Evaluating and prioritizing hospital service quality

• Published in: International journal of health care quality assurance 2019-03, Vol.32 (2), p.332-346
• Main Authors: Torkzad, Ahmad, Beheshtinia, Mohammad Ali
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Audits; Bibliometrics; Case studies; Clinical Competence; Decision Making; Elimination; Environment; Fuzzy sets; Health administration; Health care; Health Facility Environment - standards; Hierarchies; Hospitals; Hospitals, Public - organization & administration; Hospitals, Public - standards; Humans; Iran; Literature reviews; Medical wastes; Methods; Multiple criteria decision making; Prioritizing; Quality Indicators, Health Care; Quality of care; Quality of Health Care - organization & administration; Quality of Health Care - standards; Quality of service; Questionnaires; Reproducibility of Results; Responsiveness; Surveys and Questionnaires - standards; Validity
• ISSN: 0952-6862; 1758-6542
• DOI: 10.1108/IJHCQA-03-2018-0082

Purpose Hospital evaluations create competition between healthcare providers. In this study, a multi criteria decision-making (MCDM) method is used to evaluate criteria that affect hospital service quality. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach Criteria affecting hospital service quality are identified. Four Iranian public hospitals are evaluated using these criteria. Four hybrid methods, including modified digital logic–technique for order of preference by similarity to an ideal solution, analytical hierarchy process–technique for order of preference by similarity to an ideal solution, analytical hierarchy process–elimination and choice expressing reality and modified digital logic–elimination and choice expressing reality are used to evaluate hospital service quality. Results are aggregated using the Copeland method and final ranks are determined. Findings The four main criteria for evaluating hospital service quality are: environment; responsiveness; equipment and facilities; and professional capability. Results suggest that professional capability is the most important criterion. The Copeland method, used to integrate four MCDM hybrid methods, provides the final hospital ranks. Practical implications The criteria the authors identified and their weight help hospital managers to achieve comprehensive organizational growth and more efficient resource usage. Moreover, the decision matrix helps managers to identify their strengths and weaknesses. Originality/value New and comprehensive criteria are proposed for hospital quality assessments. Moreover, a new hybrid MCDM approach is used to achieve final hospital rankings.