Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
      • JNMT Supplement
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • Continuing Education
    • JNMT Podcast
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Institutional and Non-member
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNMT
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA Requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNMT
    • JNM
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
  • SNMMI
    • JNMT
    • JNM
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • Continuing Education
    • JNMT Podcast
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Institutional and Non-member
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNMT
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA Requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • Watch or Listen to JNMT Podcast
  • Visit SNMMI on Facebook
  • Join SNMMI on LinkedIn
  • Follow SNMMI on Twitter
  • Subscribe to JNMT RSS feeds
Research ArticleImaging

Adapting a Standardized, Industry-Proven Tool to Measure Patients’ Perceptions of Quality at the Point of Care in a PET/CT Center

Farouk Dako, Rick Wray, Omer Awan and Rathan M. Subramaniam
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology December 2017, 45 (4) 285-289; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.117.196170
Farouk Dako
1Department of Radiology, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rick Wray
2Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Omer Awan
1Department of Radiology, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rathan M. Subramaniam
3Department of Radiology and Advanced Imaging Research Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

    • View popup
    TABLE 1

    Questions Measuring Perception of Quality and Satisfaction

    Question no.Question
    1The department’s equipment is modern-looking
    2The department’s physical facilities are visually appealing
    3The employees are neat and professionally appearing
    4Documentation such as sign in sheet, handouts, and brochures are visually appealing
    5The department has convenient hours of operation
    6The department provides services as promised
    7The department is dependable in handling patient service problems
    8The employees provide services right the first time
    9The department provides services at the promised time
    10The employees insist on error-free documentation
    11Employees keep users informed about when services will be performed
    12Employees provide prompt service to patients
    13Employees are always willing to help patients
    14Employees are never too busy to respond to patients’ requests
    15Employees are courteous
    16Employees instill confidence in patients
    17Employees make patients feel safe while they receive services
    18Employees have the knowledge to answer patient’s questions
    19Employees give patients individual attention
    20Employees have patient’s best interest at heart
    21Employees deal with patients in a caring fashion
    22Employees understand the specific needs of patients
    23The quality of the PET/CT center services
    24 My satisfaction with the front desk service can be best described as:
    25 My satisfaction with the technologists’ service can be best described as:
    26 My satisfaction with the doctors’ service can be best described as:
    27 In summary, my satisfaction with the entire PET/CT center can best be described as:
    • Questions 1–22 are adapted from SERVPERF questionnaire and measure perception of quality. Responses are based on Likert-type scale (1–7) demonstrating varying levels of agreement or disagreement with each question. Questions 23–27 are additional questions to measure patient satisfaction. Responses are based on Likert-type scale (1–7) ranging from very poor to excellent.

    • View popup
    TABLE 2

    Mean Response for Each Item

    Question no.Mean
    16.4113*
    26.1580*
    36.7400
    46.1620*
    56.5600*
    66.7429
    76.6554
    86.7264
    96.5915†
    106.5898*
    116.7275
    126.6784
    136.8061
    146.7629
    156.8235
    166.7676
    176.8014
    186.7765
    196.8099
    206.7962
    216.8075
    226.7536
    236.7392
    246.5792*
    256.8467
    266.7660
    276.7783
    • ↵* Scores lower than mean.

    • ↵† Item with highest frequency of low scores (≤3).

    • View popup
    TABLE 3

    Differences in Perception of Quality and Satisfaction Based on Number of Visits, Sex, and Age

    Question no.First visit vs. multiple visitsSex (M vs. F)Age (>50 y vs. ≤ 50 y)
    10.4920.3720.361
    20.4750.0720.030*
    30.5570.8220.824
    40.5920.5190.208
    50.2270.7990.624
    60.2930.9230.318
    70.3400.9300.503
    80.1170.9790.652
    90.9680.6660.431
    100.9370.3250.888
    110.6160.7190.823
    120.9790.4520.965
    130.9130.8470.729
    140.5230.9990.423
    150.8770.0640.273
    160.5660.6070.800
    170.8890.6310.779
    180.8380.5880.593
    190.9420.7580.812
    200.5590.6870.865
    210.7600.9380.465
    220.8810.6810.884
    230.5370.3650.508
    240.6960.8520.006*
    250.3830.3070.905
    260.5680.0560.525
    270.9290.2320.089
    • *P < 0.05 (statistically significant).

    • Data are P values.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology: 45 (4)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
Vol. 45, Issue 4
December 1, 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Adapting a Standardized, Industry-Proven Tool to Measure Patients’ Perceptions of Quality at the Point of Care in a PET/CT Center
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology web site.
Citation Tools
Adapting a Standardized, Industry-Proven Tool to Measure Patients’ Perceptions of Quality at the Point of Care in a PET/CT Center
Farouk Dako, Rick Wray, Omer Awan, Rathan M. Subramaniam
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology Dec 2017, 45 (4) 285-289; DOI: 10.2967/jnmt.117.196170

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Adapting a Standardized, Industry-Proven Tool to Measure Patients’ Perceptions of Quality at the Point of Care in a PET/CT Center
Farouk Dako, Rick Wray, Omer Awan, Rathan M. Subramaniam
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology Dec 2017, 45 (4) 285-289; DOI: 10.2967/jnmt.117.196170
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • DISCLOSURE
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Statistics Flaws
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Early 10-Minute Postinjection [18F]F-FAPI-42 uEXPLORER Total-Body PET/CT Scanning Protocol for Staging Lung Cancer Using HYPER Iterative Reconstruction
  • Single- Versus Dual-Time-Point Imaging for Transthyretin Cardiac Amyloid Using 99mTc-Pyrophosphate
  • Does Arthrography Improve Accuracy of SPECT/CT for Diagnosis of Aseptic Loosening in Patients with Painful Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis
Show more Imaging

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • PET/CT
  • Patient perception of quality
  • Patient-centered
  • quality assurance
  • SERVPERF
SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire