Satisfaction of patients and healthcare practitioners with the services provided by urgent care centers in Saudi Arabia, 2024: a cross-sectional study

Abstract

Background

Urgent care centers offer a timely alternative to prolonged waiting times in emergency departments. Patient satisfaction is a key indicator of service quality, while healthcare practitioner satisfaction is essential for system efficiency and performance. We aimed to assess the quality of urgent care services by assessing the satisfaction levels among patients and healthcare practitioners and identifying associated factors.

Methods

A cross-sectional analytical study was conducted using two validated self-administered questionnaires to assess satisfaction levels and related factors among patients and healthcare practitioners. Student’s t-test and one-way analysis of variance were employed to compare mean satisfaction scores, while the chi-squared test was used to analyze categorical variables. Linear regression analysis identified factors associated with satisfaction. A p-value ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 425 patients and 103 healthcare practitioners were recruited from urgent care centers. The mean satisfaction score was 72 ± 10 among patients and 68 ± 20 among healthcare practitioners. In the regression analysis of sociodemographic variables, higher patient satisfaction was significantly associated with being non-Saudi and a first-time visitor. Among healthcare practitioners, higher satisfaction was associated with being non-Saudi, male, and working in a nursing role. Easy accessibility was the most influential factor in patients’ preference for urgent care centers over emergency departments.

Conclusion

Our findings reinforce the conceptual distinction of urgent care centers as a unique service model warranting further empirical and theoretical attention. Further research is needed to support the expansion of UCCs.

Background

Driven by a growing population and increasing demand for healthcare, Saudi Arabia is undergoing a significant transformation in its health sector as part of the Vision 2030 initiative [1]. This comprehensive reform aims to improve the quality, accessibility, and efficiency of healthcare services nationwide [1]. This initiative encourages investment in healthcare infrastructure, enabling the establishment of modern facilities and urgent care centers (UCCs) to meet the population’s needs [2]. The UCCs, also referred to as walk-in centers, are defined by the American Academy of Urgent Care Medicine as facilities offering immediate outpatient medical services for the management of acute (non-life-threatening) and chronic illnesses and injuries [3]. It serves as an alternative to prolonged waiting times in the emergency department (ED), especially when health issues occur outside regular office hours [3]. UCCs offer an accessible option for individuals seeking healthcare but encounter challenges in scheduling appointments [4, 5].

As a healthcare service designed to enhance service quality, UCCs have sparked increasing discussion regarding their effectiveness. It is essential to gain insights into their current performance from the perspectives of both patients receiving care and the healthcare practitioners (HCPs) providing it.

Patient satisfaction is one of the crucial indicators of the quality of service provided [6], which can markedly impact health outcomes [6]. It encompasses patients’ perceptions of their healthcare experiences, including interactions with HCPs, the care environment, and treatment outcomes [7]. High levels of patient satisfaction are associated with better adherence to treatment, improved health outcomes, and a greater likelihood of patients returning for future care [7]. Studies show that patient satisfaction is influenced by various factors, including effective communication, perceived quality of care, accessibility, and the overall healthcare environment [8]. Understanding and improving patient satisfaction can lead to enhanced healthcare services, fostering a more patient-centered approach in clinical settings [8].

Equally important is the satisfaction of HCPs, which reflects their psychological response to various aspects of their work environment [9]. This includes factors such as promotion, co-workers, supervision, working conditions, nature of work, communication, workload, and leadership style [10]. High physician satisfaction is associated with improved patient care and better health outcomes [11]. There is a well-established positive correlation between HCP job satisfaction and quality of care [12, 13]. Different variables affect satisfaction among HCPs, including working hours, stress management, workload, staff scheduling, and patient satisfaction [14].

UCCs have become increasingly popular as a solution for non-life-threatening medical issues, providing timely care outside traditional office hours [15]. However, the rapid growth of these services raises questions about the satisfaction levels of both patients and HCPs. Previous studies have indicated varied levels of satisfaction in primary Healthcare Centers (PHCs) and EDs, respectively [16, 17].

