Timely and efficient access to healthcare is a key driver of patient satisfaction, yet many systems continue to face challenges related to appointment delays and complex scheduling processes. This study examines how scheduling efficiency, including triage systems, appointment wait times, and ease of booking, impacts patient satisfaction. The central hypothesis posits that more efficient scheduling results in higher satisfaction levels. Using a mixed-methods survey, data were collected from individuals who had scheduled medical appointments within the past six months. Participants reported on waiting times, scheduling difficulties, satisfaction, and access to care. Descriptive analysis revealed a mean satisfaction score of 2.44 regarding waiting times, with 64% of respondents expressing dissatisfaction. A mean score of 2.96 for scheduling ease indicated moderate difficulty, with 40% reporting scheduling challenges. Inferential statistics revealed a strong negative correlation between waiting times and satisfaction. Patients waiting more than one month were significantly more likely to be dissatisfied. While traditional scheduling methods (e.g., phone calls) were most common, they were associated with greater difficulty, and only 24% of participants expressed an interest in alternative technologies. Most participants (76%) prioritized shorter wait times, followed by 68% who desired more appointment options.
These findings suggest that operational improvements, such as expanding provider capacity and optimizing scheduling workflows, may be more effective than solely investing in new technologies. The results also indicate a compound effect in which long wait times and scheduling difficulty significantly reduce satisfaction. This study highlights how structural barriers in scheduling can impact healthcare equity and underscores the need for system-level reforms to enhance patient access and experience.
Keywords: scheduling efficiency, patient satisfaction, triaging process, traditional scheduling methods, system-level changes.
View Manuscript