Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cross-sectional study assesses factors impacting patient satisfaction in multi-campus hospitals, suggesting managerial focus areas.
Rationale, Aims and Objectives Over the past few decades, multi‐campus hospitals have become increasingly prevalent in China. However, there remains limited understanding of how to enhance service quality and improve the patient experience. This study aimed to offer insights for standardising service management and develop differentiated strategies to ensure consistent quality of care across multi‐campus hospital systems. Methods A cross‐sectional survey was conducted from January to April 2025 in Beijing to assess outpatient satisfaction, using a 5‐point Likert scale, across both the main campus and a new branch of a tertiary hospital ( n = 28,155). Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, simple and multivariate logistic regression, and a structural equation model (SEM). Results Results of this study showed that the waiting time, responsiveness of patient needs, doctors' diagnosis, advice on treatment plan, assistive medical technology, and attitude of doctors are important influencing factors on satisfaction in both campuses. Outpatient environment and hygiene situation of the toilet had a significant effect on the main campus, while guidepost, the service group and patients aged 0−44 are important to explain the differences in the new hospital campus. Conclusion For the management of multi‐campus hospitals, more attention should be paid to the waiting time, responsiveness of patient needs, doctors' diagnosis, advice on treatment plan, assistive medical technology service, and attitude of doctors in both campuses. In addition, hospital managers should focus on the service group as well as the initial settings in the new campus, while considering the substantial investment in infrastructure in the main campus.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: