1

Meeting Customer Expectations

Question one

Customers Worksheet

Customer Expectation What I Do to Meet That How I Can Measure

Expectation Whether I Met That

Expectation

Patients Quality medical care, We have a dedicated team Conduct patient

timely appointments, of medical professionals. satisfaction surveys and

analyze outcomes.

Clear communication. Maintain a scheduling Monitor appointment

system for appointments. timeliness and patient

feedback.

Caregivers Information and Provide educational Track attendance at

support for caregiving. materials and resources caregiver support groups

for caregivers. and collect.

Offer counseling services Feedback on the

and informational resources provided.

sessions.
 2

Healthcare Collaborative and Hold regular meetings Measure the number of

efficient referral with healthcare providers successful referrals to

process, to collaborate specialists.

Providers Timely response. Ensure a prompt response Collect feedback from

system for patient providers on the referral

referrals. process.

Stakeholders Financial Maintain transparent Perform regular financial

transparency, financial records and audits and provide

accountability. budgets. financial reports.

Share annual reports and For stakeholders.

financial updates with

stakeholders.

Question Two: Interpretation of the Pareto Chart

For this part, the first and vital step that we began with was filling the data into Excel and sorting

it in its descending order. This presented us with the following;

Totals
No. Work (n)
2 Lube & Oil 12
1 Tires 6
4 Brakes 6
3 Battery 3
 3

5 Transmission 1
total (y) 28
The next step in this sequence was to calculate the total percentage of the items used in the car

repair shop considering that the total sum of the data was 28. Hence, the total percentage was

calculated by dividing the totals with 28 (y) and multiplying the result with 100 ((n/y)*100).

Thus,

Total
percentage
Totals
43%
12
21%
6
21%
6
11%
3
4%
1

From the total percentage, we were able to calculate the cumulative percentage which was

calculated by adding the corresponding total percentages and the obtained result was as follows;

Total Cumulative
percentage frequency
43% 43%
21% 64%
21% 85%
11% 94%
4% 100%
The cumulative percentage was then used to plot the bar graphs for the information presented;
 4

Bar Graph
120%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
1 2 3 4 5

Cumulative frequency

From this bar graph, we plotted the points that led us to the Pareto chart;

Pareto Chart
120%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
1 2 3 4 5

Cumulative frequency

Question Three

Variable Control Charts are employed when dealing with processes that yield continuous

and quantitative data. These charts are instrumental in assessing variations in measurements that

are expressed as variables such as length, weight, temperature, or time. Examples of Variable

Control Charts include the X-bar chart and Standard Deviation chart. For instance, the X-bar

chart reveals the central tendency or average of the process. In contrast, the R and S charts
 5

display the variation within subgroup measurements, providing insights into process stability and

intervention needs.

In contrast, Attribute Control Charts are used when the process generates categorical,

discrete data that is counted or classified as conforming or non-conforming. Such data often

involves pass/fail or presence/absence outcomes. Attribute Control Charts help monitor the

proportion or rate of non-conforming items. Examples of Attribute Control Charts include the P-

chart and U-chart. A P-chart tracks the proportion of defective items in a sample, making it

valuable for quality control in situations where the data can be categorized as attributes rather

than continuous variables (Wilhelm et al., 2021). Moreover, these two categories of control

charts allow organizations to effectively monitor and manage their processes to achieve

consistent quality and performance.

3b

Variable Control Charts are particularly useful for monitoring continuous and

quantitative data in healthcare. For example, a hospital can use an X-bar and R chart to track the

average waiting times in the emergency department. The X-bar chart helps visualize the central

tendency of patient wait times, while the R chart reveals the variability within subgroups. By

analyzing these charts over time, healthcare providers can identify trends and patterns, allowing

them to make data-driven decisions to optimize processes and minimize patient wait times

(Newhart et al., 2019). This improves patient satisfaction and ensures more efficient resource

allocation and enhanced quality of care.

Attribute Control Charts, on the other hand, are valuable when dealing with discrete and

categorical data. In an instance where a medical laboratory wants to monitor the rate of incorrect

test results within a specific testing process. In this case, a P-chart can track the proportion of
 6

erroneous results among the total tests conducted. By regularly analyzing the P-chart, the lab can

quickly detect if there is a significant increase in the proportion of incorrect test results, signaling

a potential problem in the testing procedure. This allows the lab to take corrective actions

promptly, preventing errors and ensuring the reliability of diagnostic reports.

3c

Control charts serve as a potent instrument for healthcare systems to grasp the existing

process fluctuations through visual representations of data over time. They empower healthcare

professionals to discern underlying patterns, trends, and irregularities within their operations,

which might not be readily discernible when scrutinizing raw data. To illustrate, within the

context of a hospital's emergency department, using an X-bar control chart to oversee the

average patient wait times allows healthcare administrators to effortlessly visualize the ebb and

flow of this critical metric as time progresses (Woodall, 2019). Furthermore, the chart could

unveil that wait times tend to surge during specific hours or days, indicating heightened

congestion periods. This visual aid equips the hospital's staff with the capacity to spot existing

deviations and target areas requiring attention, such as staffing levels or patient flow

management. Consequently, the hospital can enact focused process enhancements to curtail wait

times, elevate patient contentment, and ensure the efficient allocation of resources. In essence,

control charts supply a lucid and succinct depiction of process variations, empowering healthcare

systems to make informed choices and take preemptive measures in pursuit of process

optimization.

3d

Control charts are integral in shaping improvement strategies in healthcare systems,

offering invaluable insights and data-backed decision-making. By continuously monitoring

 7

processes, healthcare institutions can identify variations, pinpoint the root causes of issues, and

implement precise enhancements. Consider a hospital using an attribute control chart like a P-

chart to track medication errors. If the chart reveals a rising trend in errors over time, it signifies

systemic issues. This prompts a team of healthcare professionals, including pharmacists and

nurses, to investigate the causes and initiate targeted improvements. Furthermore, they might

address problems like confusing labels, inadequate training, or communication inefficiencies.

This data-driven approach allows the hospital to implement corrective measures, measure their

impact through ongoing chart monitoring, and ultimately enhance patient safety and quality of

care. Control charts are vital in healthcare's relentless pursuit of process improvement.
 8

References

Newhart, K. B., Holloway, R. W., Hering, A. S., & Cath, T. Y. (2019). Data-driven performance

analyses of wastewater treatment plants: A review. Water Research, pp. 157, 498–513.

Wilhelm, L., Gierens, K., & Rohs, S. (2021). Weather variability induced uncertainty of contrail

radiative forcing. Aerospace, 8(11), 332.

Woodall, W. H., & Faltin, F. W. (2019). Rethinking control chart design and evaluation. Quality

Engineering, 31(4), 596–605.