)

The current paper examined the affecting of perceived service quality and patient complaints

on patient satisfaction In which, perceived ser-vice quality factors consider tangibility, reliability, and responsiveness The factors of the patient

© 2022 taylor & Francis Group, llc

CONTACT thi le Ha Nguyen ng.leha72@yahoo.com VNU University of Medicine and pharmacy, Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Vietnam.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00185868.2022.2064788

KEYWORDS

Perceived service quality; complaint; satisfaction

complaint and patient satisfaction were assessed

on the service quality of providers

Literature Review

The author considers the references that focus

on the present paper such as perceived service

quality, satisfaction, and complaints

Perceived Service Quality (PSQ)

Service quality is the value a customer derives

from a particular product or service (Pevec and

Pisnik 2018) Service quality is said to be a key

to the survival of all servicing companies

(Purcarea 2016; Bobocea et  al 2016) Adding to

this, Zun, Ibrahim, and Hamid (2018), affirmed

that service quality is a gap of the differences

between expectation and perceived quality which

expectation is higher than perceived quality

Consequently, to improve competitiveness, the

service organization have to understand customer

needs and expectations and satisfy their

custom-ers by providing better products and service

(Hijari et  al 2018) Quality service sustains the

customers’ trust in service providers’ delivery of

the ser vice (Singh, Iglesias, and

Batista-Foguet 2012)

Service quality is being linked with customer

satisfaction and willingness (Schaal et  al 2016)

Therefore, satisfaction is a tool to measure the

service quality of the service firm (Chakravarty

2011) Furthermore, service quality and customer

satisfaction were found to be related to

repur-chase intentions through customer loyalty (Fida

et al 2020; Upamannyu, Gulati, and Chack 2015)

PSQ was considered the antecedent of satisfaction

and loyalty (Lei and Jolibert 2012) In addition,

customer loyalty stems primarily from PSQ, it

affects directly customer loyalty and customer

satisfaction (Moisescu and Gica 2014; Lei and

Jolibert 2012) Thus, customer satisfaction plays

a mediator role in the relationship between PSQ

and loyalty (Fida et  al 2020)

Moreover, service quality is the consumers’

perception of particular dimensions of products

or services, such as, reliability, assurance,

tangi-bility, courteousness, personalization,

communi-cation, and responsiveness all of which have to

be incorporated into the company’s strategic pol-icy which in itself rationally affects the consum-ers’ satisfaction by providing excellent services including personal factors, situational factors and product quality (Bobocea et  al 2016) Studies supported the five factors of PSQ including tan-gibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy (Bobocea et al 2016; Chakravarty 2011) Our research considers three factors of PSQ, including tangibility, reliability, and responsiveness

Patient Satisfaction (PS)

Service quality is a key element to increase sat-isfaction and remain consumer loyalty (Lei and Jolibert 2012) Thus, measuring and evaluating consumer satisfaction that assesses the service quality of providers (Bobocea et  al 2016; Chakravarty 2011) Special, customer satisfaction was assessed based on aspects of service quality (Chakravarty 2011) PSQ has a remarkable effect

on consumer satisfaction (Purcarea 2016) and satisfaction is a mediating factor in the PSQ-loyalty relationship (Pevec and Pisnik 2018) Consumer satisfaction is an antecedent of loyalty (Rahman, Khan, and Haque 2012) Therefore, customer satisfaction is an indispensable element when measuring the service quality of the pro-vider (Bogale, Kassa, and Ali 2015) In which, complaint handling is a tool to improve service quality (Ahmed and Amir 2011; Salim et  al 2018) and increase customer satisfaction and repurchase intention (Nagel and Santos 2017)

Patient Complaint (PC)

Complaint management is necessary to factor

to improve the product and service quality of the service firm (Ahmed and Amir 2011) It concerns the information on product and ser-vice quality that customers present their dissat-isfaction (Shammout and Haddad 2014) Complaint handling aim re-get the belief by the customer to increasing satisfaction and cus-tomer loyalty (Salim et  al 2018) and lose neg-ative word-of-mouth to retain revisit intention (Duygun and Mentes 2015) Salim et  al (Salim

et  al 2018) have suggested that customer

complaints have a significant influence on

sat-isfaction and loyalty

Research Hypotheses

Customer satisfaction is “the customer’s

percep-tion of the degree to which the customer’s stated

or implied needs or expectations have been

ful-filled” (ISO 9000, 2015, p 25) Service quality is

the outcome of measurement by customer

com-pares a gap between expectations and PSQ (Zun,

Ibrahim, and Hamid 2018) PSQ related to

cus-tomer expectations (Larson et  al 2014)

Satisfaction is the expectation of the outcome of

PSQ (Shirzad et  al 2019) PSQ affects directly

customer satisfaction and loyalty (Lei and Jolibert

2012) Satisfaction is a mediator of PSQ and

loy-alty (Pevec and Pisnik 2018) Considering these

discussions, we proposed

H2: PSQ positively influences PS.

H1: Perceived Service Quality (PSQ) has a positive

effect on Patient Satisfaction (PS).

Perceived quality is a factor that has a positive

influence on satisfaction (Ahmed and Amir 2011;

Shammout and Haddad 2014) PSQ and

expec-tation related to complaining satisfaction (Duygun

and Mentes 2015) Complaint satisfaction is a

mediating of the relationship between PSQ and

re-buy/loyalty (Duygun and Mentes 2015;

Rahman, Khan, and Haque 2012) Complaints

handling an important feedback factor to improve

PSQ and increase satisfaction and loyalty

(Rahman, Khan, and Haque 2012) Therefore, we

proposed:

H2: Perceived service quality (PSQ) has a significant

influence on Patient Complaint (PC).

Complaint handling is a tool to improve PSQ

(Santos and Fernandes 2008), enhance satisfaction

and loyalty/repurchase intention (Nagel and

Santos 2017; Salim et  al 2018) Thereby,

com-plaint management is necessary for a strategic

plan to provider aim to develop service quality

(Nagel and Santos 2017) Complaint handling

aims to get return customers’ trust in the service

quality of the provider that increases satisfaction,

word-of-mouth and remain loyalty (Santos and

Fernandes 2008) Based on these observations,

we give the hypothesis:

H3: Patient Complaint (PC) has a significant effect

on Patient Satisfaction (PS).

Research Method

Data were collected by research assistants This staff group was trained for one day before to collect data on the highest level hospital, Vietnam The sample size of the study was at least 500 cases based on the number of factors and indi-cators suitable for the SEM model according to Wolf et  al (2013)

Data were collected by the method of the sim-ple random sampling of 22% from the inpatient lists of 39 clinical departments where has been delivering 2,500 inpatients per day A total of

550 participants were recruited for the study Of the 550 questionnaires were distributed, 516 were used to analyze, after screening the completed questionnaires

The questionnaire comprises 25 questions for two parts: respondents’ demographics concern about 6 questions of age, sex, marital status, educational level, occupation, and method of paying hospital fees Next, refer to 19 questions

of Perceive service quality (PSQ), Patient sat-isfaction (PS), and Patient complaints (PC) In particular, fourteen questions refer to PSQ fac-tors of five for tangibility (PSQ1–PSQ5), five for reliability (PSQ6–PSQ10), and four for responsiveness (PSQ11–PSQ14) The content of items was according to the work of Aman and Abbas (2016) and change to fit with the hos-pital context Followed by the PS factor was presented by three questions (PS15–PS17) Finally, the PC factor was conducted in two questions (PC18-PC19) A five-point Likert scale was used to measure all questions assigned

to (1 is “Very strongly disagree,” and 5 “Very strongly agree”)

The SPSS (version 25.0) statistical software was used for the data analysis Next, the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the hypothesis

of the proposed model by using the Amos 25.0 SEM program

Results and Discussion

The Reliability Statistics

The reliability of scales was evaluated using

Cronbach’s alphas [cutoff = 0.7] that confirm the

reliability and adequate internal consistency of

the scales Validity and reliability tests were

showed to further refine measurements Any

insignificant indicators were rejected and some

modifications were assessed to increase the clarity

of the questionnaire in the final study The results

indicated in Table 1

In Table 1, the Cronbach’s coefficient alpha

values of PSQ was from 0.845 to 0.873, PS was

0.792, and PC was 0.807 None of reliability

alphas for each dimension were below 0.7 It

shows that our scales were supported

The Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to

assess for Structural equation modeling (SEM),

evaluating the fitness of data with the theoretical

model, which examining the construct and the

correct assignment of variables (Hair et al 2014,

p 602) CFA was assessed by standardized

regres-sion weights, the composite reliabilities (CR), and

the average variance extracted (AVE) (Hair et al

2014, p 605), showing in Table 2

The results in Table 2 shown that the

standard-ized coefficient of items was from 0.62 to 0.87

[cutoff = 0.5] The value of average variance

extracted (AVE) was greater than 0.50, ranging

from 0.51 to 0.68 for all factors The composite

reliability (CR) for each construct was more than

0.8, ranging between 0.80 and 0.94, above the

rec-ommended value [cutoff = 0.7] The results revealed

that the discriminant validity of the measurement

model is valid, indicating adequate internal

con-sistency Therefore, our model was supported

Model Goodness-of-Fit

The fit measures of the research model was assessed by the chi-square (χ2), degrees of

free-dom (DF), statistical significance of χ2 (P-value

= 0.000), and the Root Mean Square Error Average (RMSEA) is measure of model ade-quacy Two of the most commonly assessed fit measures are the Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and the Adjusted-Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI)

In addition, normed fit index (NFI), Tucker Lewis Index (TLI), comparative fit index (CFI), and adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI), showing in Table 2

In Table 2, the ratio of χ2 to the degrees of

freedom was 3.297 (P = 0.000) Particular,

[GFI] = 0.911 (cutoff = 0.80), [NFI] = 0.923 (requirement = value of 0–1), [RMSEA] = 0.067 (requirement = value from 0.05–0.08), [CFI] = 0.945, [TLI] = 0.933 (cutoff = 0.9), [AGFI] = 0.881 (Hair et  al 2014, p 630) Our results showed that the overall model was accepted, and the scales were supported for the reliability and validity

Table 1 Reliability statistics.

Perceived service quality (PSQ)

cronbach alpha cutoff = 0.70, confirming the reliability and adequate

internal consistency of the scales.

Table 2 confirmatory factor analysis results and model

goodness-of-fit.

construct measures standardized coefficients

average variance extracted (aVE)

composite reliability (cR)

Perceived service quality (PSQ) 0.507 0.935

psQ10< -psQ 0.704 psQ11< -psQ 0.778 psQ12< -psQ 0.736 psQ13< -psQ 0.751 psQ14< -psQ 0.653

Patient satisfaction (PS) 0.569 0.798

Patient

chi-square = 468.148; df = 142; P = 0.000; chi-square/df = 3.297.

GFi = 0.911; tli = 0.933; cFi = 0.945; NFi-0.923; RMsEa = 0.067; aGFi = 0.881.

the cFa results used to evaluate the fit of the sEM model the model was assessed by standardized regression weights, aVE, cR the standard-ized coefficients cut off = 0.5; cR cutoff = 0.70; aVE cutoff = 0.50.

Hypotheses Testing

Hypotheses of our study were presented by the

coefficients path at a significant value less than

0.05 (sig.) which indicated in Table 3

Hypothesis H1: PSQ positive effect on PS that

was showed by the path coefficient (PSQ–-> PS)

was 0.456 of standardized coefficients (p < 0.001),

indicated that this hypothesis was supported

Similar, the previous studies by Bogale et  al

(Bobocea et  al 2016) and Pevec and Pisnik

(2018), showing PSQ is directly on customer

sat-isfaction loyalty Besides, customer satsat-isfaction is

a mediator role between perceived quality and

loyalty (Lei and Jolibert 2012) Findings suggested

that improve service quality leads to develop

con-sumer satisfaction and loyalty [18.27]

Hypothesis H2: PSQ significantly affects PC

was represented by the path coefficient (PSQ–

>PC) at 0.720 (p < 0.001), indicated that this

hypothesis was supported which PSQ effects on

PC Also, it is clear by Santos and Fernades

(2008) have suggested that perceived quality

affects satisfaction with complaint handling and

loyalty Complaint satisfaction is a mediator

fac-tor of PSQ and loyalty (Duygun and Mentes

2015) Our findings revealed that complaint

man-agement is a useful tool to the service firm to

give a strategic plan to improve PSQ enhance

satisfaction and thereby retain loyalty

Hypothesis H3: PC has a positive influence on

PS that was represented by the coefficient of the

path (PC–-> PS) at 0.406 of standardized

coef-ficients (p < 0.001), giving evidence PC direct

impact on PS This proved consistent with the

prior research that complaint handling impact on

satisfaction (Shammout and Haddad 2014) It is

a key factor to maintain repurchase intention

(Nagel and Santos 2017) In addition, service

quality has a strong influence on satisfaction

(Santos and Fernandes 2008) Therefore, the

ser-vice company should consider complaint

man-agement plays a mediator role to improve PSQ

to increase satisfaction and retain the loyalty of the customer

Implications for Practice

Our findings contribute implications to policy-makers when gives strategy plan complaint man-agement to improve service quality and enhance consumer satisfaction and lead retain loyalty In addition, factors that develop perceived service quality includes tangibility, reliability, and respon-siveness to increase satisfaction on service quality and maintain repurchase intention Moreover, our findings contribute to scholars when builds a model of service quality to increase satisfaction and foster loyalty and re-buy intention in the future

Conclusion and Recommendation

Our study investigates the impact of perceived service quality (PSQ) and patient complaint (PC)

on patient satisfaction (PS) A self-administration questionnaire was distributed to inpatients who treated at the highest level hospital, Vietnam in April 2018 There were 550 documents were share with participants in which a total of 516 docu-ments were used to analyze for this study

A Likert scale ranging from strongly agree (5)

to strongly disagree (1) was evaluated to all ques-tions The scale of the study was assessed by Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency in the reliability of the variables Next, a confirmatory factor analysis measurement model was per-formed to structural equation modeling was assessed to test the proposed hypotheses

Our findings revealed that all hypotheses were supported In particular, PSQ has a positive effect

on PC and PS; PC influences on PS This proved that PC is a mediating factor in the PSQ-PS rela-tionship Therefore, managers should consider complaint management as a mediating role to

Table 3 Hypothesis test results.

Hypotheses were evaluated by standardized coefficients and path coefficients with significance (sig.) less than 0.05 symbol *** represents (sig < 0.001) acronyms were perceived service quality (psQ), patient complaint (pc), and patient satisfaction (ps).

improve service quality and enhance satisfaction

and retain the loyalty of customers Moreover,

policymakers can focus on factors effect

satisfac-tion include perceived quality and customer

com-plaint, and thereby foster loyalty and repurchase

intention

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank and appreciate the

dedi-cation of the research team of the National Cancer Hospital

in Hanoi, Vietnam, and the inpatients who participated in

this study.

Disclosure Statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Funding

No funding for this study.

References

Ahmed, I., and M Amir 2011 Service quality, service

features, and customer complaint handling as the major

drivers of customer satisfaction in banking sector of

Pakistan International Review of Business Research Papers

7 (1):313–8.

Aman, B., and F Abbas 2016 Patient’s perceptions about

the service quality of public hospitals located at District

Kohat Journal of Pakistan Medical Association 66 (1):72–

5.

Birhanu, Z., T Assefa, M Woldie, et  al 2010

Determinants of satisfaction with health care provider

interactions at health centres in central Ethiopia: A

cross sectional study BMC Health Service Research 10

(78):1–12.

Bobocea, L., I R Gheorghe, S Spiridon, C M Gheorghe,

and V L Purcarea 2016 The management of health care

service quality A physician perspective Journal of

Medicine and Life 9 (2):149–52.

Bogale, A L., H B Kassa, and J H Ali 2015 Patients’

perception and satisfaction on quality of laboratory

ma-laria diagnostic service in Amhara Regional State, North

West Ethiopia Malaria Journal 14 (1):1–7 doi: 10.1186/

s12936-015-0756-6.

Chakravarty, C A 2011 Evaluation of service quality of

hospital outpatient department services MJAFI 67

(3):221–4 doi: 10.1016/S0377-1237(11)60045-2.

