Assessing quality of care through client satisfaction at an interprofessional student-run free clinic

Abstract

Student-run free clinics (SRFCs) have become important contributors not only to improve access to primary-care services for homeless and uninsured populations but also to enhance health sciences student education. In order for SRFCs to reliably provide high quality healthcare services and educationally benefit students, it is imperative to assess client perceptions of the quality of care provided. The objective of this study was to evaluate the delivery of healthcare services through a client satisfaction questionnaire at the University of California, Los Angeles Mobile Clinic Project (UCLA MCP). From 2012 to 2015, 194 questionnaires that addressed demographic information, satisfaction with services and client outcomes were analysed. Satisfaction scores were evaluated on a four-point scale and differences in the composite satisfaction scores were assessed using Mann-Whitney U-tests. Half (50%) of the client respondents report that UCLA MCP is their primary source of health care (MCP primary care clients), while 81.3% reported that the clinic improved access to other healthcare resources. Overall, clients are highly satisfied with their experiences (Range: 3.5-3.9) and 62% have recommended our services to others. While MCP primary-care clients report significantly higher satisfaction scores than non-primary-care clients on average (p < 0.01), the mean composite scores for all subgroups are consistently high. The UCLA MCP clients perceive the clinic to provide high-quality healthcare services. This article presents a framework that may help other SRFCs evaluate clients' perception of the quality of their care, an essential building block for effective physician-client relationships.

Patient Satisfaction With Telehealth and Experiences During the COVID-19 Pandemic Among Uninsured Free Clinic Patients

“…In response to the pandemic and reducing the spread of infection, free clinics are increasingly transitioning in-person appointments to telehealth (11,12). Previous studies examined the satisfaction of free clinic patients at an in-person setting (13,14). Overall, free clinic patients are highly satisfied with in-person services settings (13,14).…”

“…Previous studies examined the satisfaction of free clinic patients at an in-person setting (13,14). Overall, free clinic patients are highly satisfied with in-person services settings (13,14). However, little is known about patient satisfaction with telehealth among free clinic patients or other underserved populations.…”

Quality of Diabetes and Hypertension Management at the DAWN (Dedicated to Aurora’s Wellness and Needs) Student-Run Free Clinic

“…Given the prevalence of SRFCs and diversity of clinic models, it is imperative that SRFCs evaluate patient care outcomes to ensure that they are comparable to clinics where uninsured patients typically access care and to identify opportunities for quality improvement [ 4 , 5 ]. Evaluations at SRFCs have examined the quality of chronic disease management, quality of preventative care, and patient satisfaction [ 6 - 9 ]. The DAWN (Dedicated to Aurora’s Wellness and Needs) clinic, as a new SRFC, felt that it was important to engage in an evaluation of quality of care.…”

Applying the Chronic Care Model to Improve Patient Activation at a Nurse-Managed Student-Run Free Clinic for Medically Underserved People

“…Student-run free clinics provide care to groups that would otherwise not receive essential healthcare services while simultaneously providing experiential learning for students working with the medically underserved. As of 2011, there were a reported 111 student-run free clinics at 49 medical schools in the United States (Asanad et al., 2018). Investigators have found that student-run free clinics meet or exceed standards of care when compared with primary care clinics (Asanad et al., 2018; Bartlett, 2015), and patients have reported that they were pleased with the care they receive at a student-run free clinic (Campbell, Gibson, O’Neill, & Thurston, 2013).…”