Ángel Antonio Palomino Castillo, Gabriela Antonieta Saldaña Sánchez, Alexandre Rodriguez Peñafiel
Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 8, No. 51
July - September 2024 e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 1-15
In their thesis entitled "Evaluation of the quality of health care using the Avedis
Donabedian model in the emergency area of Hospital Paravida from July to December
2014", Chávez, A., and Molina, J. (2015), point out that when evaluating the quality of
health care in the emergency area, the results related to the process reveal that of the
total number of surveyed internal users working in this sector, 48% have been employed
at the hospital for less than one year, 38% from one to four years, and 14% more than
five years. However, it is of concern that the majority of the human resources stated that
they were unaware of the processes related to user care in the emergency unit. It is
important to note that 67% of these resources state that they have received training in
customer service, while the remaining 33% have not. On the other hand, the results also
show that a large percentage of employees indicate that the institution offers annual
training, but 10% are unaware of this fact, which is worrisome, given that all institutions
are expected to have fully trained personnel.
Principle of the form
Within the findings of the study conducted by Navas, M., & Ulloa, M. (2013) on the
"Evaluation of the quality management of health services offered by the Hospital San
Sebastián de Cantón Sígsig", it is observed that users in general show a moderate level
of satisfaction. This was perceived positively by patients. However, with regard to the
laboratory equipment and material available at the hospital, the evaluation is negative
in terms of satisfaction.
In his thesis, Calderón, R. (2018) found that regarding the quality of care variable, 71.6%
of the cases were classified as "Very good", 22.7% as "Good", and 5.4% as "Fair".
These results indicate satisfactory levels of quality. These data are similar to those
obtained in Zamora's research, where 87.65% high quality was recorded, and in Jinez's
study, where 82% of the quality was reported as "Very good" and 18% as "Good". In
contrast, Tuesta reported a "fair" rating for quality in 86.2% of the cases in its evaluation.
Intriago, S. (2022) established quality criteria in two stages of sample processing for
shipment to participating laboratories. In the pre-analytical stage, SERISCANN from
QCA was used to obtain high quality samples. In the analytical stage, calibration of the
automated equipment and pipettes was performed, emphasizing the importance of
temperature control. After analyzing and distributing the samples in Eppendorf tubes,
they were kept at controlled temperature to guarantee the quality of the results, since
this depends on each phase of the analytical process.
Calderon (2018) presents a mostly positive assessment of the quality of health care, with
a high percentage of cases classified as "Very good" and "Good". This suggests that
the hospital could be obtaining satisfactory results in the provision of services. On the
other hand, Navas and Ulloa (2013) identified a discrepancy in user satisfaction in
relation to the laboratory equipment and material available in the hospital studied. This
finding indicates a specific area that may require improvement to align the quality of
laboratory services with user expectations.
Intriago (2022) highlights the importance of establishing quality parameters at the
sample processing stages to ensure accurate and reliable results. His focus on quality