Duygun, A., and S A Mentes 2015 The impacts of

com-plaint satisfaction on corporate reputation, negative

word-of-mouth communication intention and repurchase

intention Balkan Journal of Social Sciences 4 (8):108–20.

Fida, B A., U Ahmed, Y Al-Balushi, and D Singh 2020 Impact of service quality on customer loyalty and cus-tomer satisfaction in Islamic banks in the Sultanate of

Oman Sage Open 10 (2):215824402091951–10 doi:

10.1177/2158244020919517.

Hair, J F.Jr., W C Black, B J Babin, et al 2014 Multivariate

data analysis 7th ed London (UK): Prentice Hall.

Hijari, H H., H L Harvey, M S Alyahya, et al 2018 The impact of applying quality management practices on pa-tient centerendness in Jordanian public hospitals: results

of predictive modeling The Journal of Health Care

Organization, Provision, and Financing 55:1–15.

ISO 9000 2015 International standard: Quality management

systems - fundamentals and vocabulary 4th ed Geneva,

Switzerland: ISO;

Jeong, J Y., J Park, and H Hyun 2019 The role of emo-tional service expectation toward perceived quality and satisfaction: Moderating effects of deep acting and surface

acting Frontiers in Psychology 10 (321):321 doi: 10.3389/

fpsyg.2019.00321.

Larson, E., S Hermosilla, A Kimweri, et  al 2014 Determinants of perceived quality of obstetric care in

rural Tanzania: A cross-sectional study BMC Health

Service Research 14 (483):1–9.

Lei, P., and A Jolibert 2012 A three-model comparison

of the relationship between quality, satisfaction and loy-alty: An empirical study of the Chinese healthcare

sys-tem BMC Health Services Research 12 (436):436–11 doi:

10.1186/1472-6963-12-436.

Lin, D.-J., Y.-H Li, J.-Y Pai, I.-C Sheu, R Glen, M.-J Chou, and C.-Y Lee 2009 Chronic kidney-disease screening service quality: Questionnaire survey

re-search evidence from Taichung city BMC Health

S e r v i c e s R e s e a r c h 9 ( 2 3 9 ) : 2 3 9 d o i :

10.1186/1472-6963-9-239.

Moisescu, O I., and O A Gica 2014 An investigation of service quality and its impact on customer attitudinal

loyalty in traditional travel agencies Acta Turistica 26

(2):131–54.

Nagel, M., and C P Santos 2017 The relationship between satisfaction with complaint handling and repurchase in-tentions: Detecting mederating influences in E-Tail

Brazilian Business Review 14 (5):510–27 doi: 10.15728/

bbr.2017.14.5.4.

Pevec, T., and A Pisnik 2018 Empirical evaluation of a conceptual model for the perceived value of health

ser-vices Zdravstveno Varstvo 57 (4):175–82 doi: 10.2478/

sjph-2018-0022.

Purcarea, T V 2016 Creating the ideal patient experience

Journal of Medicine and Life 9 (4):380–5.

Rahman, M S., A H Khan, and M M Haque 2012 A conceptual study on the relationship between service quality towards customer satisfaction: Servqual and

Gronroos’s service quality model perspective Asian Social

Science 8 (13):201–10 doi: 10.5539/ass.v8n13p201.

Sabblah, G T., D Darko, L Härmark, and E van Puijenbroek 2019 Patient preferences and expectation

for feedback on adverse drug reaction reports submitted

in Ghana Ghana Medical Journal 53 (2):150–5 doi:

10.4314/gmj.v53i2.10.

Salim, A., M Setiawan, R Rofiaty, and F Rohman 2018

Focusing on complaints handling for customer

satisfac-tion and loyalty: The case of Indonesian public banking

European Research Studies Journal XXI (Issue 3):404–16

doi: 10.35808/ersj/1071.

Santos, C P., and D V H Fernandes 2008 Antecedents

and consequences of consumer trust in the context of

service recovery BAR - Brazilian Administration Review

5 (3):225–44 doi: 10.1590/S1807-76922008000300005.

Schaal, T., T Schoenfelder, J Klewer, and J Kugler 2016

Determinants of patient satisfaction and their willingness

to return after primary total hip replacement: A

cross-sectional study BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 17

(330):330–9 doi: 10.1186/s12891-016-1196-3.

