Coyne and Messina Article Analysis

Coyneand Messina Article Analysis

Nameof Student

Thearticle attempts to explain the relationship that exists between thesatisfaction of a patient and admission of an inpatient acrossteaching and non-teaching hospitals. According to the article byMessina, there is a rise in what patients expect and decline inreimbursement which makes it crucial for healthcare executives tocomprehend the relationship that there is between satisfaction of thepatient and the volume of admission. Managing satisfaction ofpatients is of critical value to everyday operations in the pursuitof ultimate performance.

Whatguides the study are the two principle questions applied in research.The first question tried to find out the nature of the relationshipbetween measured patient satisfactions and admitted in patients inhospitals that care for those with acute conditions. The secondquestion seeks to determine whether the mentioned relationship isdifferent in teaching hospitals and those that don’t offer teachingfor patients (Coyne&amp Hilsenrath, 2002).

Therewas, however, a negative correlation which was not significantbetween how satisfied patients got and their admission in hospitalsconsidered to be non-teaching. When a combined sampled of teachingand nonteaching was studied, the correlation that was found wasbetween the satisfaction of patients and volume of admission wasnegative but significant statistically.

Howthe research question arose from the literature review of the article

Accordingto the review, there is a continued struggle for teaching hospitalsand non-teaching hospitals to grab more admissions and share themarket. It is out of this struggle which was observed and studiedthat brought about the question of whether the size and the type ofownership bring out a difference on how efficient a hospital is andits size in Washington State. This brought about the relationshipbetween how satisfied the patient is and its volume. In recent yearsthere has been competition in the healthcare market place against allhealth care providers. With that, there came a confrontation by therealization that not only charges could be increased to raiserevenue, but they had to incur costs as well. Price is not the onlything health providers compete on for business but other factors suchas service, reputation and many other attributes other than charges.

Thefindings from these articles were a result of a comprehensive andextensive research that was carried out and the relationship betweenthe qualities of service the volume of attendance was defined.Patients were interviewed from the hospitals and in consideration oftheir views compared to the research that was carried out thequestion arose from the literature review (Coyne&amp Hilsenrath, 2002).

Independentvariables type

Theseare variables whose values do not depend on any other values presentand are responsible for the evaluation of the values of the othervariables. In this article, there are two independent variables whichinclude the teaching and nonteaching hospitals. Teaching hospitalsare those that offer medical education to patients and are usuallyattached to medical schools Nonteaching hospitals, on the other hand,do not provide education. The two variables are considered to beindependent because they are the ones that determine whether apatient will become satisfied when he or she gets admitted as aninpatient in a teaching hospital or a nonteaching hospital (Andoleeb,1998). The satisfaction depends on the two independent variables.

Dependentvariables

Theseare variables whose values depend on the independent variables. Theychange according to the way the independent variables change. In thearticle, the variables that were being studied and were dependent oneither teaching or non-teaching hospitals were the volume ofadmission and the satisfaction of patients. These were solelydependent on whether the hospital offered medical education or not.The findings were then taken into record.

Designelements

Themethod employed for the experimental design is quantitative becauseit gives a general framework on the outlook for the research.Information that describes whether the patients got satisfied in ateaching hospital or a nonteaching one and their volumes on admissionis gathered, and it becomes possible to summarize the findings intogroups. This method, as opposed to the qualitative method, surveys ahuge number of patients to be studied then techniques taught instatistics are applied so that an overall pattern is obtained fromhow the results relate to the study.

Thesample of the study constituted of seven hospitals that offer medicaleducation to patients and those that do not offer this kind ofeducation. The study was done for five years from the year 1999 tothe year2003. This was a response outcome to the invitation that wasextended to hospitals in New Jersey that had clients Press Garney. Included in the survey is data that came from patients who wereadmitted and they completed the survey on satisfaction which formedpart of the research study (Andoleeb, 1998).

Themode of sample collection included mailing of questionnaires to bothteaching and nonteaching hospitals. The method brought aboutcorporative participants from regions that had a diverse range ofhuman population and how they change on their levels of income,coverage of insurance, their mean age, ethnicity as well as othertraits. The data on patient satisfaction was collected for everyhospital by use of the data sets that were complete and collected viareleased surveys carried out at the various institutions. Thequestionnaire after being made, was modified so that its validity inkeeping track of patients` experiences and preferences wasmaintained. The study did not involve any experimental or controlgroup.

Theinstrument of study was developed after patient groups wereconducted, the literature of their satisfaction reviewed, instrumentsfrom across the US reviewed, and the use of the latest techniques andtools for the design of survey from organizations of healthcareacross the US. The reliable tool that was made use of was avalidation study on the satisfaction of the inpatients that ensuredreliability and consistency. The instrument of the survey was foundto be stable psychometrically over a vast spectrum of tests todetermine reliability and validity (Coyne&amp Hilsenrath, 2002).

Thestatistical measures taken involved all measures of central tendency,for example, mean, median and standard deviation. Computation ofthose tests was used in the examination of some hospitalcharacteristics that were very specific on the mean scores of thesatisfaction of the patient and the data on the volume of inpatientsas recorded by admissions. Kurtosis and skewness are also otherstatistical tests that were done for the purpose of scrutiny of howthe data on survey response is shaped and distributed (GenevievePinto Zipp EdD, 2009).

Conclusion

Theconclusions of the researcher made sense because it takes extensiveresearch and harmonized data to find out the satisfaction of thepatient is a driving factor in the volume of inpatients in hospitalsthat provide medical education. It also clearly indicates that fornon-teaching hospitals, the volume growth and satisfaction ofpatients are not correlated strongly. The research question wastherefore answered, and it was a total flow from the review of theliterature.

References

Andoleeb,S. 1998. &quotDeterminants of Customer Satisfaction with Hospitals:A Managerial Model.&quot Intemational Journal of Health Care Qualityll (6-7): 181-87.

Coyne,J. S., &amp Hilsenrath, P. (2002). The World Health Report 2000: Canhealth care systems be compared using a single measure ofperformance?. AmericanJournal of Public Health,92(1),30-33.

GenevievePinto Zipp EdD, P. T., &amp LFACHE, L. L. M. (2009). Therelationship between patient satisfaction and inpatient admissionsacross teaching and nonteaching hospitals. Journalof healthcare management,54(3),177.