Article in PDF
How to Cite
Citation Manager
Readers' Comments (0)
Audio Visual Article Statistics
Link
to PUBMED
Print this Article
Send to a Friend
Advertisers
Access Statistics Resources
Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."
Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011
Dr. Shankar P.R.
"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."
Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011 Anuradha
Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.
Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020
Original article / research
Full Version
Patients’ Satisfaction with Medical Services in the Qassim Area
Correspondence Address :
Dr. Mohamed Issa Ahmed
Dept. of Medical Laboratories,
College of Applied Medical Science-Qassim University
P.O. Box: 6699, Buraydah 54452, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
E-mail: mohdissa76@gmail.com
Background: The important goals of hospitals are to deliver high quality health services and to respond to the needs of the patients. Patient satisfaction is one of the most sensitive indicators of the quality of their services as it measures the gap between what is expected and ideal from one side and what actually exists in reality.
Objective: To determine the level of the patient’s satisfaction with the medical services and the delivery of those services. Methodology: Overall, 500 patients were selected from five different superspeciality hospitals of the Qassim region and they were analyzed by using a predesigned, prestructured and a self explained questionnaire during September 2009 to February 2010. The results were analyzed by using the SPSS software.
Results: A majority of the patients (50%) were satisfied with the skills of the doctors in the form of the provision of medical servicesand almost most of them agreed with the good infrastructure of the medical clinics. 41% of the total patients felt that the medical services which were provided at the hospitals were quick and 46% found that the overall standard of the medical services was good. 42% of the patients were satisfied with the medical services in general, while 14% were strongly satisfied. 27% of the patients felt that the doctors ignored them at some point of time and 36% believed that the doctors did not provide enough time to the patients.
Conclusion: In general, the provision of the medical services at various hospitals are satisfactory, but still, improvement in the form of the provision of laboratory services in time and providing enough time to the patients by solving their queries and at the same time, maintaining a satisfactory rapport between the physician and the patient is needed.
Satisfaction, Medical service, Hospital
Studies on the patients’ attitudes towards health services, health personnel and resources constitute important elements in the extent to which the health services have met the consumers’ expectations and needs and hence, they can be viewed as a means of judging the degree of their satisfaction with the services (1),(2).
The degree of patient satisfaction can be used as a means of assessing the quality of health care and the personnel. It reflects the ability of the provider to meet the patients’ needs. Satisfied patients are more likely than the unsatisfied ones to continue using the health care services, maintaining their relationships with specific health care providers and complying with the care regimens (3). Satisfaction studies have been done mostly in the developed countries. In the developing countries, such studies are scarce and are of a general nature. In the Gulf Region, some studies on satisfaction with ambulatory care were conducted in countries like Saudi Arabia (4),(5).
The current study will start the process of evaluation with the hope of delineating areas of strength and weaknesses in the services of the hospitals in the Qassim region to pave the way for appropriate planning strategies for improvement. This article is intended to stimulate further research in this area.
The study population consisted of patients who were admitted in five major hospitals of the Qassim region, which consisted of the King Fahad Specialty Hospital, the Central Hospital of Buraydah,the Maternity and Child Hospital of Buraydah, the Malik Saud hospital of Unaiza and the Bukariyah Hospital. All the patients who visited these hospitals during the study period (September 2009- February 2010) were included for the research. A majority of the patients were included from the King Fahad Specialty hospital, the Central hospital of Buraydah and the Maternity and Child Hospital of Buraydah. The data were collected by using a predesigned, prestructured and a self explained questionnaire after taking written, verbal and oral consent for the research after conducting a pilot study. The questionnaire included 30 questions which covered all aspects of the socio-demographic characteristics of the patients who visited the hospital, the physician’s skills, the infrastructure quality and the types of facilities which were provided at the hospital. The results of the data were analyzed by using the SPSS software.
The data were obtained from 500 patients with a 100 percent response rate (180 patients from the King Fahad Speciality Hospital, 140 patients from the Central Hospital of Buraydah, 80 patients from the Maternity and Child Hospital of Buraydah, 70 patients from the Malik Saud hospital of Unaiza and 30 patients from the Bukariyah Hospital). The sample consisted of 371 males (74.2%, mean age = 38 years, range 26-74) and 129 females (25.8%, mean age = 31, range = 22-56) and a majority of both were Saudi nationals (83.4%). The two groups did not differ significantly in age (P= 0.19). A majority of the patients were married (58.6%) and were between the age group of 18-34 years (48.8%).
In the case of education of the patients, 6.6% reported that they did not have formal education, 7.4% were primary school graduates, 39.4% were intermediate and high school graduates, and 45% were university graduates and beyond. Out of all the respondents, 11.8% were housewives and 16.2% were students.
