CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1Quality Function Deployment in Product DesignPatient Satisfaction in HealthcareHealthcare Quality and Management

Incorporar la satisfacción del paciente de hemodiálisis a la gestión de la calidad

Núñez, E., Ruiz de Adana, R.·2019·Journal of Healthcare Quality Research
DOI 10.1016/j.jhqr.2019.05.010
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Application of Quality Function Deployment (QFD) methodology can be used to identify the requirements that determine patient perception of health care quality. The objective was to identify patient requirements in a Hemodialysis unit using QFD. MATERIAL AND METHODS Setting was Hemodialysis unit at the Infanta Sofia Hospital (Madrid). Matrix analysis based on the QFD method was performed from the qualitative approaches of the patient satisfaction. This was expressed by the Donabedian quality measurement model with a focus group for qualitative data. RESULTS The analysis of the matrix revealed the characteristics of the process which have a major influence on the service quality, related to patient satisfaction, this were recorded for future designs, services and improvements of the process, through a reliable healthcare monitoring service. CONCLUSIONS QFD allows understanding patients requirements and to include them for continuous improvement of quality in services.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jhqr.2019.05.010

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Ruiz de Adana Pérez, 2004, El diseño de la Calidad: despliegue funcional de la calidad, JANO., 66, 52
  2. Mira, 2000, La satisfacción del paciente como una medida de resultados de atención sanitaria, Med Clin (Barc)., 114, 26
  3. Donabedian, 1989, La calidad de la asistencia ¿Cómo podría ser evaluada?, JANO., 864, 103
  4. Esteban, 1998, El control de la calidad asistencial, una responsabilidad compartida, Rev Clin Esp., 182, 166
  5. Mazur GH, Gibson J, Harries B. QFD applications in health care and quality of work life. First International Symposium QFD. Tokio, 23-24 de marzo de 1995.
  6. Gomez, 2014, Grupo focal: satisfacción y expectativas de nuestros pacientes de hemodiálisis, Enferm Nefrol., 17, 99

Cited by

Still being checked.

Related

Authors
Núñez, E., & Ruiz de Adana, R.
Affiliations
Hospital Universitario Infanta Sofía (ES)
Corresponding author
Núñez, E.
ORCID
Núñez, E.
Venue
Journal of Healthcare Quality Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-09
Volume
34
Issue
5
Pages
266-271
ISSN
2603-6479 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jhqr.2019.05.010
OpenAlex
W2973299382
Semantic Scholar
3220488ec0ee02b64e432c1f96e7c72d0003beed
Cited by
1
References
12
Citations by year
2025: 1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Healthcare Quality Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Quality Function Deployment in Product Design
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
Keywords
hemodialysis, patient satisfaction, quality function deployment, quality of care, Donabedian model, patient expectations, continuous quality improvement, service quality
MeSH terms
Renal Dialysis, Hemodialysis Units, Hospital, Hospitals, University, Humans, Quality of Health Care, Spain, Patient Satisfaction, Focus Groups, Needs Assessment, Quality Improvement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review