However, comprehensive research examining satisfaction levels and the factors influencing satisfaction levels in urgent care settings is lacking. Understanding satisfaction levels is crucial for enhancing the quality of care provided in UCCs, while patient satisfaction can lead to better health outcomes [6], and HCP satisfaction is linked to job performance and retention [11]. Identifying key drivers of satisfaction for both groups and providing insights could improve service delivery and operational efficiency in urgent care. The findings will be beneficial to healthcare administrators, policymakers, and urgent care practitioners, enabling them to implement strategies that enhance service quality and patient care, ultimately leading to improved health system performance.

Although patient satisfaction has been extensively investigated in emergency departments and primary health care settings, its status in urgent care settings remains conceptually underexplored, particularly with regard to simultaneously examining patient and healthcare practitioner satisfaction within the same service model. Many existing studies have approached urgent care centers either as extensions of emergency departments, or as substitutes for primary care, without sufficiently theorizing their distinct organizational and operational characteristics [4]. Consequently, the current literature provides relatively limited insight into how satisfaction dynamics differ across care settings and stakeholder groups.

This study aimed to evaluate the quality of urgent care services provided by UCCs in Saudi Arabia from the perspectives of patient and HCP satisfaction and to identify the factors associated with their satisfaction. By integrating patient- and practitioner-level perspectives within urgent care centers, the present study contributes to the emerging stream of literature on healthcare service quality and workforce satisfaction, by advancing a more holistic understanding of urgent care as a distinct healthcare delivery model. Specifically, it extends the existing satisfaction frameworks by identifying differential satisfaction drivers for service users and providers within urgent care settings in Saudi Arabia, a healthcare context that remains underrepresented in the international literature [14, 16, 17].

Methods

Study setting and population

This cross-sectional analytical study was conducted at five UCCs in Saudi Arabia between December 9 and 31, 2024. The study population included all patients who attended UCCs and HCPs working in direct contact with the patients.​.

UCC Settings and Infrastructure:

Within the Saudi healthcare hierarchy, these UCCs function as intermediary facilities designed to manage acute, non-life-threatening medical conditions that require prompt attention but do not necessitate the comprehensive life-support resources of a hospital Emergency Department (ED) [3]. These settings are strategically integrated into the Saudi healthcare transformation under Vision 2030 to enhance accessibility and reduce the patient burden on secondary and tertiary care centers [2]. Operational characteristics of these settings include: treatment of minor injuries, infections, and acute respiratory distress with onsite basic diagnostic and point-of-care laboratory capabilities with extended service hours (16 to 24-hour availability) and a “walk-in” model that does not require prior scheduled appointments [3].

Study sample and sample size calculation

The required patient sample size was calculated using the Raosoft sample size calculator, based on a 95% confidence level, a 5% margin of error, and an assumed response distribution of 50%. This yielded a minimum required sample size of 384 participants. To account for potential non-response, the sample size was increased by 15%, yielding a final target of 442 patients. Convenience sampling was used to recruit all patients who attended the selected UCCs and met the predefined inclusion criteria during the data collection period. For HCPs, data were collected from all eligible and consenting staff members working in the selected UCCs during the same period based on the inclusion criteria.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Patients aged ≥ 18 years were included in the study. Exclusion criteria for patients were seeking primary healthcare services, inability to understand Arabic, illiteracy, and refusal to participate. For HCPs, inclusion was limited to physicians and nurses who had been working in the selected UCCs for more than three months, ensuring that they had completed the orientation period and had adequate exposure to the work environment. Practitioners who were not assigned to UCCs or had not completed the 3-month orientation period were excluded.

Exposure and outcome

The dependent variables in this study were the satisfaction scores of the patients and HCPs. Independent variables influencing patient satisfaction included accessibility to urgent care services, quality of care provided, communication with the medical team, and overall satisfaction. Regarding HCP satisfaction, the independent variables were perceived management support, work environment, patient satisfaction, quality of care delivered, and overall satisfaction.