By looking at the response which was received from the patients regarding the skills of the physicians who were working at the respective hospitals, it was found that a majority of the patients (50%) agreed that the physicians could clearly explain the reason for the laboratory investigations, while 16% of the patients had doubts regarding their capacity to explain the reason for the same. At the same time, 17% of the patients thought that the physicians couldn’t provide the satisfactory diagnosis. A majority of the patients (45%) believed that the physicians could provide a satisfactory diagnosis. Regarding the adequate care with respect to the diagnosis and treatment at the respective hospitals, it was found that 17% of the patients were satisfied with it, while 48% patients were not satisfied. A majority of the patients (40%) said that the physicians were working seriously and impartially for the patients, while 18%of the patients did not agree with them. Surprisingly, 27% of the patients believed that sometimes the doctors ignored the patients and some of them (19%) even had doubts about the capaability of the physician in the form of treatment. 36% of the patients felt that doctors were not providing enough time to the patients to satisfy their queries. With regards to the laboratory services, 51% of the patients said that they received good care at the laboratory and 41% of the total patients said that the doctors provided enough time explaining the results to the patients, while 25% of them did not believe so. Almost 50% of the patients were strongly satisfied with the laboratory results and 51% thought that the service providers could interpret the laboratory results to the patients better. Most of the patients agreed (54%) or strongly agreed (29%) that confidentiality was highly maintained with respect to the laboratory results. Commenting on the infrastructure of the hospitals in general, the patients (43%) believed that medical clinics were capable of providing good care and that the medical services which were provided were of a good standard (46%), while 19% and 13% patients did not agree with that simultaneously. 58% ofthe patients were satisfied with the cleanliness of the waiting area. 39 % of the patients replied that the laboratories at the hospitals were capable of providing all the diagnostic tests, 52% said that the complete safety measures against infections were very well followed and that the protection measures were adequately (49%) taken while dealing with patients inside the laboratory. Regarding the hospital services in general, 32% of the patients agreedsaid that they got a convenient appointment and 17% said that they didn’t get it. A majority of the patients (51%) believed that the waiting period was short, particularly in getting emergency services from the hospital. Except the emergency services, the rest of the medical services were reported to be provided quickly by 41% of the patients, while 26% did not agree with it. 22% of the patients said that they found it difficult to get the appointment in time. 42% of the patients said that they got the medical services whenever they needed it, while 26% of the patients did not agree with them it. 53% of the patients felt that the waiting space which was available in the laboratory was comfortable and 40% of the patients found that the laboratory samples were collected within a short time, while 27% felt that their time was wasted during the sample collection. 49% of the patients agreed that they could easily communicate with the service providers via phone for their queries and 39 % of the patients said that they received the laboratory results within a short time. Most of the patients (42%) found the medical services to be satisfactory in general and 53% of the total patients said that they got satisfactory laboratory services (Table/Fig 1).
This study has demonstrated the degree of satisfaction of the patients in five different hospitals, which covered the patients in the Qassim area. All of them were of Saudi Arabian nationality and no significant differences were found from the responses of the individual patients from these five hospitals concerning the physician’s skill, infrastructure and the hospital services.
The socio-demographic data in this study showed that no significant difference was found between the socio-demographiccharacteristics and the level of satisfaction of the patients. Similar results were reported by Al-Deghaither with regards to the rehabilitation services which were delivered at the King Khalid University Hospital in 2002 (5).
This study is an effort to evaluate the patient satisfaction ratings concerning the interpersonal skills of the physicians and technical competence were seemed to be agreeing for over all scores was 45.66% (Table/Fig 2).These satisfaction scores are comparable to those of similar studies which were conducted in Kuwait city for the physician services, which scored 44.2% (Al-Doghaither et al. 2001) and other studies which were conducted in Riyadh and Jeddah cities Saudi Arabia (6),(7), but are much lower than the reported findings from global studies, which ranged from 61 to 97% (8),(9),(10),(11). Other studies have shown that the physicians’ communication skills and the length of the time that they spend talking, explaining and responding to their patients’ queries, and offering reassurance and support, involving the patients in decision-making, and discussing test results and findings from physical examinations were strong and important correlates of the patients’ satisfaction (12),(13). The infrastructure (available facilities, communication and waiting area and adequate protection measures) in this study overall scored 49% (Table/Fig 3). This was similar to that of a study which was conducted in Riyadh for patient satisfaction by using the rehabilitation serviceswhich were delivered at the King Khalid University Hospital (5). However, in other studies which were done by Sodani et.al. in 2010 concerning patient satisfaction with respect to the infrastructures and the basic amenities which were available in the hospitals, the patient respondents were found to be more satisfied with respect to the availability of the basic amenities in the studied public health facilities for which the score rates were 54% to 71% (14). The medical services in general scored 42% (Table/Fig 4). This score was much lesser than that which was found in the studywhich was done by Singh et.al in 1999, in which over 70% of the respondents were satisfied with the services which were provided, the doctors’ willingness to listen to explanations of the patients’ problems and with their courtesy and consideration (15),(16).
Limitations The data collection (questionnaire and interviews) was carried out by the members of the internship students and the questionnaire did not include all the parameters which affected their satisfaction.
In general, the provision of the medical services at various hospitals are satisfactory but still, improvement in the form of the provision of laboratory services in time and providing enough time to the patients for solving their queries and at the same time, maintaining a satisfactory rapport between the physicians and the patients is needed.
We would like thank to Dr. Mohsin Shaikh for his help.
- Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
- Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
- Academic Search Complete Database
- Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
- Embase
- EBSCOhost
- Google Scholar
- HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
- Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
- Journal seek Database
- Popline (reproductive health literature)
- www.omnimedicalsearch.com