Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1 Undergraduate Student, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois, USA
2 Department of Pediatric Intensive Care, Children’s Hospital of Illinois at Peoria, Peoria,
3 Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Hospital Medicine, University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria, Peoria , Illinois, USA
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traditional methods are not able to differentiate which feature customers regard
as attractive, mandatory, performance, and which feature customers are indifferent about. These
categories can only be differentiated based on a specific technique called Kano survey. Specific
aim of this study was to categorize the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and
Systems (HCAHPS) patient satisfaction survey questions into Kano categories.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Design of the study was survey research. It was conducted from
6/2019 to 8/2019 at OSF Saint Francis Medical Centre in Peoria, Illinois, USA. A 34 question Kano
survey (17 positive and 17 negative questions) based on HCAHPS patient questionnaire was
designed. Surveys were analyzed using Kano analysis template. Comparative analysis of Kano
categories based on demographics was also performed.
RESULTS: 39 current patients and 25 caregivers completed the survey. All of the 17 HCAHPS
questions except “noise level at night” were classified as mandatory requirement with highest number
for information on “indications of medicines.” There was a minimum variability in the satisfaction
coefficients but large variation in the dissatisfaction coefficients. More patients above 50 years consider
“help going to bathroom” as mandatory (70.2% vs. 40.7%, P = 0.01). Sixty‑four percent of caregivers
considered “explain things (nurse)” as mandatory as opposed to 51.2% of patients (P = 0.03).
CONCLUSION: Current U. S healthcare consumers have high expectations from healthcare delivery
and consider most HCAHPS questions as mandatory requirements. Kano analysis needs to be done
on a larger, more diverse hospital setting and potentially the HCAHPS survey needs to be modified
to reflect prevailing healthcare customer requirements.
Keywords
Development, implementation, and public reporting of the
HCAHPS survey. Med Care Res Rev 2010;67:27‑37.
2. Goldstein E, Farquhar M, Crofton C, Darby C, Garfinkel S.
Measuring hospital care from the patients’ perspective: An
overview of the CAHPS® hospital survey development process.
Health Serv Res 2005;40:1977‑95.
3. Elliott MN, Beckett MK, Lehrman WG, Cleary P, Cohea CW,
Giordano LA, et al. Understanding the role played by Medicare’s
patient experience points system in hospital reimbursement.
Health Aff (Millwood) 2016;35:1673‑80.
4. Kano N. Attractive quality and must-be quality. Hinshitsu
(Quality, The Journal of Japanese Society for Quality Control)
1984;14: 39-48.
5. Sauerwein E, Bailom F, Matzler K, Hinterhuber HH, editors.
The Kano Model: How to Delight your Customers. Innsbruck:
International Working Seminar on Production Economics; 1996.
6. Vassiliadis CA, Fotiadis AK, Tavlaridou E. The effect of creating
new secondary health services on patients’ perceptions: A Kano
service quality analysis approach. Total Qual Manage Bus Excell
2014;25:897‑907.
7. Zacarias D. The complete guide to the Kano Model. Available at
Foldingburritos com/Kano‑model. Accessed August 19, 2016.
8. Chen YH, Su CT. A Kano‑CKM model for customer knowledge
discovery. Total Qual Manage Bus Excell 2006;17:589‑608.
9. Hejaili FF, Assad L, Shaheen FA, Moussa DH, Karkar A,
AlRukhaimi M, et al. Culture‑related service expectations:
A comparative study using the Kano model. Qual Manage Health
Care 2009;18:48‑58.
10. Bellamkonda VR, Kumar R, Scanlan‑Hanson LN, Hess JJ,
Hellmich TR, Bellamkonda E, et al. Pilot Study of Kano
“Attractive Quality” Techniques to Identify Change in
Emergency Department Patient Experience. Ann Emerg Med
2016;68:553‑61.
11. Tripathi S, Henrekin LL, Read CD, Welke KF. Identification of
Critical to Quality Elements for Intensive Care Rounds by Kano
Analysis. Pediatr Qual Saf 2017;2:e027.
12. Yaghoubi M, Asgari H, Javadi M. The impact of the customer
relationship management on organizational productivity,
customer trust and satisfaction by using the structural equation
model: A study in the Iranian hospitals. J Educ Health Promot
2017;6:6.
13. Blauth R, Richter R, Rubinoff A. Experience in the use of Kano’s
Methods in the Specification of BBN RS/1 Release 5.0. In, Kano
Methods for Understanding Customer‑Defined Quality; 1993 [12‑5].
Available from: https://www.walden‑family.com/public/
cqm‑journal/2‑4‑Whole‑Issue.pdf. [Last accessed on 2020 Oct 22].
14. Pouliot F. Theoretical Issues of Kano’s Methods; 1993 [28‑36].
Available from: https://walden‑family.com/public/
cqm‑journal/2‑4‑Whole‑Issue.pdf. [Last accessed on 2020 Oct 22].
15. Timko M. An Experiment in Continuous Analysis; 1993 [17‑20].
Available from: https://walden‑family.com/public/
cqm‑journal/2‑4‑Whole‑Issue.pdf. [Last accessed on 2020 Oct 22].
16. Ahrens SL, Wirges AM. Using evidence to improve satisfaction
with medication side‑effects education on a neuro‑medical
surgical unit. J Neurosci Nurs 2013;45:281‑7.
17. Raisi M, Eskandari N, Abbasi M, Rahbar A. Customers’
satisfaction with the Iranian health system reform plan. J Educ
Health Promot 2019;8:170.
18. Kennedy B, Craig JB, Wetsel M, Reimels E, Wright J. Three
nursing interventions’ impact on HCAHPS scores. J Nurs Care
Qual 2013;28:327‑34.
19. Kennedy GD, Tevis SE, Kent KC. Is there a relationship
between patient satisfaction and favorable outcomes? Ann Surg
2014;260:592.
20. Friedberg MW, Gelb Safran D, Schneider EC. Satisfied to death:
A spurious result? Arch Intern Med 2012;172:1112‑3.
21. Fenton JJ, Jerant AF, Bertakis KD, Franks P. The cost of satisfaction:
A national study of patient satisfaction, health care utilization,
expenditures, and mortality. Arch Intern Med 2012;172:405‑1v
)