National CMAP Primary Health Care Report
January 2011 – December 2011
The Black Sash - in partnership with the Social Change Assistance Trust or SCAT - launched the national Community Monitoring and Advocacy Project or CMAP in 2010 in a bid to help improve government service delivery, with a particular focus on poor and vulnerable communities in South Africa.
* “This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The contents of this document are the sole responsibility of the Black Sash and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union.”
National CMAP Health Report Page 1 of 24
Acknowledgements
The Black Sash would hereby wish to thank the following organizations and their community monitors, who volunteered their time to monitor health services throughout South Africa, including the Black Sash Regional Offices who coordinated and led the process.
Adelaide advice office Khari - Kude (Department of Education) Rea-Agana Support Group -Vryburg Agang Aids Service Organisation Khothatsang VEP Reach Bloemfontein Age of Hope Centre and Economic Development Khupukhai Trading Enterprise Reagile Advice Office – Koster Athlone District Advice Office Khutsong Youth Friendly Service Reashoma Community M.P Project Ba ga Mothibi Community Advice Centre – Komaggas Advice Office Reatlegile Community Centre – Mahikeng Losasaneng Bantu - Bambanani Aids Project Kopano Women Venture – Morokweng Rebotile Creche and Pre-School Barkly East community Advice Office Kopermyn Advice Office REHECAPRO Batlhabine Foundation Kubonakele Human Rights and Democracy Justice Institution Relemogile Advice Office Bavumile Home Community Based Care Kutullo Drop-In Centre Richtersveld Advice Centre Beaufort West Advice and Development Office Kwaguqa Advice Office Riversdale Advice and Development Centre Bedford Advice Centre KwaMakhutha Community Resource Centre Rouxville Legal and Community advice centre Berlin Centre KwaMashu Resource Centre Rural Association Youth Development Bethlehem Legal and community advice centre KwaThintwa KZN Deaf Society SA Vroue Federasie Bethulie Bophelong Victim Empowerment Centre Kwazulu Natal Christelike Maatskaplike Dienste Sandveld local Development Bloemhof Advice Centre – Bloemhof KZN Deaf Association Sasolburg Advice Centre Bohlabela Resource and Advice Centre Land a Hand Home Based Care Sedibeng Drop-In Centre Bojanala Advice Centre – Phatsima (Rustenburg) Leandra Community Advice Centre Sekwele Centre for Social Reflections Bomvana Community Advice Centre Lebaleng Advice Centre – Makwassie Senzokuhle Advice Centre Bonteheuwel Advice Office Lebone Drop-In Centre Senzokuhle HBC Botrivier Advice and Development Centre Leewdoringstad Advice Centre – Leewdoringstad Sicelukhanya Home Based Care Botshelo Hospice – Itsoseng LEGBO Sika Sonke Drop-in-Centre Burgersdorp Community Resource and Legal Lekukela Old Age Home Centre Simile Sonke Tjakastad Kwanda Project Advice Centre Cancer Association Lesedi Advice Centre – Vryburg Sinethemba CBO Carletonville Street Children Lesedi Home Based Care – Silverkrans Siphamandla Organisation Centre for Positive Care Letsopa Advice Office – Ottosdal Siphesihle HBC Centre for Research and Development Lotavha Advice Organisation Siyaphambili N.P Sites Chief JM Dlamini Cheshire Home Lovelife Trust(Hopetown) Siyavuna Development Centre Citrusdal Advice Office Lufhano Siyavuyo Youth Centre Community Advice and Law Centre Lusaka Khaphunaneni Shipingwana Sizanani Widows Support Group Community in Action Lusisikiski Advice Centre Sizimisele HBC South African First Indigenous and Human Rights D'Almeide Resource and Information Centre Luvuyo Drop In Centre Organisation South African National Association fo the blind Daggakraal Community Advice Centre Madidimale Community Advice Centre – Mabaalstad (SANABP) Daliwe Advice Centre Mafefe Legal Advice Office Spoegrivier Advice and Development Forum Dalmaida Civic Association Mamadi Advice Centre Springs of Hope Support Group Dientjie Advice and Resource Centre Mangaung Advice Centre Sun Rise Resource Centre Diocese Aids Ministry Mankweng Community Law Advice Office Sunshine Home based Care Ditenteng Advice Office Manthata Advice Centre Swaranang Drop-In Centre Dordrecht Advice office Maokeng Advice and Resource Centre Swaranang Home Based Care Doringbaai Multi Purpose Centre Maokeng Association for Peopls living with HIV/Aids Taabosch Home Based Care Dryharts Youth Connection Marselle/Bushmans Advice Office Taaibosch Drop-In Centre DUDEC Masakhane Creche and Development Centre TAC - Treatment Action Campaign Edaneg Development and Advice centre Masibonisaneni Project Thabang Home Base Care El-Shaddai Drop in Centre Masikhathaklane Multi Complex Thabankulu Legal Advice Centre
National CMAP Health Report Page 2 of 24
Elandsbay community Development Org Masiphakameni Advice office Thabo Drop-In Centre Elliot Paralegal Advice office Masmatok Community Centre Thandanani HBC Elsies River community advice office Matatiele Advice Centre The Khuphuka Project Engcobo comm legal advice centre Matjabeng RICC The Light of Hope Ensalabosho Orphans and Disable Matlala Advice Office Theewaterkloof Agency for Social Transformation Enthembeni Community Centre Mkhuhlu Community HBC Thembelisha Home base care Mmangwana Multi Purpose Centre – Ikopeleng Epilepsy SA Mpumalanga - Limpopo Thokozane CBO (Ramatlabama) Fatafata Thune Group Molsvlei Advies Kantoor Tholulwazi Home Based Care Flagstaff Community Advice Centre Montagu Advice Office Thusanang Advice Centre Fort Beaufort Advice Office Morojaneng Advice Centre Thusanang Health Care Centre – Verdwaal (Itsoseng) Fouriesburg Advice Office Motswedi wa Lerato Development Centre Thusanang Home Based Care – Delareyville Free State Network on Violence against Women Mpolweni Child and Welfare Society Thusanang Youth Centre Funda Development and Human Resource Centre Mpophomeni Gender and Paralegal Thusang Setshaba Drop in centre Genadendal Legal Info Desk Mpumalanga Council of Churches Thuso Advice Centre Good Samaritan Hospice Mqandulu Advice Office Tiang - Maatla Pensioner's Committee Grace and Mercy Ministry Musina legal Advice Office Tigane Advice Centre – Hartebeesfontein Greater Harrismith Paralegal and Advocacy Centre N2 South Cape Rural Development Forum Tirisano Home Community Based Care Greater Molweni Community Resource Centre Nababeep Advice and Development Centre Tlhabologang Aids Forum – Coligny Gugulethu Advice Office National Traditional and healers organization Tlhoafala Advice Centre – Lehurutshe H.M.C.S Project Neighbour helping Neighbour Tlhokomelang Sechaba HIV/Aids Project Heidelberg Advice and Development Centre Nelspoort Advice and Development Office Transformed Individuals Development Initiative (TIDI) Heideveld and District Advice Office Nelspruit Community Forum Trininity of Life Health Care Hofmeyr Advice Centre Network Action Group Tshedza Development Project Hope for Life HBC NICRO (PMB) Tshepo Themba dev centre Tshireletsego Community Development & Care Centre Hopetown Advice and Development Centre Nkomazi Advice Centre – Ventersdorp Human Rights Training and Development Nonesi Advice Office Tshirletsho Against women abuse i-Themba Advice Centre Nsikazi Advice and Resource Office Tshwaraganang Home Based Care – Khunwana Imithente Youth Organisation Ntataise Home and Education Centre Tshwaranang HIV/Aids info care centre-Jouberton- Impumelelo Project Ondlunkulu Working Committee of Unzinyathi District Tswelelang Advice Centre – Wolmaranstad Indwe Legal Advice Office Opret Advice Office Ubuntu Advice and Development Centre Interchurch Local Dev Agency Paarl Advice Office Ubuntu Advice Office Itireleng Home Based Care – Stella Patensie Advice Office Umondi Wesizwe se Africaq Jeppes Reef Home Based Care Peddie Women Support Centre Umsobombuvo Women Development Jersey Farm Advice & Information Centre Phedisanang Home Based Care Umvoti Aids Centre Jouberton Legal and Human empowerment centre Philani Support Group Umzimkulu Development Services Juno Pre-School Philipstown Advice and Development Centre Uncedolwethu Project Justice and Peace,Johannesburg Pholontle Home Based Care – Rankelenyane (Rustenburg) United people against Crime (UNPAC) Justice and Peace,Pretoria Phunyeletso Advice Office Upington Advice and Development Centre Kabosadi Disabled Centre Pofadder Advice Office West Rand Community Katolieke Ontwikkeling Oranjerivier (KOOR) Port St Johns Witzenberg Advice Office Kempton - Tembisa Advice Centre Prince Albert Advice and Development Centre Women for Peace Kenhard Drop in Centre and Advice office Protiro YMCA Kgaladi Creche Quedusizi HBC and Drop in Centre Zimiseleni Dots and HBC Kgatelopele Advice Office Qunu Community Advice Office Zithuthukise Womens Club Kgetleng River Carers – Koster Quolaqhwe Advice Centre Kgubetswana Advice Centre Ratanang Women's Club
The Black Sash wishes to thank the following organisations for their financial commitment to CMAP.
National CMAP Health Report Page 3 of 24
Contents
Acknowledgements Page 2 – 4
Background and Introduction Page 5 – 6 Why this project? The Project Methodology
Data Analysis Page 7 – 10 Scope, limits and assumptions Key Findings Key Recommendations Respondents
Findings Page 11 – 21 Findings: Measurements Time Venue & Security Personnel Language and Communication
Recommendations Page 22 – 23
Monitors Observations Page 26 – 26
National CMAP Health Report Page 4 of 24
Background and Introduction
During the period January - December 2011, the Black Sash and SCAT facilitated the monitoring of health services as part of CMAP in South Africa.
The implementation came after months of rigorous planning and consultation with local civil society organisations (CSOs). These were community based organizations throughout Western Cape, Northern Cape, Eastern Cape, Mpumalanga, Limpopo, Gauteng, and North West, and Kwazulu-Natal. Monitoring in this province focused on the quality of services experienced by patients at health clinics. 86 Monitors selected from community based organisations, advice offices and networks, acknowledged earlier in this report, visited 74 clinics in the Central Karoo, West Coast, Eden districts in Western Cape, the Siyanda, Namakwa, and the Francis Baard district in the Northern Cape, Chris Hani, Amathole, Cacadu, and Joe Gqabi districts in the Eastern Cape,the Ehlanzeni, Gert Sibande and Nkangala districts in Mpumalanga, the Vhembe district in Limpopo, the Sedibeng, Ekurhuleni, West Rand, City of Tshwane districts in Gauteng, the Bojanala, Dr Ruth Segmotsi Mompati, Dr Kenneth Kauna, and the Ngaka Modiri Molema districts in North West and the Ungungundlovu, Umzinyathi, Sisonke, and Ugu districts in Kwazulu Natal.
The findings of this intervention are presented in this report and are accompanied by observations made by the monitors and recommendations made by service beneficiaries and the Black Sash.
Why this project
The Black Sash, a human rights organisation active for the past 55 years in South Africa, works to alleviate poverty and inequality and is committed to building a culture of rights-with-responsibilities in South Africa. We focus specifically on the socio-economic rights guaranteed by our Constitution to all living in South Africa. Despite the principles of Batho Pele (People First) that has officially governed the civil service for more than ten years, we are deeply conscious that unaccountable, corrupt and inefficient service delivery ranks high amongst the many factors that prevent the full realisation of these rights. We are concerned that poor service delivery denies millions of people a dignified life, undermines the impact of government spending on other social protection programmes, as well as any advances that have been made to create employment and currently leads to growing anger and frustration which inevitably results in protest that often turns violent. These protests bring with them the accompanying risks to the economy of the destruction of infrastructure, loss of work days and human insecurity. Similarly, we acknowledge that the South African Government is under increasing pressure to improve access to, as well as the quality and cost effectiveness of, service delivery. Service delivery is a key public determinant of the effectiveness of the state’s use of limited resources; a particularly important factor during the
National CMAP Health Report Page 5 of 24
current global financial crisis. A high standard of service delivery is a fundamental part of the social compact between the government and the population and in today’s more transparent world of accountability, the standard of service delivery underpins the credibility of the government.
It is in this context, that the Black Sash’s CMAP is implemented, in collaboration with other civil society organisations and networks.
The Project
Our premise is that quality service delivery is one factor that our society should be able to tackle even at a time of economic recession and that we, as civil society, should hold our government responsible for delivering - affordably, appropriately, effectively and with dignity, as promised in public speeches, ruling party manifestos and service delivery norms and standards.
We argue that only active community-based civil society will be able to monitor service delivery as it is experienced by beneficiaries and constructively engage with government at all levels to improve these services. We believe that it is only aware, informed and active communities that will insist that government deliver on the promises made in national, provincial and local elections, and account to their constituencies for policies and practices that affect their quality of life.
The objectives of the project are two-fold: • To assess and report on the quality of service delivery in specified government departments and municipalities across South Africa as experienced by beneficiaries • To develop a system for civil society organisations and community members to hold government accountable for the principles of Batho Pele as well as specific norms and standards that govern service delivery and promise excellence. • Working closely with our partners, the Black Sash ensures widespread, visible, standardised and regular monitoring of service delivery points by Community Monitors that are selected by CSO networks; • Co-ordinates the development of the monitoring instruments and data bases; collates and analyses the monitoring information; produces and distributes regular reports to our partners and the public; • Presents reports to the appropriate government officials in order to affirm good practice and to work together to make improvements where required.
CMAP aims to empower communities to access their rights to social protection, basic and immigration services. It seeks to encourage service beneficiaries to appraise the quality of services they receive and, through monitors drawn from independent and credible community organisation networks, will provide the opportunity for such beneficiaries to express their concerns and appreciation.
National CMAP Health Report Page 6 of 24
This project is built on the tenet that citizens are not passive users of public services but active holders of fundamental rights. The Project will gather and analyse information from the service users’ point of view to provide a strong body of evidence to take back to government and, where necessary, into the public domain, to better the delivery of services where needed and to acknowledge good service where it is provided.
Methodology During the initial phase, the Project was piloted in four provinces. This was to assess the level of data that will be received; the relevance of the monitoring tools ,monitoring instruments and the usefulness of data received. Subsequently it was reviewed and amended where necessary.
The methodology included a selection of monitors by CBOs, CBO networks, civil society groups and faith based organisations who are trained to monitor, orientated to the monitoring tool and committed by way of a code of conduct. Each monitor identifies the day(s), within a specified timeframe that they will monitor, and the selected sites in the communities where they live or work. Once the site has been visited by the monitor and an assessment has been done using the monitoring tool, the completed questionnaires are forwarded to the Black Sash for capturing and analysis. The reports developed and emanating from these analyses are forwarded to the relevant government department for response within an agreed period, whereafter they will be available to the public.
