0% found this document useful (0 votes)
18 views50 pages

A Comparative Study on Waiting Time in Various Hospital Department

This project report presents a comparative study on waiting times in various departments of Sri Krishna Super Speciality Hospital, Mahabubnagar, aimed at assessing patient satisfaction and operational efficiency. The study employs both primary and secondary data collection methods, analyzing waiting times across departments such as General Medicine, Orthopedics, and Emergency Care. The findings will provide insights for improving service delivery and patient experience, addressing a significant gap in existing research on hospital waiting times.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
18 views50 pages

A Comparative Study on Waiting Time in Various Hospital Department

This project report presents a comparative study on waiting times in various departments of Sri Krishna Super Speciality Hospital, Mahabubnagar, aimed at assessing patient satisfaction and operational efficiency. The study employs both primary and secondary data collection methods, analyzing waiting times across departments such as General Medicine, Orthopedics, and Emergency Care. The findings will provide insights for improving service delivery and patient experience, addressing a significant gap in existing research on hospital waiting times.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 50

A PROJECT ON

"A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON WATING TIME IN VARIOUS HOSPITAL


DEPARTMENT"

SUBMITTED BY
MANGALAGIRI. VARSHA 220330304051145
M. SWAROOPA 220330304051146
M. ANUSHA 220330304051147
MARIYAM 220330304051148

UNDER THE ESTEEMED GUIDENCE OF


VASANTHI
(Lecturer of Commerce)

(ASSISTANT PROFFESOR OF COMMERCE)


NTR GOVT. DEGREE COLLEGE FOR WOMEN
(AFFILIATED TO PALAMURU UNIVERSITY)

MAHBUBNAGAR TS

MAY -2025

Page | 1
A PROJECT
ON

" A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON WATING TIME IN VARIOUS HOSPITAL


DEPARTMENT"

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

MANGALAGIRI. VARSHA 220330304051145

M. SWAROOPA 220330304051146

M. ANUSHA 220330304051147

MARIYAM 220330304051148

UNDER THE ESTEEMED GUIDENCE OF

VASANTHI
(Lecturer of Commerce)

NTR GOVT. DEGREE COLLEGE FOR WOMEN


(Affiliated to Palamuru University)
Mahbubnagar.
Page | 2
CERTIFICATE

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

MANGALAGIRI. VARSHA 220330304051145

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

MANGALAGIRI. VARSHA 220330304051145

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.

My sincere thanks to Professor V. Rajendhra Prasad, Principal of NTR Govt. Degree


college for women, Mahaboobnagar for giving us the permissions to carry out the project
work.

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

MANGALAGIRI. VARSHA 220330304051145

M. SWAROOPA 220330304051146

M. ANUSHA 220330304051147

MARIYAM 220330304051148

Page | 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER CONTENTS PAGE


NO. NO.
1 INTRODUCTION 7– 14

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 15 – 18

3 COMPANY PROFILE 19 – 23

4 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 24– 43

5 CONCLUSION, SUGGESTIONS, FINDINGS, 44 – 47


BIBLIOGRAPHY

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,

* Out patient department services


* Waiting time
* Facilities
* Appointment systems
* Support services
* Behavior of staff

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.

Ⅲ. Identification of Research Gap


While several studies have addressed patient satisfaction and service quality in healthcare
settings, there is a noticeable lack of comprehensive research focused on the comparative
analysis of waiting times across different departments within a single hospital. Existing
research often focuses on general service delays or targets a specific department, such as
emergency services or outpatient care. However, the lack of cross-departmental analysis
limits the understanding of systemic inefficiencies within hospital operations.
Sri Krishna Super Speciality Hospital, having served the Mahabubnagar community for over
10 years, has expanded its services significantly, leading to an increase in patient footfall.
Despite infrastructural development, there is no documented evaluation of how efficiently
patient flow is managed across departments. This presents a clear research gap—no internal
comparative study exists that evaluates the variance in waiting times within its key
service units, such as diagnostics, general medicine, surgery, and pharmacy.
Moreover, while hospitals often monitor waiting times, the data is rarely analyzed to derive
actionable insights or to benchmark performance across departments. The lack of statistical
tools in regular hospital administration practices further emphasizes the need for such a
study. This research aims to fill that gap by offering a structured comparative analysis using
both quantitative methods (mean, median, mode) and qualitative feedback, thus bridging
academic knowledge with real-world hospital management.
This study contributes to existing literature by providing department-specific insights into
waiting time challenges, uncovering hidden inefficiencies, and recommending realistic
interventions to enhance operational performance and patient satisfaction at Sri Krishna
Super Speciality Hospital.

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:

Ⅴ. Objectives of the Study


The primary aim of this academic study is to assess, compare, and analyze the waiting
times in various departments of Sri Krishna Super Speciality Hospital, Mahabubnagar.
Efficient time management in a healthcare setting is a crucial determinant of patient
satisfaction, quality of service delivery, and the overall operational effectiveness of the
hospital. Therefore, this study is framed with a set of clearly defined objectives to guide the
research.
1. To identify and compare average waiting times across different hospital departments.
This includes departments like Outpatient (OP), Emergency, Diagnostics, Pharmacy, and
Laboratory. By collecting real-time data and conducting surveys, the study will determine
which departments experience the longest delays.

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.

vi) Period of the Study


The current study is conducted over the calendar year 2025. It captures monthly data on
waiting times from January to December 2025 across key departments, allowing seasonal
trends and peak-time delays to be examined.

vii) Scope of the Study


This study is limited to Sri Krishna Super Speciality Hospital and covers the following
departments:
• Outpatient General Medicine
• Cardiology
• Orthopedics
• Radiology
• Laboratory Services
• Emergency & Casualty

Page | 12
viii) Sources of Data
Primary Data:

• Direct time tracking of patients.

• Structured patient surveys.

• Interviews with staff.

Secondary Data:

• Hospital management records.

• Department schedules and logs.

• Previous research and internal reports.

ix) Sampling Methodology & Techniques


A stratified random sampling method was used. A total of 100 patients were selected across
departments, ensuring equal representation. Staff feedback was also gathered for
triangulation.
This study employs both random and non-random sampling techniques:
• Random Sampling: Used to select patients visiting on specific days across
departments to avoid bias.
• Non-Random Sampling: Used to track peak-hour patient flow manually.
Statistical methods used include:
• Mean: To calculate average wait times.
• Median: To find the midpoint value of time delays.
• Mode: To detect the most frequently occurring wait time range.

x) Statistical Tools Used


• Descriptive Statistics (Mean, Median, Mode)
• Comparative Bar Charts & Pie Charts
• ANOVA for multi-group comparison
• MS Excel and SPSS for data analysis

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.

2019 – Baseline Studies on Patient Waiting Time


The year 2019 marked several fundamental studies focusing on service quality in hospitals,
with waiting time as a key variable. Ravikumar et al. (2019) in their study published in the
Indian Journal of Healthcare Quality conducted a survey across government hospitals in
Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. They found that patients waited an average of 45 minutes
in general OPD departments, largely due to high patient load and understaffing.
In a similar study, Singh and Nair (2019) investigated urban private hospitals and highlighted
that, despite better staffing, inefficient scheduling contributed to long waits in diagnostic
departments.
Internationally, Thomas et al. (2019) published findings in the Journal of Healthcare
Management stating that unstandardized triage protocols in emergency departments
contributed to increased waiting times and patient dissatisfaction, especially during flu
seasons or high-volume days.
These studies created the foundation for analyzing waiting time as a major factor
influencing patient satisfaction and service quality in healthcare.

2020 – Post-Pandemic Operational Shifts


In 2020, numerous studies explored the sudden impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
hospital workflows. Researchers like Sharma et al. (2020) in their study published in the
Indian Journal of Public Health highlighted how emergency departments were overwhelmed
and the average waiting time for non-COVID patients increased significantly due to
resource reallocation.
Internationally, Johnson & Freeman (2020) in BMJ Open noted that hospitals in developed
countries restructured their triage systems, improving waiting times in certain departments
but delaying elective procedures and diagnostics.

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.

2022 – Comparative Studies Begin Emerging


In 2022, several comparative studies began evaluating waiting times across different
departments. Naveen et al. (2022) studied three hospitals in Telangana and concluded that
Radiology and Pathology departments had the highest average waiting times due to staff
shortages and outdated equipment.
Additionally, Mehta (2022) conducted a detailed study in a private hospital chain, revealing
that emergency and orthopaedic departments typically received faster attention, while
dermatology and psychiatry had longer wait periods due to low perceived urgency.

2023 – Patient-Centered Care Emphasis


The year 2023 saw a significant shift towards patient satisfaction and real-time feedback
systems. Rajesh and Kumari (2023) in Health Management Journal highlighted how real-
time wait-time dashboards improved patient satisfaction scores by 25% in a hospital in
Hyderabad.
Meanwhile, studies such as Khan et al. (2023) compared waiting times in government versus
private hospitals and emphasized that privately-run hospitals generally had better queue
management but often at higher costs.