Data collection procedure and tools

Patient data were collected by a well-trained team that distributed self-administered questionnaires to the participants and helped clarify unclear items. The questionnaire comprised two parts, the first part included sociodemographic data, including age, sex, nationality, marital status, education level, employment status, number of visits to the UCC, and reasons for choosing the UCC over the ED. Reported reasons included easy accessibility, 24-h service availability, shorter waiting time, higher perceived service quality, no need for scheduled appointments, a more comfortable environment than the ED, and the belief that the condition was minor and did not require ED visits.

Part two (Instrument Development): Due to the lack of a validated Arabic-language instrument specific to urgent care settings, a new 20-item questionnaire was developed by the research team in consultation with subject matter experts. The tool assesses four satisfaction domains: accessibility, quality of services, communication with healthcare practitioners (HCPs), and overall satisfaction.

​Scoring and Interpretation: Responses were rated on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Total scores were calculated by summing the item responses, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction levels.

​Validity and Reliability:Face validity was established through expert review by three independent professionals in urgent care and two experts in research methodology. A pilot study was subsequently conducted, followed by reliability testing using Cronbach’s alpha, which yielded a solid internal consistency score of 0.750. Simultaneously, data collection for HCPs was conducted through an online self-administered questionnaire adapted and validated from a previous study to measure practitioners’ satisfaction levels [14]. The questionnaire also consisted of two parts. Sociodemographic data collected included age, sex, nationality, marital status, specialty, and work experience. The second part explored satisfaction-related domains, such as management support, work environment, quality of care provided, perceived patient satisfaction, and overall professional satisfaction. Responses were evaluated using a five-point Likert scale (strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree).

Ethical consideration

Ethical approval was obtained from the Al-Madinah Health Cluster Institutional Review Board (IRB log No: 24–129). Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to participation in the study, clearly stating that participation was optional, participants had the right to withdraw at any time, and all collected data were kept confidential.

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS version 25. Descriptive analyses were used to summarize frequencies, percentages, means, medians, and standard deviations. Student’s t-test and one-way analysis of variance were employed to compare the means and standard deviations for continuous variables, while Pearson’s chi-squared test was used for categorical variables. Multivariate analysis was conducted using linear regression to analyze the factors associated with satisfaction levels. A p-value ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Sociodemographic characteristics of patients

This study included 425 patients recruited from five different UCCs, with a response rate of 96.2%. Most patients were aged between 18 and 45 years (82.9%), with 40.5% in the 26–45 years age group and 15.8% in the 46–65 years age group. Males represented 57.9% of the sample, and nearly 90% were Saudi nationals. Regarding marital status, 52.2% were married, and 45.2% were single. In terms of education, 52.5% held a college degree or diploma, whereas 39.5% had a general education. Employment data showed that 38.3% of the participants were employed and 37.2% were students. Regarding previous visits to UCCs, 39.1% had visited more than five times, 25.6% had visited two or three times, and 20.9% were first-time visitors (Table 1).

Table 1.

Sociodemographic characteristics of patients

Patients’ category	Frequency (n = 425)	Percentage (%)
Age
18–25 26–45 46–65 ≥ 66	180 172 67 6	42.4 40.5 15.8 1.4
Sex
Male Female	246 179	57.9 42.1
Nationality
Saudi Non-Saudi	382 43	89.9 9.1
Marital status
Married Single Divorced/ Widowed	222 192 11	52.2 45.2 2.6
Education level
Can only read and write General education College or Diploma degree Post-graduate degree	15 168 223 19	3.5 39.5 52.5 4.5
Employment Status
Student (school or college) Employee Neither working nor studying	158 163 104	37.2 38.3 24.5
Prior visits to UCCs
First time 1–2 times 3–5 times > 5 times	89 61 109 166	20.9 14.4 25.6 39.1

Patients’ satisfaction score

The overall patient satisfaction score was 72 (± 10) out of 100, with various levels of satisfaction across different domains. The general satisfaction domain received the highest score of 75 (± 13.5) out of 100, followed closely by the quality of provided service, which scored 73 (± 11). Accessibility to services ranked third with a score of 70 (± 14), while communication with the medical team had the lowest score of 68 (± 13)).

Factors influencing the preference of UCCs over ED

Among the 425 participants, several factors influenced their decision to use UCCs rather than ED. The most cited reason was easy accessibility, reported by 314 participants (73.9%), followed by 24-h service availability, as cited by 163 participants (38.4%). A total of 116 participants (27.3%) perceived their condition as minor and not requiring ED care, 113 (26.6%) reported no need for scheduled appointments, and 92 (21.6%) cited a shorter waiting time (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Factors influencing the preference of UCCs over the ED

Comparisons of patient satisfaction score by sociodemographic characteristics

A statistically significant difference in mean patient satisfaction was observed between Saudi and non-Saudi participants (p = 0.003). Additionally, the frequency of visits to UCCs was significantly associated with satisfaction levels (p = 0.035). Post-hoc analysis using the least significant difference method indicated that patients visiting UCCs for the first time reported significantly higher satisfaction rates than those who had visited UCCs more than five times (p = 0.013), and those with 3–5 prior visits (p = 0.012). In contrast, no statistically significant differences in satisfaction were found across other sociodemographic variables, including age, sex, marital status, educational level, and employment status (Table 2).

Table 2.

Comparisons of patient satisfaction score by sociodemographic characteristics

Category	Mean	SD	P. Value
Age
18–25 26–45 46–65 ≥ 66	72.9 70.33 72.15 69	10.9 9.6 9.14 4.5	0.108
Sex
Male Female	70.94 72.67	10.4 9.7	0.83
Nationality
Saudi Non-Saudi	71.14 76.12	9.7 11.9	0.003*
Marital status
Married Single Divorced/ Widowed	72.4 71.00 72.00	10.6 9.8 6.9	0.354
Education level
Can only read and write General education College or Diploma degree Post graduated degree	77.00 70.85 71.81 73.11	10.6 8.1 11.3 10.4	0.128
Employment Status
Student (school or college) Employee Neither working nor studying	72.96 70.90 70.91	11.44 9.80 8.21	0.130
Prior visits to UCCs
First time 1–2 times 3–5 times > 5 times	74.09 72.72 70.46 70.78	11.5 9.2 9.8 9.6	0.035*

Dependent Variable: Overall patient satisfaction score

SD refers to standard deviation

*p-value ≤ 0.05 based on t- test and one way analysis of variance

Multivariate analysis of patient satisfaction

​A multivariate linear regression analysis was conducted to identify predictors of patient satisfaction while adjusting for covariates in the model. The overall model was found to be statistically significant (p = 0.001), explaining a modest portion of the variance in satisfaction levels with an R² of (0.039). Regression diagnostics were performed to ensure model robustness; the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) was 1.010, indicating that multicollinearity did not significantly influence the results. Additionally, it revealed a statistically significant difference in satisfaction levels based on nationality. Specifically, non-Saudi patients had 4.9 (95% CI: 1.88–7.98) higher mean satisfaction than Saudi patients. Additionally, the analysis indicated that patients visiting UCCs for the first time had 2.7 (95% CI: 0.38–5.1) higher mean satisfaction than those who had more than five visits (Table 3).

Table 3.

Multivariate analysis of patient satisfaction

	Unstandardized Coefficients		95% Confidence interval for B		VIF
Model	B	Sig	Upper Bound	Lower Bound
Constant	65.6	0.000	62.163	69.149
Nationality
Saudi (Reference) Non-Saudi	000 4.933	000 0.002*	000 1.88	000 7.98	1.01
Prior visits to UCCs
> 5 times (Reference) First time	000 2.725	000 0.023*	000 0.382	000 5.068	1.01

Dependent Variable: Overall patient satisfaction score

*p < 0.05, based on linear regression

Sociodemographic characteristics of HCPs

Among the 103 HCPs included in the study, the predominant age group was 21–30 years (46.6%), followed by 31–40 years (32.0%), and 41–50 years (21.4%). Most of the participants were male (63.1%) and Saudi nationals (90.3%). Regarding marital status, 65.0% were married, and 31.1% were single. In terms of professional roles, 57.3% were physicians and 42.7% were nurses. With respect to work experience, 45.6% reported having 5 or more years of experience, and 28.2% had 2–4 years of experience (Table 4).

Table 4.

Sociodemographic characteristics of healthcare practitioners (HCPs)

HCP category	Frequency (n = 103)	Percentage (%)
Age
21–30 31–40 41–50 >50	48 33 22 00	46.6 32.0 21.4 00
Sex
Male Female	65 38	63.1 36.9
Nationality
Saudi Non-Saudi	93 10	90.3 9.7
Marital status
Single Married Divorced/ Widowed	32 67 4	31.1 65 3.9
Profession
Physician Nurse	59 44	57.3 42.7
Work experience
Up to 1 year 2–4 years ≥ 5 years	27 29 47	26.2 28.2 45.6

HCP satisfaction score

The mean overall satisfaction score among HCPs was 68 ± 20 out of 100. Among the assessed satisfaction domains, the highest mean score was observed for patient satisfaction (79 ± 25), followed by management support (72 ± 23). Both work environment and quality of care received identical mean scores of 68, with standard deviations of ± 21 and ± 22, respectively. The lowest mean score was recorded for general satisfaction (58 ± 19).

Factors influencing job satisfaction among HCPs

Among the 103 HCPs, the most frequently reported factor influencing job satisfaction was supportive management, as cited by 84 participants (81.6%). This was followed by the work environment, which was reported by 82 participants (79.6%), and the quality of care provided by 66 participants (64.1%). Salary was the least reported factor, cited by 63 participants (61.2%) (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.

Factors influencing job satisfaction among HCPs

Comparisons of HCP satisfaction score by sociodemographic characteristics

A statistically significant difference in mean satisfaction scores was observed between Saudi and non-Saudi HCPs (p = 0.011). Additionally, profession was a significant factor, with a notable difference in satisfaction levels between physicians and nurses (p = 0.036). In contrast, no significant differences in satisfaction scores were identified across other sociodemographic variables, including age, sex, marital status, and years of work experience (Table 5).

Table 5.

Comparisons of healthcare practitioner (HCP) satisfaction score by sociodemographic characteristics

HCP category	Mean	SD	P. Value
Age
21–30 31–40 41–50 >50	65.95 67.25 73.67	18.77 20.75 23.12	0.332
Sex
Male Female	70.05 64.54	21.27 18.62	0.188
Nationality
Saudi Non-Saudi	66.35 83.50	20.28 14.97	0.011*
Marital status
Single Married Divorced/ Widowed	69.22 67.66 64.38	18.70 21.12 26.62	0.881
Profession
Physician Nurse	64.38 72.90	18.28 22.26	0.036*
Work experience
Up to 1 year 2–4 years ≥ 5 years	66.91 62.82 71.86	15.95 21.53 21.57	0.164

Dependent variable: Overall HCP satisfaction score

SD refers to standard deviation

*p-value ≤ 0.05 based on t- test and one way analysis of variance

Multivariate analysis of HCP satisfaction

In the linear regression analysis of HCP satisfaction, after adjusting for other covariates in the model. The overall model was found to be statistically significant (p = 0.001), explaining a modest portion of the variance in satisfaction levels with an R² of (0.183). Nationality was significantly associated with mean satisfaction scores. Non-Saudi professionals reported a significantly higher mean satisfaction score than their Saudi counterparts, with a mean difference of 26.9 points (95% CI: 13.445–40.423). Sex was also a significant predictor, with male HCPs reporting higher satisfaction than females by an average of 10.030 points (95% CI: 1.879–18.181). Moreover, nurses exhibited significantly greater satisfaction than physicians, with a mean difference of 10.7 points (95% CI: 3.134–18.324), as shown in Table 6.

Table 6.

Multivariate analysis of healthcare practitioner (HCP) satisfaction

	Unstandardized Coefficients		95% Confidence interval for B		VIF
Model	B	Sig	Upper Bound	Lower Bound
Constant	34.217	0.001	13.498	54.936
Nationality
Saudi (Reference) Non-Saudi	000 26.934	000 0.000*	000 13.445	000 40.423	1.2
Sex
Female (Reference) Male	000 10.030	000 0.016*	000 1.879	000 18.181	1.1
Profession
Physician (Reference) Nurse	000 10.729	000 0.006*	000 3.134	000 18.324	1.0

Dependent variable: Overall HCP satisfaction score

*p < 0.05, based on linear regression

Discussion

In this cross-sectional analytical study, we assessed the satisfaction levels among patients and HCPs in UCCs in Saudi Arabia, as well as the factors associated with satisfaction levels. The overall patient satisfaction score was 72 out of 100, indicating a generally favorable perception of urgent care services. This finding aligns with the results of Howard et al. (2007), who reported a satisfaction score of 4.7 out of 7 among patients attending walk-in clinics in Ontario [18]. In contrast, a study by Arain et al. (2013) reported high satisfaction levels (86–93%) among patients using walk-in services in the United Kingdom, indicating that they were highly or fairly satisfied [19]. This variation may be attributed to differences in the healthcare system, population characteristics, or the measurement tool employed. Furthermore, our data were collected in December, a typically high-demand winter season when healthcare facilities often experience overcrowding, potentially leading to an underestimation of satisfaction levels.

This study showed variation among satisfaction domains. General satisfaction was the highest-rated domain, with a score of 75 out of 100, whereas communication with the medical team scored the lowest, at 68 out of 100. Similar findings were reported by Almanaah et al. [20] that the overall satisfaction levels of patients attending urgent care clinics in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, varied across different dimensions of care. Precisely, interactions with healthcare providers received moderate satisfaction ratings of 34–36% [20]. Additionally, the current study demonstrated a significant association between patient satisfaction and nationality, with non-Saudi patients reporting higher satisfaction levels than Saudis. In contrast, previous studies have generally found no such association, raising questions about the potential differences in cultural backgrounds and expectations. Notably, the high variation in the sample size between Saudi and non-Saudi participants in this study may have contributed to the observed variation in satisfaction.

Another factor associated with patient satisfaction was the number of prior UCC visits. A significant difference in satisfaction was observed between first-time visitors and those with five or more visits. This finding contrasts with the results of Arain et al., who reported no difference in satisfaction between first-time and repeat users [19]. The discrepancy may be explained by the substantial variation in overall satisfaction levels between the two studies.

In a related context, the current study showed that patients choose UCCs over EDs because of their ease of access. This finding is consistent with those of other studies that highlighted accessibility as one of the main reasons for this preference. Other studies also addressed accessibility to services without a previous appointment as one of the main reasons for patients attending walk-in clinics [4, 19, 21].

In the context of HCP satisfaction, although the overall mean satisfaction score was lower than that of the patients, it still reflected a positive perception, achieving only 68 out of 100. The patient satisfaction domain predominantly influenced HCP satisfaction, with a score of 79 out of 100; however, the general satisfaction domain ranked the lowest, with a mean score of only 58 out of 100. Furthermore, factors related to management support and the work environment were identified as the primary contributors to job satisfaction among HCPs. Sex, profession, and nationality were statistically significant variables affecting satisfaction levels.

These findings are in agreement with those of AlJumail and Rabbani [22], with over 50% of HCPs working in primary healthcare centers in Qassim, Saudi Arabia, having ambivalent satisfaction, with males being more satisfied, although it was statistically insignificant. By contrast, Saudi HCPs and physicians were more satisfied with their jobs [22].

Similar findings were observed by Halawani et al. (2021) among HCPs in Saudi Arabia, where patient satisfaction significantly affected participants’ satisfaction with their job [14]. Similarly, poor management was the factor that affected the quality of the care provided. However, overall job satisfaction was neutral to low, which is inconsistent with the findings of the current study. Additionally, female HCPs showed higher satisfaction than males, whereas professions showed no difference in satisfaction among HCPs, which does not align with the findings of this study.

Our results also agree with Al Juhani and Kishk (2006), with non-Saudi HCPs working in Al-Madinah, Saudi Arabia, showing higher satisfaction than their Saudi counterparts; however, in contrast to our findings, physicians seemed to be more satisfied than nurses, although an overall unfavorable job satisfaction was observed among HCPs [23].

The differences in findings regarding job satisfaction levels and the factors that influence it may be attributed to the varying nature of work in urgent care, primary healthcare (PHC), and hospitals. We believe this variability arises from the diverse roles of healthcare professionals (such as physicians and nurses) and their differing levels of experience, which impact their perceptions of the work environment. Additionally, factors such as organizational support, working conditions, relationships with co-workers, compensation, workload, and communication can significantly affect job satisfaction in healthcare settings [10].

From an operational perspective, these findings provide actionable insights for urgent care service planning and management. The higher satisfaction observed among first-time visitors emphasizes the importance of sustaining service accessibility and managing expectations in repeat users through the use of structured communication strategies and continuous service optimization. Furthermore, the consistently lower scores related to communication with healthcare practitioners highlight the need for targeted training programs aimed at strengthening patient-centered communication within high-throughput urgent care environments, for which time pressure and workload may adversely affect provider–patient interactions [8, 21].

At the organizational level, differences in satisfaction across professional roles and nationalities underscore the need for more workforce-informed management approaches. Strengthening managerial support, improving work environments, and addressing role-specific stressors can also help to enhance healthcare practitioner satisfaction, which has been repeatedly linked to quality of care, staff retention, and overall health system performance [10–12]. A notable strength of our study is the dual focus on patient and HCP satisfaction. While many studies prioritize patient perspectives, we deliberately included HCPs to provide a comprehensive evaluation of service quality. This inclusive approach offers a comprehensive understanding of the dynamics within urgent care environments. Additionally, using linear regression helped control for potential confounding factors, strengthening our findings. However, like all research endeavors, our study is subject to certain limitations, particularly when evaluating satisfaction in urgent care settings, where judgment may be compromised by immediate health concerns or prolonged waiting times, which could lead to an underestimation of the satisfaction levels compared with those observed in other studies. Nonetheless, the convenience sampling technique may introduce selection bias and therefore limit the generalizability of our findings, particularly in the local context. Lastly, with regard to instrument validation, the absence of formal construct validation (EFA/CFA) for the newly developed questionnaire may restrict our confidence in its measurement properties.

Overall, this study contributes to the growing body of urgent care literature by providing empirical evidence derived from a dual-stakeholder perspective within a rapidly transforming healthcare system. Unlike prior studies which focused primarily on patient satisfaction [8], the present study illustrates how organizational and workforce-related factors shape satisfaction outcomes among both service users and providers in urgent care settings. Future research should build upon these findings by employing longitudinal and mixed-methods designs to examine how organizational structures, workload intensity, and case complexity influence satisfaction trajectories over time. Additionally, comparative studies across the urgent care, emergency, and primary care settings could be conducted to further elucidate the distinct value proposition of urgent care centers within integrated health systems.

Conclusion

In summary, our study revealed a generally favorable perception of urgent care services among patients attending UCCs. Notably, non-Saudi and first-time visitors expressed higher satisfaction than their counterparts. However, HCPs exhibited a comparatively lower level of satisfaction than the patients; nevertheless, this still reflects an overall positive perception. Additionally, males, non-Saudis, and nurses expressed higher levels of satisfaction than their counterparts. Given the observed satisfaction among patients and HCPs, our findings reinforce the conceptual distinction of urgent care centers as a unique service model warranting further empirical and theoretical attention. Further research is needed to support the expansion of UCCs.

Abbreviations

UCC

Urgent care centers

HCP

Healthcare practitioners

ED

Emergency department

AAUCM

American Academy of Urgent Care Medicine

PHCs

Primary Healthcare Centers

Author contributions

Conceptualization, M.T.A and A.M.A; methodology, M.T.A and A.A.A; software, M.T.A and H.M.A; validation, A.A.A and H.M.A; formal analysis, M.T.A and A.T.A; data curation, H.M.A and A.M.A; writing—original draft preparation, M.T.A and A.T.A; writing—review and editing, M.T.A and A.A.A.; supervision, A.A.A.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data availability

All data collected and analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This cross-sectional study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval was obtained from the Al-Madinah Health Cluster Institutional Review Board (IRB log No: 24–129), approval date: December 9, 2024). Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their participation in the study, clearly stating that participation was optional; participants had the right to withdraw at any time, and all collected data were kept confidential.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.