It is important to note that monitors undertake the monitoring in the areas where they live or work and that the selection of sites to monitor, depends solely on where the monitoring organisation is situated or where the monitor resides. It is therefore clear that no scientific formulation is used to select the geographic spread. However, we do encourage organisations with diverse geographical location to participate in the project. This is to ensure the data generated through CMAP does not reflect an urban bias.
This report reflects the findings and recommendations of monitoring completed in Western Cape, Northern Cape, Eastern Cape, Mpumalanga, Limpopo, Gauteng, and North West, and Kwazulu-Natal provinces.
National CMAP Health Report Page 7 of 24
Data Analysis
This section reflects the findings of the monitoring exercise implemented in January - December 2011.
Scope, limits and assumptions Monitoring was conducted by a total of 86 monitors at 74 different health clinics in 28 districts, including Central Karoo, West Coast, Eden districts in Western Cape, the Siyanda, Namakwa, and the Francis Baard district in the Northern Cape, Chris Hani, Amathole, Cacadu, and Joe Gqabi districts in the Eastern Cape,the Ehlanzeni, Gert Sibande and Nkangala districts in Mpumalanga, the Vhembe district in Limpopo, the Sedibeng, Ekurhuleni, West Rand, City of Tshwane districts in Gauteng, the Bojanala, Dr Ruth Segmotsi Mompati, Dr Kenneth Kauna, and the Ngaka Modiri Molema districts in North West and the Ungungundlovu, Umzinyathi, Sisonke, and Ugu districts in Kwazulu Natal.
There were a total of 360 respondents to the questionnaires at 74 different health clinics.
In selecting a sample of respondents, monitors are advised during training to interview at least 10 beneficiaries at a service delivery point. For every 10 beneficiaries interviewed, one official should be interviewed. This should be noted as an encouraged practice as some monitors find it difficult to interview officials without interfering with the service within their 2-hour monitoring stint.
These findings are the reflections of the situation at the monitored sites on a particular day and are presented as a comparison across the districts monitored. The findings are presented on the basis of issues raised in the monitoring tool (i.e. time, venue, payment processing & security personal, grant utilisation and communication) most of which are related to the National Norms and Standards Policy for Social Assistance Service Delivery, produced and published by the Department Of Social Development, February, 2002.
The findings are compiled in individual site reports as well as provincial reports such as this one which is fed back to monitoring organisations and their networks. These reports are posted to the Black Sash website after consultation with relevant Government Departments and Agents.
Please note the questions that were not completed by the monitors have not been taken into account in calculating any of the percentages.
Key Findings Key Recommendations Respondents
National CMAP Health Report Page 8 of 24
Findings
Measurements The findings of this intervention reflects the quality and efficiency of services provided by the clinics from the view point of beneficiaries’ monitored on each day. These are summarised below. The clinics were measured in terms of the following:
• Nationality, Sex & Age Groups
• Clinic Hours
• Doctor and/or Nurse Ratings
• Travel Time and Costs
• Clinic Efficiency & Wait Time
• Privacy & Discretion
• Patient Input
• Patient’s Rights
• Language
• Clinic Safety & Cleanliness
• Medicine
• Payment
• Knowledge of Patient’s Rights
National CMAP Health Report Page 9 of 24
Nationality, Sex & Age Groups
Of all respondents, the vast majority, at 332, reported they were South African, 11 were Foreign Nationals, and 4 were refugees.
Foreign Refugee, 1% National, 3%
South African Foreign National Refugee
South African, 96%
The respondent’s age breakdown mimics that of a bell curve, with the majority (60%) of people between 26-60. Just 8 people reported being under 18, 52 said they were between 18-25, 74 were 26-35, 79 were between 36-45, 66 between 46-60, and 42 people over the age of 60.
30,00%
25,00%
20,00%
15,00%
Percentage 10,00%
5,00%
0,00% -18 18 - 25 26 - 35 36 - 45 46 - 60 60 +
Age Groups
National CMAP Health Report Page 10 of 24
Females dominated the population, with 250 females to 110 males.
31%
69% Male Female
Clinic Hours
Participants were asked a series of questions regarding clinic hours and days of operation
What time does the clinic open? Earliest Opening Time Latest Opening Time Average Opening Time 6:00 10:15 7:38 *21 respondents from Limpopo, North West, and KzN noted their clinic was open 24 hours
What time does the clinic close? Earliest Closing Time Latest Closing Time Average Closing Time 15:00 19:30 16:30 *21 respondents from Limpopo, North West, and KzN noted their clinic was open 24 hours
How many days per week does the clinic operate from this venue? Most clinics are open 5 days a week, with over 20% of clinics operating 7 days a week. Number of Days Open Percent of Clinics 1 .68% 4 8.1% 4.5 1.0% 5 58.8% 6 9.5% 7 21.7%
National CMAP Health Report Page 11 of 24
Doctor and/or Nurse; Ratings
Nearly all participants, 93.3%, reported being seen by a nurse. A mere 6.6% reported being seen by a doctor during their clinic visit.
350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Doctor Nurse
Were you seen by the same nurse/doctor the last time you visited the clinic? When patients were asked the question above, 174 said they did see the same nurse or doctor, while 163 said they were seen by someone different.
No, 48% Yes, 52% Yes No
How did you feel about the service you received from them? When patients were asked the question above, 53% rated their service as FAIR, 32% reported it as GOOD, and 13% reported it as BAD.
200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Fair Good Bad
National CMAP Health Report Page 12 of 24
Travel Time and Costs
Participants were asked a series of questions regarding their travel time and costs in traveling to the clinic
How long did it take you to travel to this clinic? Quickest Travel Time Longest Travel Time Average Travel Time 0 minutes 300 minutes 38.6 minutes
How much did you pay for traveling to this clinic? Smallest Amount Spent Largest Amount Spent Average Amount Spent 0 rands 300 rands 11.96 rands
Have you come from another district or municipality to this clinic? Only 6% of patients reported having come from another district or municipality to visit the clinic.
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 Yes No
National CMAP Health Report Page 13 of 24
Clinic Efficiency & Wait Time
Participants were asked a few questions regarding how many times they had visited the clinic, and how long they were made to wait.
Is this the first time you visited the clinic for the purpose you came today? 237 patients responded that they had been to the clinic previously for the same health issue, while 113 reported that this was their first visit to the clinic for their current problem.
Yes, 32%
No, 68% Yes No
How long did you wait to be serviced after you arrived today?
Shortest Wait Time Longest Wait Time Average Wait Time 0 minutes 720 minutes 103 minutes
National CMAP Health Report Page 14 of 24
Privacy & Discretion
When you arrived at the clinic were you given a number or a card? 78% of patients reported receiving a card, while 21% say they were given a number.
Number
Card
0 50 100 150 200 250
If you received a card, was the card any different in color from other patients? 44% of patients who reported receiving a card, say their color was different from other patients, while 55% say their card was the same color as other patients.
No
Yes
0 50 100 150 200
Do you feel that you have sufficient privacy when seen by the clinic staff? Most patients reported they felt they had ample privacy, with 79% responding yes. However, 20% of patients did not feel they had adequate privacy when seen by staff.
No
Yes
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
National CMAP Health Report Page 15 of 24
Were you consulted in private? Nearly 90% of patients reported being consulted in private, while 10% reported they were not.
No
Yes
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Patient Input
Have you ever been asked your view on how to make health services better? In a near tie, 158 patients responded they had been asked their view, while 192 reported they had never been asked their view before.
Yes, 45% No, 55% Yes No
Patient’s Rights
Did you know that you may refuse treatment (verbally or in writing) provided that this does not endanger the health of others? 60% of patients were aware they had the right to refuse treatment, while 40% did not know their right to refuse.
No
Yes
0 50 100 150 200 250
National CMAP Health Report Page 16 of 24
Do you know that you have the right to be given full and accurate information about the nature of your illness and the proposed treatment and the costs involved, for you to make a decision? Just over 70% of patients were aware of their right to information, with just under 30% of patients unaware.
No
Yes
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Do you know that you have the right to be referred for a second opinion to a health provider of your choice? 63% of patients knew of their right to a referral, and 36% of patients did not know.
No
Yes
0 50 100 150 200 250
Do you know that you have the right to complain/comment about health care service you receive and that it should be investigated and you should get feedback on the investigation Exactly 70% of patients were aware of their right to complain, with 30% of patients unaware.
No
Yes
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
National CMAP Health Report Page 17 of 24
Where did you get your information about your health care rights and responsibilities? The majority of patients learned their health care rights from the clinic, with others citing the media and community as other sources.
Friends
Monitor
Unknown
Media
Community
Clinic
0 20 40 60 80 100
Language
Did you receive information in your spoken language? Patients overwhelmingly [83%] reported having information in their spoken language, though 16% stated the clinic did not have information in their language.
52
Yes 264 No
National CMAP Health Report Page 18 of 24
Clinic Safety & Cleanliness
Is there enough shelter for everyone? The majority agreed that there was indeed enough shelter for everyone, with 72% saying yes, and 27% saying no.
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 Yes No
Is the service at this clinic provided in a clean and safe place? An even higher percentage, 83% reported the clinic being located in a clean and safe place, while 16% disagreed.
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 Yes No
National CMAP Health Report Page 19 of 24
Medicine
Did you receive medicine today? Most patients, 77%, at the clinic did receive medicine, while 22% did not.
No
Yes
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
If YES, how long did you wait in the queue to get it?
Shortest Wait Time Longest Wait Time Average Wait Time 0 minutes 720 minutes 44.9 minutes
Payment
Did you have to pay for service today? Nearly all patients, 338, reported not paying for service, with just 12 reporting they did need to pay.
Yes, 3%
Yes No, 97% No
National CMAP Health Report Page 20 of 24
Knowledge of Patient’s Rights
As a patient you have the following responsibilities, did you know? [To advise the health care provider on your wishes regarding death] 52% of patients reported knowing this right, while 47% did not know.
No 163
Yes 182
150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185
As a patient you have the following responsibilities, did you know? [To comply with the prescribed treatment or rehab procedure ] 58% of patients reported knowing this right, while 41% did not.
No
Yes
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
As a patient you have the following responsibilities, did you know? [To inquire about costs ] In a similar split, 57% of patients knew this right, and 42% did not.
No
Yes
0 50 100 150 200 250
As a patient you have the following responsibilities, did you know? [To take care of health records in his or her possession ] Almost 70% of patients reporting knowing this right, with 30% not knowing.
No
Yes
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
National CMAP Health Report Page 21 of 24
As a patient you have the following responsibilities, did you know? [To care for and protect the environment ] Most patients, 75%, were aware, while 25% were not.
No
Yes
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
As a patient you have the following responsibilities, did you know? [To take care of his/her health ] 77% of patients knew about their right; 23% did not.
No
Yes
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
As a patient you have the following responsibilities, did you know? [To respect the rights of other patients and health providers ] Most patients, 79%, did know their right, while 21% did not.
No
Yes
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
As a patient you have the following responsibilities, did you know? [To utilize the health care system properly and not abuse it ] 77% knew of their right, while 23% did not.
No
Yes
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
National CMAP Health Report Page 22 of 24
As a patient you have the following responsibilities, did you know? [To know his/ her health services and what they offer ] 72% of patients at the clinic knew their right, while 28% did not.
No
Yes
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
As a patient you have the following responsibilities, did you know? [To provide health care practitioners with relevant and accurate information. ] 72% of patients at the clinic knew their right, while 28% did not.
No
Yes
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
National CMAP Health Report Page 23 of 24
Recommendations
Monitors Observations
National CMAP Health Report Page 24 of 24