Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.
KMID : 1023420070070030147
Journal of Dental Hygiene Science
2007 Volume.7 No. 3 p.147 ~ p.152
Analysis of Grievance Handling for Medical Consumers: the Case of Dental-Care Institutions
Kim Jin

Han Ji-Hyoung
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine how dental-care institutions responded to discontented customers and how much they provided grievance service and tried not to displease customers. After a survey was conducted on dental-care institutions from January 20 through February 20, 2007, the answer sheets from 206 respondents were analyzed with SPSS WIN 12.0 program, except four incomplete ones. The findings of the study were as follows: 1. 32.5 percent of the respondents were aware of grievance service, and 64.6 percent actually provided no grievance service. 94.7 percent had ever met customers who made a complaint. 2. The most common grievance of medical consumers was that it took long time to receive treatment and to wait for it. The second most dominant complaint was that the treatment they received was beyond the coverage of health-care insurance(30.6%). An insufficient medical explanation was the third most common grievance(6.3%), followed by excessive medical bills(5.8%). The most dominant number of monthly grievance case was one to ten(91.3%). As for how customers voiced their complaints, the largest number of customers talked employees about that in person(88.2%), and dental hygienists were mainly identified as a person who handled their grievance(56.8%). Concerning how the dental- care institutions responded to complaining customers, the largest number of the institutions took an immediate action(34.5%), and the second largest group took a measure after investigating the disposition of discontented patients(30.0%). The third greatest group just made an excuse(11.1%), and the fourth greatest group directed active efforts into taking care of complaining customers by offering grievance service (7.0%). 3. The dental-care institutions got a mean of 3.02 in grievance handling. The institutions that dental hygienists were in charge of grievance handling statistically significantly better responded to discontented customers than the others that receptionists were in charge of that(p < .01). The institutions that had no monthly grievance cases took care of discontented customers statistically significantly better than the institutions that faced one to ten grievance cases or 11 or more cases (p < .05). 4. The dental-care institutions got a mean of 2.59 in providing service of preventing customers from being dissatisfied. The institutions located in Seoul, Incheon and Gyeonggi province provided statistically significantly better service of that kind than the others located in the other regions(p < .01). And the dental-care institutions that dental hygienists were in charge of grievance handling offered statistically significantly better service of that kind than the dental-care institutions that receptionists were in charge of it(p < .05).
KEYWORD
Client services, Dental hygienists, Grievance, Medical services
FullTexts / Linksout information
Listed journal information
ÇмúÁøÈïÀç´Ü(KCI) KoreaMed