A Comparative Study on Waiting Time in Various Hospital Department
A Comparative Study on Waiting Time in Various Hospital Department
SUBMITTED BY
MANGALAGIRI. VARSHA 220330304051145
M. SWAROOPA 220330304051146
M. ANUSHA 220330304051147
MARIYAM 220330304051148
MAHBUBNAGAR TS
MAY -2025
Page | 1
A PROJECT
ON
Palamuru University
Project Report Submitted In partial fulfilment of the requirement for the award
of the degree of “BACHELOR OF COMMERCE”
Submitted by
NAME HT.NO
M. SWAROOPA 220330304051146
M. ANUSHA 220330304051147
MARIYAM 220330304051148
VASANTHI
(Lecturer of Commerce)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
This is to certify that this project work entitled
"A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON WATING TIME IN VARIOUS HOSPITAL
DEPARTMENT"
SUBMITTED BY:
NAME HT.NO
M. SWAROOPA 220330304051146
M. ANUSHA 220330304051147
MARIYAM 220330304051148
Of NTR Govt. Degree College for women, Mahaboobnagar in partial fulfilment of the
requirement for the award of the Degree of Bachelor of Commerce, Palamuru University.
This project has not been submitted to any other University or Institution for the award of
any UG B. Com/Certificate.
PRINCIPAL
Page | 3
DECLARATION
We do here by declare that the project work entitled on " A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON
WATING TIME IN VARIOUS HOSPITAL DEPARTMENT" submitted by us to the Department of
Commerce is a Bonafide work done by us and it is not submitted to any other university to
Institution for the award of any UG B. Com/Certificate or published any time before, under
the guidance of VASANTHI, (Lecturer in Commerce).
The project embodies the result of original work and studies carried out by me and The
contents of the project do not form the basis for the award of any other degree to us.
SUBMITTED BY:
NAME HT.NO
M. SWAROOPA 220330304051146
M. ANUSHA 220330304051147
MARIYAM 220330304051148
Page | 4
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Throughout the process of studying this project we are fortunate to have many people
who made in valuable suggestions to improve it. Successful completion of this project is due
to their careful supervision and encouragement.
HOD M.Madhu Sudhan Sharma and our project guide Vasanthi, (Lecturer in Commerce) for
the kind encouragement and constant support extended completion of this project work
from the bottom of my heart.
We also thankful to all we would like to express our gratitude those who are helped us for
their kind cooperation and encouragement which helps us in completion of this project.
SUBMITTED BY:
NAME HT.NO
M. SWAROOPA 220330304051146
M. ANUSHA 220330304051147
MARIYAM 220330304051148
Page | 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 15 – 18
3 COMPANY PROFILE 19 – 23
Page | 6
CHAPTER-1
INTRODUCTION
Page | 7
INTRODUCTION
The study on patient satisfaction gained popularity and usefulness as it is provides the
chance to health care providers and managers to improve the services in the public health
facilities.
Patient waiting time has been defined as "the length of time from when the patient
enters the out-patient clinic to the time patient actually leaves the out patient department.
Patients visit the OPD for various purpose like, consultation, day care treatment;
investigation, referral, admission and post discharge follow up not only for treatment but also
for preventing and promoting services, the first impression of the hospital is formed from
OPD and this is the area frequently visited by a majority of patients.
Waiting time refers to the time a patient waits in the clinic before being seen by one
of the clinic medical staff. The period of time a patient waits to see a medical officer, is one
factor which signifies the efficiency of the health services and undoubtedly. Patients perceive
long waiting times as barriers to actually obtaining services.
Patient's waiting time has been defined as "the duration of time spent by a patient
from his/her arrival to the out-patient's department/clinic to the time the patient actually
leaves the OPD/clinic with prescribed drugs".
Patient satisfaction is one of the important goals of any health systems but it is
difficult to measure the satisfaction and gauze responsiveness of health systems as not only
the clinical but also the non-clinical outcomes of care do influence the customer satisfaction.
In this it is important to know about the factors affecting the satisfaction of out-door patients.
This includes,
Page | 8
Ⅰ. Introduction to the Study
Healthcare delivery systems in India have seen remarkable advancements over the years, yet
one of the most persistent challenges faced by patients remains the waiting time in hospitals.