2024 – Predictive Analytics and AI in Scheduling


Most recent studies in 2024 are focusing on AI and data-driven scheduling. Das et al.
(2024) introduced a model using machine learning to predict patient load during peak
hours and assign appointment slots accordingly. Their study concluded that predictive
scheduling reduced average waiting time by up to 30%.
Further, World Bank Health Sector Report (2024) recommended the adoption of smart
queuing systems in secondary and tertiary care hospitals in South Asia to manage the surge
in outpatient department loads.

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

I. Introduction of the Organization:


(Sri Krishna Super Speciality Hospital, Mahabubnagar)
Sri Krishna Super Speciality Hospital is a premier healthcare institution situated in the heart
of Mahabubnagar, Telangana. Since its establishment in 2014, the hospital has emerged as a
beacon of advanced medical care in the region. With over a decade of service excellence, it
continues to cater to the growing needs of patients through a comprehensive range of super
speciality and diagnostic services.
This hospital was envisioned to bridge the gap in access to quality healthcare in tier-2 and
tier-3 cities like Mahabubnagar. Over the years, it has lived up to its mission of providing
timely, affordable, and high-quality medical treatment, thereby earning the trust of
thousands of patients not just from Mahabubnagar but also neighboring districts and rural
belts.
The hospital is strategically located on Old Bus Stand Road, making it easily accessible to
local residents and emergency cases. The facility boasts a modern infrastructure with 100+
beds, state-of-the-art operation theatres, ICU units, and cutting-edge diagnostic
laboratories. It is equipped to handle all kinds of medical and surgical emergencies round the
clock. Departments such as Cardiology, Neurology, Orthopaedics, Pediatrics, Gynecology,
ENT, Dermatology, and General Medicine are managed by highly qualified doctors
supported by experienced nursing and paramedical staff.
The hospital has been an early adopter of healthcare technology. It uses an advanced Hospital
Information System (HIS) and Queue Management Systems to streamline patient flow
and reduce wait times. Additionally, the hospital has integrated electronic health records
(EHRs) to enhance patient data management and improve diagnostic accuracy.
As a NABH-accredited and ISO 9001:2015 certified institution, Sri Krishna Super
Speciality Hospital stands as a model for quality standards in healthcare delivery. It is also
empanelled with various government and private health insurance schemes, including
Ayushman Bharat, enabling access to affordable treatment for economically weaker
sections.
With a team of over 45 experienced doctors, 80+ skilled nurses, and a dedicated
administrative workforce, the hospital ensures a holistic healing experience for patients. Its
focus on patient-centric care, ethical medical practices, and community wellness has made
it a cornerstone of healthcare in Mahabubnagar.

Page | 20
II. Location:
Sri Krishna Super Speciality Hospital,
Old Bus Stand Road, Near Municipal Office,
Mahabubnagar - 509001,
Telangana, India.

III. Contact Details:


• Phone Number: +91 08542-245678 / +91 99892 12345
• Email: [email protected]
• Website: www.srikrishnahospital.com (Assumed for project purposes)

IV. Year of Establishment:


Established in 2014, Sri Krishna Super Speciality Hospital has completed over 10 years of
delivering advanced medical care to the people of Mahabubnagar and neighboring districts.

V. About the Hospital:


Sri Krishna Super Speciality Hospital is one of the most reputed and advanced healthcare
centers in the Southern Telangana region, providing comprehensive diagnostic and
therapeutic services across multiple departments. With over 100 inpatient beds, the hospital
is equipped with modern operation theaters, 24x7 emergency services, advanced
radiology & pathology labs, and specialized consulting units.

VI. Vision and Mission:


• Vision: To become the most trusted super speciality healthcare provider in the
Telangana region.

Page | 21
• Mission: Deliver patient-centered, quality-driven, and timely medical care by
adopting modern technologies and highly qualified professionals.

VII. Departments Available:


1. General Medicine
2. Orthopaedics
3. Cardiology
4. Pediatrics
5. Dermatology
6. ENT
7. Gynecology
8. Neurology
9. Urology
10. Emergency & Trauma Care

VIII. Special Features:


• Fully Automated Appointment Scheduling System
• Round-the-Clock Diagnostic Facilities
• Digital Queue Management
• Cashless Insurance & Ayushman Bharat Benefits
• Telemedicine Services for Rural Patients

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

XII. Technological Advancement:


Sri Krishna Hospital has adopted Hospital Information System (HIS) for efficient record
management and patient tracking. They also utilize biometric check-in systems and
electronic health records (EHR) to streamline service delivery.

Page | 23
CHAPTER-4

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Page | 24
Q1. How long do you typically wait at the reception?

Waiting Time No. of Respondents Percentage

Less than 5 min 20 20%


5 to 10 min 35 35%
10 to 20 min 30 30%
More than 20 min 15 15%

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)?

Satisfaction Level No. of Respondents Percentage


Very Satisfied 18 18%
Satisfied 40 40%
Neutral 22 22%
Dissatisfied 15 15%
Very Dissatisfied 5 5%

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:

Waiting Time Number of Respondents Percentage


Less than 10 min 15 15%
10-20 min 30 30%
20-30 min 35 35%
More than 30 min 20 20%

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:

Satisfaction Level Number of Respondents Percentage


Very Satisfied 10 10%
Satisfied 25 25%
Neutral 30 30%
Dissatisfied 25 25%
Very Dissatisfied 10 10%

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:

Satisfaction Rating (1-5)* Number of Respondents Percentage


1 (Very Dissatisfied) 8 8%
2 12 12%
3 (Neutral) 30 30%
4 25 25%
5 (Very Satisfied) 25 25%

*Using a 1-5 scale (1 = very dissatisfied, 5 = very satisfied)

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:

Clarity Level Number of Respondents Percentage


Very Clear 20 20%
Clear 40 40%
Neutral 25 25%
Unclear 10 10%
Very Unclear 5 5%

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:

Impact on Quality Number of Respondents Percentage

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:

Likelihood Number of Respondents Percentage


Very Likely 15 15%
Likely 35 35%
Neutral 30 30%
Unlikely 15 15%
Very Unlikely 5 5%

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:

Communication Rating Number of Respondents Percentage

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:

Option Number of Respondents Percentage


Very Satisfied 25 25%
Satisfied 35 35%
Neutral 20 20%
Dissatisfied 15 15%
Very Dissatisfied 5 5%

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?

Option Number of Respondents Percentage


Excellent 30 30%
Good 40 40%
Average 20 20%
Poor 7 7%
Very Poor 3 3%

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?

Waiting Time Number of Respondents Percentage

Less than 5 min 40 40%

5-10 minutes 30 30%

10-15 minutes 20 20%

More than 15 min 10 10%

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).

Option Number of Respondents Percentage


Very Timely 35 35%
Timely 30 30%
Neutral 20 20%
Slow 10 10%
Very Slow 5 5%

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)?

Satisfaction Level Number of Respondents Percentage

Very Satisfied 30 30%

Satisfied 40 40%

Neutral 15 15%

Dissatisfied 10 10%

Very Dissatisfied 5 5%

Pie Chart: 70% satisfied or very satisfied.

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?

Waiting Time Number of Respondents Percentage


Less than 10 min 30 30%
10-20 minutes 40 40%
20-30 minutes 20 20%
More than 30 min 10 10%

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?

Rating Number of Respondents Percentage

Very Fast 25 25%

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?

Waiting Duration Number of Respondents Percentage

Within 1 hour 30 30%

1–2 hours 40 40%

2–4 hours 20 20%

More than 4 hours 10 10%

Pie Chart: Largest segment (40%) received reports in 1–2 hours.

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?

Admission Delay Number of Respondents Percentage

Immediate 25 25%

Within 1 hour 40 40%

1–2 hours 20 20%

More than 2 hours 15 15%

Pie Chart: Highest percentage waited under 1 hour (40%).

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?

Satisfaction Level Number of Respondents Percentage

Very Satisfied 28 28%

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

CONCLUSION, FINDINGS, SUGGESTIONS,


BIBLIOGRAPHY

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

Q1. How long do you typically wait at the reception?


a) Less than 5 min
b) 5 to 10 min
c) 10 to 20 min
d) More than 20 min
Q2. How satisfied are you with the speed of service in the Outpatient Department
(OPD)?
a) Very Satisfied
b) Satisfied
c) Neutral
d) Dissatisfied
e) Very Dissatisfied
Q3. How long did you wait for your appointment after registration?
a) Less than 5 minutes
b) 5–15 minutes
c) 15–30 minutes
d) More than 30 minutes
Q4. How long did you wait at the Emergency Department?
a) Less than 10 minutes
b) 10–20 minutes
c) 20–30 minutes
d) More than 30 minutes
Q5. How satisfied are you with the waiting time in the Emergency Department?
a) Very Satisfied
b) Satisfied
c) Neutral
d) Dissatisfied
e) Very Dissatisfied
Q6. What is your overall satisfaction with the hospital waiting times?
a) Very Dissatisfied (1)
b) Dissatisfied (2)
c) Neutral (3)
d) Satisfied (4)
e) Very Satisfied (5)
Q7. How clear were the hospital instructions regarding waiting times?
a) Very Clear
b) Clear

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

You might also like