Assessment of Patient Satisfaction Regarding Clinic Visits in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Background Understanding patient experiences and opinions is crucial to improving the quality of treatment given as healthcare services in Riyadh continue to expand. This study attempts to evaluate various aspects of patient satisfaction with clinic visits. Objectives To assess and analyze patient satisfaction with clinic visits in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in order to identify areas for improvement and enhance the overall quality of healthcare services in the region. Methods This cross-sectional study collected data from 350 adults aged 18 and above in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. A paper-based questionnaire was distributed using a snowball convenience sampling technique at various locations. The survey assessed different aspects of patient satisfaction, including demographics, accessibility, quality of care, and patient experience. Ethical approval was obtained, and informed consent was acquired from all participants. Results The study's demographic distribution revealed that the majority of participants were female (77.4%), with the largest age group being 24-35 years old (34.9%). Saudi nationals constituted the majority (72.6%). Regarding accessibility and convenience of healthcare services, a significant proportion of participants agreed that the distance between their residence and the health center was reasonable (73.4%). However, opinions were mixed regarding waiting times, with some considering it reasonable (47.4%) and others disagreeing (25.4%). Participants also had varying views on appointment availability, with a notable percentage finding it difficult (33.7%). In terms of continuity of care and communication, most participants agreed that the clinic proactively contacts them for appointments (67.4%), but there were mixed responses regarding the ease of transferring patients to a hospital (37.7% agreed, 13.1% disagreed). The agreement on seeing the same doctor at each visit was moderate (41.1%), and a majority agreed that doctors had easy access to medical records (74.9%). Regarding the quality of care and patient experience, most participants agreed that doctors treated them with respect (83.7%) and that nurses and staff members were respectful and cooperative (54.3%). The majority agreed that health centers provided services during emergencies (78%). In terms of evaluating the quality of medical services and facilities, most participants agreed that vital signs were checked during each visit (78.6%), while satisfaction with laboratory facilities was moderate (60.3%). When it came to doctor-patient communication and counseling, most participants agreed that doctors provided detailed information about their disease and medications (73.4%) and addressed patients' queries (74.9%). However, some participants said that doctors did not inform them well about their disease (23.4%). Most participants agreed that doctors showed empathy and friendliness (73.7%) and allocated adequate time during visits (71.7%). However, satisfaction with post-visit accessibility to the doctor was mixed (35.1% agreed it was easy). Conclusion The findings revealed that while participants expressed satisfaction with certain aspects of care, there were areas requiring improvement. These areas included reducing waiting times, enhancing appointment availability, improving transfer procedures, ensuring consistency in doctor-patient relationships, and enhancing communication and counselling.