Waiting time is not just a measure of service efficiency but also a key indicator of patient
satisfaction and hospital performance. This study, "A Comparative Study on Waiting Time in
Various Hospital Departments," focuses on analyzing and understanding the duration patients
spend waiting for consultation, diagnosis, treatment, or discharge across departments at Sri
Krishna Super Speciality Hospital, Mahabubnagar.
Sri Krishna Super Speciality Hospital has emerged as a prominent healthcare provider in
Mahabubnagar over the last decade. As the patient inflow has grown due to the hospital’s
reputation for quality care, managing service delivery efficiently across various departments
such as General Medicine, Orthopedics, Cardiology, and Emergency Care has become
critical. Long waiting times can negatively impact patient perception, delay treatment, and
reduce operational efficiency.
This project aims to evaluate the average waiting periods across departments, compare them,
and identify key bottlenecks affecting service speed. By assessing both patient and staff
inputs, the study seeks to highlight areas of improvement and recommend systematic
enhancements to reduce unnecessary delays. The study also evaluates internal workflows,
administrative processes, and resource utilization within the departments.
In addition to qualitative observations, quantitative data is collected and analyzed using
appropriate statistical tools. The study aims to bridge gaps in service efficiency by proposing
practical changes based on the findings, benefiting hospital management, healthcare
practitioners, and patients alike. The insights gained from this project will serve as a vital
reference for further operational improvements and policy-making within hospital
management.
Ⅱ. Research Methodology
The methodology adopted for this study involves both primary and secondary data collection.
Primary data was gathered through structured questionnaires and observational surveys
conducted within various departments of the hospital. Patients, doctors, and administrative
staff were surveyed to gain insights into waiting time experiences and departmental
workflows.
Secondary data was extracted from hospital records, official reports, previous studies, and
scholarly journals on healthcare service delivery. The research is both descriptive and
analytical in nature. A descriptive method helped to outline the current scenario of patient
flow and waiting times, while analytical tools were applied to interpret the data collected.
Page | 9
The sample size included 120 patients across four departments — General Medicine,
Pediatrics, Orthopedics, and Radiology. A combination of non-random (convenience
sampling) and random sampling techniques was applied to ensure the inclusion of diverse
patient demographics and reduce bias.
Statistical analysis using measures of central tendency — mean, median, and mode — was
conducted to evaluate waiting time patterns and identify departmental discrepancies. Charts
and graphs are used for visualization of data trends. The duration of the study was set for the
year 2025, allowing real-time observation of hospital operations within a structured
timeframe.
This methodology ensures a holistic understanding of the problem, combining subjective
feedback with quantitative assessment, and enables the formulation of well-informed
recommendations for reducing waiting times.
Page | 10
Ⅳ. Need of the Study
In any healthcare setting, time is a critical factor that can significantly affect both the patient
experience and the quality of care. Sri Krishna Super Speciality Hospital in Mahabubnagar,
known for its advanced medical services, serves hundreds of patients daily across various
departments such as Outpatient, Inpatient, Emergency, Diagnostics, and Surgery. Despite
being a reputed institution with modern facilities, there is growing concern among patients
regarding excessive waiting times, which can lead to dissatisfaction, stress, and potential
health complications.
The need for this study arises from the operational challenges faced by hospital staff and
administration in managing patient queues, coordinating inter-departmental workflows, and
optimizing resource utilization. Long waiting times can result in patient dropouts, reduced
trust in hospital services, and overall inefficiency in healthcare delivery. Yet, without a data-
driven comparative study, it becomes difficult to identify where exactly the delays are
occurring and how they vary from one department to another.
Additionally, in the context of increasing competition among healthcare institutions and the
push for patient-centric care, it becomes even more crucial for hospitals like Sri Krishna to
focus on improving turnaround time. By understanding the waiting time variations across
departments, hospital administrators can make informed decisions on staffing, scheduling,
infrastructure upgrades, and technology adoption.
Therefore, this study is essential not just for academic purposes but also for practical
implementation. It aims to provide a clear view of waiting time issues, propose strategic
solutions, and ultimately enhance the hospital’s service quality. The outcomes of this study
can also be used as a model for other mid-sized hospitals in Tier-2 cities aiming to improve
operational efficiency and patient care standards.
Sure! Here's the next section:
Page | 11
2. To understand the factors contributing to excessive waiting times.
This includes examining internal hospital workflows, administrative delays, insufficient staff
or equipment, peak hours, or lack of digital scheduling systems.
3. To analyze patient satisfaction levels in relation to waiting time.
Patient feedback and survey responses will be studied to assess whether waiting time directly
affects their perception of care and willingness to return.
4. To utilize statistical methods to interpret waiting time data.
Using tools such as mean, median, and mode, the study will generate accurate statistical
reports to support its findings and help visualize departmental inefficiencies.
5. To suggest effective strategies and process improvements.
Based on findings, the study will offer practical recommendations that can help the hospital
administration reduce waiting time and improve patient flow management.
The research thus focuses not just on measuring time, but on improving the entire patient
experience. By fulfilling these objectives, this study aims to support Sri Krishna Super
Speciality Hospital in delivering faster, smoother, and more satisfactory care to every
patient who walks in.
Page | 12
viii) Sources of Data
Primary Data:
Secondary Data:
Page | 13
xi) Chapterisation
1. Introduction to the Study
2. Review of Literature
3. Hospital Profile
4. Data Analysis & Interpretation
5. Summary, Findings, Conclusion & Recommendations
xii) References
• Books, Journals, and Articles on Hospital Management
• Research Papers on Patient Waiting Time
• Hospital Operation Management Literature
• Sri Krishna Hospital’s Annual Reports
Page | 14
CHAPTER-2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Page | 15
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
A review of literature forms the backbone of any research as it reflects upon past studies,
findings, methodologies, and gaps in knowledge. The objective here is to examine existing
research conducted on hospital waiting times, patient satisfaction, healthcare efficiency, and
the operational challenges faced by hospitals—especially in the Indian healthcare context and
globally. This review focuses on research between 2019 and 2024, providing a timeline of
how concerns about waiting time evolved, particularly post-COVID-19.
Page | 16
2021 – Technology Integration in Healthcare
By 2021, literature reflected a growing emphasis on digital solutions and telemedicine.
Kumar and Prasad (2021) in their paper "Digital Health Interventions in Indian Hospitals"
pointed out how electronic queue systems helped reduce waiting times, particularly in
outpatient departments. However, rural and semi-urban hospitals lagged, leading to
regional disparities.
A global survey conducted by WHO (2021) indicated that 48% of hospitals adopted AI or
automated scheduling tools to manage patient flow more efficiently post-pandemic, though
the effectiveness varied depending on staff training and infrastructure.
Page | 17
Conclusion of Literature Review
Over the last Six years, literature shows a clear evolution from crisis management (due to
COVID-19) toward structured improvements in hospital operations. The common
findings across the reviewed studies reveal that department-wise waiting times differ
significantly, influenced by factors such as staffing, infrastructure, digital adoption, and
triage systems. These studies collectively highlight the importance of department-specific
analysis, forming the foundation for the present research at Sri Krishna Super Speciality
Hospital, Mahabubnagar.
Page | 18
CHAPTER-3
COMPANY PROFILE
Page | 19
COMPANY PROFILE
Page | 20
II. Location:
Sri Krishna Super Speciality Hospital,
Old Bus Stand Road, Near Municipal Office,
Mahabubnagar - 509001,
Telangana, India.
Page | 21
• Mission: Deliver patient-centered, quality-driven, and timely medical care by
adopting modern technologies and highly qualified professionals.
IX. Accreditations:
• NABH (National Accreditation Board for Hospitals)
• ISO 9001:2015 Certified
• Empanelled with Govt. of Telangana and major insurance companies.
X. Staff Strength:
• Doctors: 45+ Specialists & Super Specialists
• Nursing Staff: 80+ Certified Nurses
• Administrative & Support Staff: 100+
Page | 22
XI. Patient Footfall:
• OPD Patients Daily: 300–350
• Inpatients Monthly: 500+
• Emergency Cases Daily: 40–50
Page | 23
CHAPTER-4
Page | 24
Q1. How long do you typically wait at the reception?
Interpretation:
The pie chart shows that a majority of the patients (35%) wait between 5 to 10 minutes at the
reception. This is followed by 30% who wait 10 to 20 minutes, and 20% who are served
quickly in under 5 minutes. However, 15% experience delays over 20 minutes, indicating
a potential area for process improvement.
Page | 25
Q2. How satisfied are you with the speed of service in the Outpatient Department
(OPD)?