Shammout, M Z., and S I Haddad 2014 The impact of

complaints’ handling on customers’ satisfaction: Empirical

study on commercial banks’ clients in Jordan Intenational

Business Research 7 (11):203–20.

Shirzad, M., E Shakibazadeh, A P Betran, M A Bohren,

and M Abedini 2019 Women’s perspectives on health

facility and system levels factors influencing mode of

delivery in Tehran: A qualitative study Reproductive

Health 16 (1):15 doi: 10.1186/s12978-019-0680-2.

Silver, S A., R McQuillan, Z Harel, A V Weizman, A

Thomas, G Nesrallah, C M Bell, C T Chan, and G

M Chertow 2016 How to sustain change and support

continuous quality improvement Clinical Journal of the

American Society of Nephrology: CJASN 11 (5):916–24

doi: 10.2215/CJN.11501015.

Singh, J J., O Iglesias, and J M Batista-Foguet 2012 Does

having an ethical brand matter? The influence of

con-sumer perceived ethicality on trust, affect and loyalty

Journal of Business Ethics 111 (4):541–9 doi: 10.1007/

s10551-012-1216-7.

Upamannyu, N K., C Gulati, and A Chack 2015 The

effect of customer trust on customer loyalty and

repur-chase intention: The moderating influence of perceived

CSR International Journal of Research in IT, Management

and Engineering 5 (4):1–31.

Wolf, E J., K M Harrington, S L Clark, and M W

Miller 2013 Sample size requirements for structural

equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and

solution propriety Educational and Psychological

Measurement 73 (6):913–34 doi: 10.1177/

0013164413495237.

Zun, A B., M I Ibrahim, and A A Hamid 2018 Level

of satisfaction on service quality dimensions based on SERVQUAL model among patients attending 1 Malaysia

Clinic in Kota Bharu, Malaysia Oman Medical Journal

33 (5):416–22 doi: 10.5001/omj.2018.76.

Appendix: Questionnaire

Complaints Management Increasing Perceived Quality and Satisfaction

Your responses will be used solely for research purposes The information that you provide will help to improve the quality of healthcare services.

Serial No: ……… Date of completion……… Please write your response in the blank column or mark the box provided.

1 What is your age? ………years

2 What is your sex?

1 Male □ 2 Female □

3 What is your marital status?

1 Single □ 2 Married □

3 Divorced □ 4 Widowed □

4 What is your educational level?

1 No school □ 2 Primary school □

3 Secondary school □ 4 High school □

5 Bachelor’s degree □

6 Postgraduate degree □

5 What is your occupation?

1 Govt employee □ 2 Non-govt employee □

3 Unemployed □ 4 Agriculture □

5 General labour □ 6 Retired □

6 Method of paying hospital fees

1 Insurance □ 2 Personal payment □ Please place a cross in the box corresponding to the level of your agreement/disagreement with each of the fol-lowing statements.

1 Very strongly disagree, 2 Strongly disagree, 3 Agree,

4 Strongly agree, 5 Very strongly agree

Patient Complaint (PC)

pc18 the time taken to respond to my complaint was

satisfactory

pc19 the feedback provided met my expectations

Perceived Service Quality (PSQ)

Tangibility

psQ1 Hospital was conveniently located

psQ2 Direction signs were clear

psQ3 Wards were designed with easy access and were

comfortable psQ4 staff were professional

psQ5 Free medicine was available

Reliability

psQ6 the admission process was fast and straightforward

psQ7 staff responded immediately when called

psQ8 staff showed genuine interest in attending to my

problems psQ9 staff were reliable in handling my problems

psQ10 Hospital treatment was error-free

Responsiveness

psQ11 admissions staff were friendly and courteous

psQ12 staff responded promptly to my requests

psQ13 i was provided with adequate information about

my health condition psQ14 i was prescribed affordable medicines

ps15 i am satisfied with the results of my recovery

ps16 the quality of service i received met my

expectations

ps17 i am satisfied with my selection of this hospital

to provide me with healthcare

Patient Satisfaction (PS)