Patient Satisfaction as a Key Indicator of Quality in Clinical Laboratory Services: A Cross-Sectional Study at Mohammed Al-Muqrif Hospital, Ajdabiya, Libya

Abstract

Background: Patient satisfaction is increasingly used as a patient-reported quality indicator because laboratory users experience quality through more than analytical accuracy alone. Accessibility, waiting time, cleanliness, communication, privacy, phlebotomy experience, availability of requested tests, and timely delivery of results all contribute to perceived service quality. International laboratory quality-management frameworks also emphasize systematic attention to users and feedback as part of continuous improvement [1–3].

Objective: To provide a detailed descriptive account of patient satisfaction with clinical laboratory services using the supplied dataset of 420 respondents, and to summarize the reported relationships between overall satisfaction and selected demographic and service-related characteristics.

Methods: The manuscript is based on the supplied cross-sectional dataset and statistical tables (n = 420). Satisfaction was represented across 13 service domains using five response categories from very satisfied to very dissatisfied. Descriptive results included frequencies, percentages, mean ratings and standard deviations, while the supplied inferential tables contained chi-square statistics, degrees of freedom and p-values.

Results: Males represented 57.1% of the dataset and females 42.9%; the largest age group was 28–37 years (36.7%). The highest reported satisfaction percentages were cost of laboratory service (86.5%), privacy and confidentiality (83.2%), and facility cleanliness (82.0%). The lowest reported values were laboratory location within the hospital (56.0%), general satisfaction with the hospital laboratory (59.7%), and latrine cleanliness and comfort (63.8%). The supplied association analysis reported p < 0.001 for age, education, occupation, specimen-collection waiting time, overcrowding, needle-stick attempts, bruising after phlebotomy, availability of a place for personal belongings, and availability of requested tests; gender was reported at p = 0.050.

Conclusion: The dataset demonstrates substantial variation across patient-facing laboratory domains. The findings identify strengths in affordability, confidentiality and cleanliness, while also highlighting accessibility, sanitation, waiting and phlebotomy-related processes as potential quality-improvement targets.