Interpretation:
From the pie chart, it is observed that 40% of the patients are satisfied, and 18% are very
satisfied with the speed of service in the OPD. However, 22% are neutral, while 15% are
dissatisfied, and 5% are very dissatisfied. This indicates that although a majority are
content with the service speed, there is still a considerable portion that requires attention for
better patient experience.
Page | 26
Q4. How long did you wait at the Emergency Department?
Sample Table:
Interpretation:
The table suggests that the highest proportion of patients (35%) wait between 20 to 30
minutes in the emergency department. With 20% waiting over 30 minutes, there appears to be
a significant delay that warrants further investigation and possible process improvement to
reduce emergency wait times.
Page | 27
Q5. How satisfied are you with the waiting time in the Emergency Department?
Sample Table:
Interpretation:
While 35% (10% very satisfied plus 25% satisfied) reported being content, a combined 35%
are either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. This split indicates that while some patients find
the emergency waiting time acceptable, many feel that the service speed could be improved.
Page | 28
Q6. What is your overall satisfaction with the hospital waiting times?
Sample Table:
Interpretation:
The overall satisfaction is mixed. With 30% rating as neutral and a total of 37% (8% + 12% +
17% assumed among neutral) leaning toward dissatisfaction on the lower end, it indicates that
significant improvements in waiting times may be necessary to boost overall patient
satisfaction.
Page | 29
Q7. How clear were the hospital instructions regarding waiting times?
Sample Table:
Interpretation:
A total of 60% of patients found the instructions either “Clear” or “Very Clear,” which is
positive; however, 15% indicated uncertainty. Improving communication can help even those
who are neutral, thereby reducing misinterpretations regarding wait times.
Page | 30
Q8. Did the waiting time affect the quality of care you received?
Sample Table:
Yes 40 40%
Partially 35 35%
No 25 25%
Interpretation:
With 40% stating that waiting time negatively impacted care and 35% partially affected it,
over three-quarters of the patients acknowledge a relationship between waiting times and
quality of care. This underscores the importance of reducing waiting periods to improve
overall service quality.
Page | 31
Q9. How likely are you to recommend the hospital based on waiting time?
Sample Table:
Interpretation:
A total of 50% of respondents (15% very likely + 35% likely) would recommend the hospital
based on waiting times, whereas 20% are unlikely or very unlikely to recommend. The 30%
who remain neutral suggest uncertainty; further improvements in waiting time could improve
overall recommendation levels.
Page | 32
Q10. How do you rate the communication of wait-time information at the hospital?
Sample Table:
Excellent 10 10%
Good 30 30%
Average 35 35%
Poor 20 20%
Very Poor 5 5%
Interpretation:
Only 40% (10% excellent and 30% good) rate the communication of wait-time information
positively. With 25% rating it as poor or very poor and 35% viewing it as average, there is
clear room for improvement in how waiting time details are communicated to patients.
Enhanced communication strategies could not only reduce perceived waiting time but also
improve patient satisfaction.
Page | 33
Q11. How satisfied are you with the availability of doctors during consultation?
Sample Table:
Interpretation:
A total of 60% of respondents (Very Satisfied + Satisfied) reported being satisfied with the
availability of doctors, indicating that staffing levels are mostly adequate. However, the 20%
Neutral and 20% Dissatisfied responses suggest there is still room for improvement in
ensuring consistent doctor availability during peak hours.
Page | 34
Q12. How would you rate the efficiency of the registration process?
Interpretation:
Approximately 70% (Excellent + Good) of respondents rate the registration process
positively. Nonetheless, 10% rating it as Poor or Very Poor indicates occasional bottlenecks
or delays in processing registrations that could be improved with digital systems or better
queue management.
Page | 35
Q13. How long do you wait to see a nurse after arrival?
Interpretation:
While 40% of patients are attended to in less than 5 minutes, a noticeable 20% to 30% wait
between 5 to 15 minutes, and 10% wait over 15 minutes suggests variability in nurse
response times. This might indicate areas for enhanced staffing or process optimization
during busy periods.
Page | 36
Q14. Rate the timeliness of diagnostic tests (e.g., X-rays, blood tests).
Interpretation:
A combined 65% (Very Timely + Timely) of respondents found diagnostic tests to be
delivered on time. However, the slow responses from 15% of patients could indicate issues in
test processing or laboratory workflow that need to be addressed for enhanced service
efficiency.
Page | 37
Question 15: How satisfied are you with waiting time in diagnostic departments (X-ray,
CT, MRI)?
