치과진료기관의 고객 불만처리에 관한 실태분석

Analysis of Grievance Handling for Medical Consumers: the Case of Dental-Care Institutions

본 연구는 치과진료기관의 고객 불만처리 실태를 파악하고, 불만처리 서비스 및 불만 예방서비스 시행 정도를 조사하기 위하여 2007년 1월 20일부터 2월 20일까지 치과진료기관을 대상으로 총210부의 설문지를 수거하였으나 이 중 4부는 응답자료에 결측치가 있어 분석에서 제외시키고 총 206(98%)부의 설문지를 SPSS WIN 12.0 프로그램을 이용하여 분석한 결과 다음과 같은 결과를 얻었다. 1. 치과진료기관에서 불만처리서비스에 대해 32.5%가 인지하고 있는 것으로 조사되었고, 64.6%는 불 만처리서비스를 시행 하지 않는 것으로 조사되었으며, 94.7%가 불만을 경험한 것으로 나타났다. 2. 의료소비자의 불만 내용으로는 '진료 및 대기시간이 길다'가 40.3%로 가장 높게 나타났으며 '의료보험 미적용'이 30.6%, '진료에 대한 설명부족' 6.3%, '진료비 과다청구' 5.8% 순으로 나타났으며, 월 불만건수는 1~10건이 91.3%로 가장 높은 것으로 조사되었다. 불만표현방법에서는 '직원에게 직접 말한다'가 88.2%로 가장 높게 나타났으며, 주된 불만처리 담당자는 '치과위생사'가 56.8%로 높게 나타났다. 치과진료기관의 불만대처방법으로는 '즉각적인 조치'가 34.5%로 가장 높게 나타났으며, '환자의 성향을 분석 후 불만을 처리' 30.0%, '불만에 대해 변명으로 대처' 11.1%, '불만처리센타를 설치해 적극적으로 대처' 7.0% 순으로 나타났다. 3. 불만처리서비스 시행 정도는 총평균 3.02로 나타났으며, 불만처리 담당자가 '치과위생사'일 경우 접수담당자 보다 의료소비자 불만처리서비스 시행 정도가 높은 것으로 나타나 통계적으로 유의한 차이를 보였다(p < .01). 월 불만건수가 '없다'고 응답한 경우가 '1~10건'과 '11건 이상'의 경우보다 불만처리 시행 정도가 높은 것으로 나타나 그룹 간에 통계적으로 유의한 차이를 보였다(p < .05). 4. 불만예방서비스 시행 정도는 총 평균 2.59로 나타났으며, 서울, 인천 경기의 경우 지방보다 불만예방서비스 시행정도가 높은 것으로 나타나 통계적으로 유의한 차이를 보였으며(p < .01), 치과위생사 가 불만처리를 담당했을 경우 접수담당자 담당한 경우 보다 불만예방서비스 시행 정도가 높은 것으로 나타나 통계적으로 유의한 차이를 보였다(p < .05).

The purpose of this study was to examine how dental-care institutions responded to discontented customers and how much they provided grievance service and tried not to displease customers. After a survey was conducted on dental-care institutions from January 20 through February 20, 2007, the answer sheets from 206 respondents were analyzed with SPSS WIN 12.0 program, except four incomplete ones. The findings of the study were as follows: 1. 32.5 percent of the respondents were aware of grievance service, and 64.6 percent actually provided no grievance service. 94.7 percent had ever met customers who made a complaint. 2. The most common grievance of medical consumers was that it took long time to receive treatment and to wait for it. The second most dominant complaint was that the treatment they received was beyond the coverage of health-care insurance(30.6%). An insufficient medical explanation was the third most common grievance(6.3%), followed by excessive medical bills(5.8%). The most dominant number of monthly grievance case was one to ten(91.3%). As for how customers voiced their complaints, the largest number of customers talked employees about that in person(88.2%), and dental hygienists were mainly identified as a person who handled their grievance(56.8%). Concerning how the dental-care institutions responded to complaining customers, the largest number of the institutions took an immediate action(34.5%), and the second largest group took a measure after investigating the disposition of discontented patients(30.0%). The third greatest group just made an excuse(11.1%), and the fourth greatest group directed active efforts into taking care of complaining customers by offering grievance service (7.0%). 3. The dental-care institutions got a mean of 3.02 in grievance handling. The institutions that dental hygienists were in charge of grievance handling statistically significantly better responded to discontented customers than the others that receptionists were in charge of that(p < .01). The institutions that had no monthly grievance cases took care of discontented customers statistically significantly better than the institutions that faced one to ten grievance cases or 11 or more cases (p < .05). 4. The dental-care institutions got a mean of 2.59 in providing service of preventing customers from being dissatisfied. The institutions located in Seoul, Incheon and Gyeonggi province provided statistically significantly better service of that kind than the others located in the other regions(p < .01). And the dental-care institutions that dental hygienists were in charge of grievance handling offered statistically significantly better service of that kind than the dental-care institutions that receptionists were in charge of it(p < .05).