1. Patient perceptions of service quality: combining the dimensions by: James M. Carman (2000) Presented by: Jenna Jivani

2. Objective/ Purpose To determine the manner of features viewed by service quality To determine the manner of features viewed by service quality A better understanding and sense of how technical dimensions relate to affective dimensions A better understanding and sense of how technical dimensions relate to affective dimensions To discover more estimates of the importance of other attributes To discover more estimates of the importance of other attributes To explore the difference between various attributes and different segments of customers To explore the difference between various attributes and different segments of customers

3. Methodology Consumers evaluated technical dimensions of nursing care, physician care and outcome as an important than the accommodation functions of hospital care, and there are significant interactions among the technical dimensions. Consumers evaluated technical dimensions of nursing care, physician care and outcome as an important than the accommodation functions of hospital care, and there are significant interactions among the technical dimensions.

4. Process Six dimensions that were chosen involving: nursing care, accommodations, physician care, food service, preparation for discharge, and outcome. Six dimensions that were chosen involving: nursing care, accommodations, physician care, food service, preparation for discharge, and outcome. 1) Are there interaction effects among the attributes of the affective and the technical attributes of quality that influence their relative importance? 1) Are there interaction effects among the attributes of the affective and the technical attributes of quality that influence their relative importance? 2) Will conjoint analysis provide less biased measures of attribute importance weights than explict and implict regressions methodologies? 2) Will conjoint analysis provide less biased measures of attribute importance weights than explict and implict regressions methodologies? 3A) Will attribute importance weights differ between those in the hospital for childbirth and those hospitalized for other reasons? 3A) Will attribute importance weights differ between those in the hospital for childbirth and those hospitalized for other reasons?

5. Process continued…….. 3B) Will attribute importance weights differ according to the amount of experience patients have had with acute hospital encounters? 3B) Will attribute importance weights differ according to the amount of experience patients have had with acute hospital encounters? 3C) Will attribute importance weights remain stable when the respondent’s overall evaluation of hospital quality during the most recent stay is different from that of a previous encounter? 3C) Will attribute importance weights remain stable when the respondent’s overall evaluation of hospital quality during the most recent stay is different from that of a previous encounter? 3D) Will attribute importance weights differ because of the respondent’s complaining behavior or the response of the provider to a service breakdown? 3D) Will attribute importance weights differ because of the respondent’s complaining behavior or the response of the provider to a service breakdown?

6. Process continued…… Each person was presented with 9 scenarios involving the 6 dimensions and was asked to rate them on a poor to excellent scale Each person was presented with 9 scenarios involving the 6 dimensions and was asked to rate them on a poor to excellent scale Then everyone was given the opportunity to rank the 9 scenarios Then everyone was given the opportunity to rank the 9 scenarios

7. Results to Q1 All the important attributes were among the medical attributes of nursing care, physician care, and health outcome. All the important attributes were among the medical attributes of nursing care, physician care, and health outcome. Technical quality evaluations were not influenced by the perceived quality level of affective attributes. Technical quality evaluations were not influenced by the perceived quality level of affective attributes.

8. Results to Q2 The answer to research is that conjoint analysis does provide less-biased measures of attributes importance weights than explict and implict regression methodologies. The answer to research is that conjoint analysis does provide less-biased measures of attributes importance weights than explict and implict regression methodologies.

9. Results to Q3A Women that are in the hospital for childbirth tend to be joyful and I a happier state of mind then those patients that are in the hospital for various other reasons such as an illness etc. Women that are in the hospital for childbirth tend to be joyful and I a happier state of mind then those patients that are in the hospital for various other reasons such as an illness etc.

10. Results to Q3B Those that had been hospitalized for more than 3 days at a time cared more for the personal quality rather than their comfort level Those that had been hospitalized for more than 3 days at a time cared more for the personal quality rather than their comfort level

11. Results to Q3C Both the perception of hospital quality and the service was not satisfactory to the patients, the rating on the health care was lower than the others. Both the perception of hospital quality and the service was not satisfactory to the patients, the rating on the health care was lower than the others.

12. Results to Q3D The attribute importance weights were not different for those that had complaints or from those who had a recovery The attribute importance weights were not different for those that had complaints or from those who had a recovery

13. Conclusion Both the functional and technical fields of hospital care are essential in keeping patients at their complete satisfaction Both the functional and technical fields of hospital care are essential in keeping patients at their complete satisfaction