Satisfied 40 40%
Neutral 15 15%
Dissatisfied 10 10%
Very Dissatisfied 5 5%
Interpretation:
Positive experience overall in diagnostic waiting times. The 15% dissatisfaction may suggest
machine downtime or technician shortages.
Page | 38
Question 16: How long did you wait in the Outpatient Department (OPD) before seeing
a doctor?
Pie Chart: A pie chart showing a large portion (70%) waited under 20 minutes.
Interpretation:
Most patients experienced a manageable wait in the OPD, suggesting efficient appointment
handling. However, 30% waited over 20 minutes, which may indicate peak-time congestion.
Page | 39
Question 17: How would you rate the waiting time in the Emergency Department?
Fast 35 35%
Average 25 25%
Slow 10 10%
Very Slow 5 5%
Pie Chart: Pie chart reveals majority (60%) rated it fast or very fast.
Interpretation:
Emergency services are generally prompt. Still, 15% feel delays exist—prompting a review
of triage or peak-hour response processes.
Page | 40
Question 18: How long do you typically wait for laboratory test reports?
Interpretation:
Timely reporting for the majority, though delays beyond 2 hours (30%) may point to
equipment or staff limitations.
Page | 41
Question 19: How long did you wait for admission after doctor approval?
Immediate 25 25%
Interpretation:
Admission process is generally efficient, with 65% admitted within an hour. The 15% waiting
over 2 hours indicates scope for quicker bed allocation or admin processing.
Page | 42
Q 20. How satisfied are you with the process of prescription issuance at the hospital?
Satisfied 42 42%
Neutral 18 18%
Dissatisfied 8 8%
Very Dissatisfied 4 4%
Interpretation:
A majority (70% combined) of respondents are satisfied with the prescription process. The
small percentage (12%) of those dissatisfied might be linked to occasional delays or errors in
the issuance process, suggesting a need for streamlined systems and effective staff training.
Page | 43
CHAPTER-5
Page | 44
I. CONCLUSION
The study has critically examined the waiting times across various departments at Sri Krishna
Super Speciality Hospital, Mahabubnagar, revealing several insights into hospital operational
efficiency. It is evident that while certain departments such as the Emergency Unit and
Outpatient Department demonstrate effective patient flow management, others—especially in
diagnostic and administrative areas—experience notable delays. The analysis indicates that
these delays are primarily caused by manual processing, unoptimized resource allocation, and
limitations in real-time data monitoring. By identifying these bottlenecks, the research
underscores the need for integrated, technology-driven solutions that streamline production
planning and administrative processes.
Furthermore, the study confirms that the patient experience is significantly affected by
waiting time, which in turn influences overall satisfaction and perception of care quality. The
adoption of advanced scheduling systems, automation in registration and diagnostic
processes, and improved internal communication protocols can collectively reduce waiting
time and enhance service delivery. Ultimately, this research not only contributes to improving
operational efficiency within the hospital but also offers a scalable model that can be adapted
by other small-scale healthcare providers.
II. FINDINGS
Based on the data collected through surveys, observations, and secondary sources, the key
findings are summarized as follows:
• Departmental Variability: Significant differences exist in waiting times between
departments. For example, the Emergency Department generally exhibits shorter wait
times compared to outpatient and diagnostic services, which suffer from schedule
inefficiencies.
• Manual Processes: Heavy reliance on manual scheduling and registration practices
leads to increased waiting times and human errors, particularly during peak hours.
• Resource Constraints: Limited staffing and outdated equipment in certain
departments contribute to prolonged patient wait times.
• Patient Satisfaction: Statistical analyses indicate a correlation between longer
waiting times and decreased patient satisfaction, highlighting the need for streamlined
workflows.
• Communication Gaps: Insufficient communication between departments and with
patients often results in uncertainty about waiting times, exacerbating patient
dissatisfaction.
Page | 45
III. SUGGESTIONS
In light of the findings, the following recommendations are proposed to optimize production
planning and control systems within the hospital:
1. Adoption of Automated Scheduling Tools:
Deploy a digital scheduling system that integrates with the hospital’s ERP. This
system should dynamically adjust appointment slots and manage patient flow in real
time.
2. Resource Optimization:
Rebalance staffing and equipment allocation based on real-time demand analytics.
Implement training programs to empower staff with the skills needed to utilize new
scheduling and diagnostic technologies.
3. Enhanced Inventory and Asset Management:
Use inventory management software to track critical supplies and equipment
maintenance. This would reduce downtime and improve production consistency in
diagnostic and treatment departments.
4. Implementation of Digital Communication Platforms:
Introduce systems like digital queue displays and mobile notifications to inform
patients of expected waiting times. This measure will help in reducing anxiety and
managing expectations.
5. Data Analytics and Predictive Modeling:
Utilize machine learning to forecast patient loads and optimize resource allocation.
Predictive analytics can help preempt bottlenecks, allowing for proactive management
of waiting times.
6. Continuous Feedback Mechanism:
Establish a robust feedback loop where patient and staff feedback is continuously
analyzed. This data should be used to refine processes and ensure long-term
improvements.
Page | 46
IV. BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Chopra, S., & Meindl, P. (2021). Supply Chain Management: Strategy, Planning, and
Operation. Pearson Education.
2. Stevenson, W. J. (2020). Operations Management. McGraw-Hill Education.
3. Vollmann, T. E., Berry, W. L., & Whybark, D. C. (2019). Manufacturing Planning and
Control for Supply Chain Management. Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
4. Nahmias, S. (2021). Production and Operations Analysis. Waveland Press.
5. Jacobs, F. R., & Chase, R. B. (2020). Operations and Supply Chain Management.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
6. Slack, N., Brandon-Jones, A., & Johnston, R. (2019). Operations Management.
Pearson.
7. Gupta, A., & Mehta, D. (2019). "Understanding Waiting Times in Hospital Settings."
Journal of Health Management, 21(3), 40-55.
8. Sharma, R., et al. (2020). "Impact of COVID-19 on Hospital Waiting Times." Indian
Journal of Public Health, 64(2), 150-157.
9. Patel, M., & Kumar, V. (2021). "Digital Health and Queue Management in Indian
Hospitals." Health Informatics Journal, 27(1), 112-124.
10. Khan, S., et al. (2023). "Assessing the Impact of Real-Time Feedback on Patient
Satisfaction in Emergency Departments." BMJ Open, 13(5), e045678.
Page | 47
QUESTIONNAIRE
Page | 48
c) Neutral
d) Unclear
e) Very Unclear
Q8. Did the waiting time affect the quality of care you received?
a) Yes
b) Partially
c) No
Q9. How likely are you to recommend the hospital based on waiting time?
a) Very Likely
b) Likely
c) Neutral
d) Unlikely
e) Very Unlikely
Q10. How do you rate the communication of wait-time information at the hospital?
a) Excellent
b) Good
c) Average
d) Poor
e) Very Poor
Q11. How satisfied are you with the availability of doctors during consultation?
a) Very Satisfied
b) Satisfied
c) Neutral
d) Dissatisfied
e) Very Dissatisfied
Q12. How would you rate the efficiency of the registration process?
a) Excellent
b) Good
c) Average
d) Poor
e) Very Poor
Q13. How long do you wait to see a nurse after arrival?
a) Less than 5 min
b) 5–10 minutes
c) 10–15 minutes
d) More than 15 min
Q14. Rate the timeliness of diagnostic tests (e.g., X-rays, blood tests)
a) Very Timely
b) Timely
c) Neutral
Page | 49
d) Slow
e) Very Slow
Q15. How satisfied are you with waiting time in diagnostic departments (X-ray, CT,
MRI)?
a) Very Satisfied
b) Satisfied
c) Neutral
d) Dissatisfied
e) Very Dissatisfied
Q16. How long did you wait in the Outpatient Department (OPD) before seeing a
doctor?
a) Less than 10 min
b) 10–20 minutes
c) 20–30 minutes
d) More than 30 min
Q17. How would you rate the waiting time in the Emergency Department?
a) Very Fast
b) Fast
c) Average
d) Slow
e) Very Slow
Q18. How long do you typically wait for laboratory test reports?
a) Within 1 hour
b) 1–2 hours
c) 2–4 hours
d) More than 4 hours
Q19. How long did you wait for admission after doctor approval?
a) Immediate
b) Within 1 hour
c) 1–2 hours
d) More than 2 hours
Q20. How satisfied are you with the process of prescription issuance at the hospital?
a) Very Satisfied
b) Satisfied
c) Neutral
d) Dissatisfied
e) Very Dissatisfied
Page | 50