*3.1. Data Analysis*

The analysis was conducted using the SPSS v. 27 statistical package (Predictive Solution, Krakow, Poland) and Microsoft Excel 365 (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA). Prior to the questionnaires' statistical analysis, a database of responses was created. Data from the paper-based questionnaires were transferred to a spreadsheet. In the survey, the questions were not deliberately divided into dimensions. The next step was to sort the statements according to the dimensions: accessibility, coordination, comprehensiveness, effectiveness, continuity, communication and experience with the system; the analysis for the purpose of this study covered only two dimensions: accessibility and effectiveness.

The respondents were divided into six age groups (Figure 1): aged up to 25 (5 people, i.e., 5.1%), 25 to 34 years of age (12 people, i.e., 12.1%), 35 to 44 years of age (13 people, i.e., 13.1%), 45 to 54 years of age (14 people, i.e., 14.1%), 55 to 64 years of age (15 people, i.e., 15.2%) and aged above 65 (39 people, i.e., 39.4%). One person did not disclose his or her age (i.e., 1%). Eventually, this record was deleted due to many missing data.

**Figure 1.** Patients' age structure by gender.

The most numerous group included married people (38 people; 38.4%); single persons constituted 28.3% of the respondents (28 persons). There were 20 (20.2%) widowed people and 13 (13.1%) were divorced. In addition, more than half of the respondents were people living in a very large city (with over 250,000 inhabitants)—72 people, i.e., 72.7%, residents of large cities (from 100,000 to 250,000 inhabitants) constituted 19.2% (19 people), medium-sized cities (from 20,000 to 100,000 inhabitants), 3.03% (three persons), rural areas—3.03% (three persons) and small towns (less than 20,000 inhabitants)—2.02% (two persons).

The biggest group included people with higher education—51 people (51.5%), then people with secondary education—26 people (26.3%), the minor groups included people with vocational education—15 people (15.2%) and primary or lower secondary school education—seven people (7.1%). Working people accounted for 44.4% of the population (44 people), retirees and pensioners, also 44.4% (44 people), five people were unemployed (5.1%), also three students were surveyed (3%). Two patients ran their own business (2%), while one person indicated a different economic activity (1%).

Patients who went to a given facility for the first visit (12 people) most often declared that their health condition required occasional visits (seven people); three people felt the need for rare visits, and two people—frequent visits. Control and periodic visits due to treatment continuation or chronic treatment took place once a quarter (10 people), once a month (nine people) or once a year (eight people). At the same time, remote consultations were used several times a month by three persons. The need to consult a GP for prevention and health promotion purposes (including vaccination) was revealed rarely (eight people), sporadically (five people) and often (three people). Twenty three patients asked for a prescription, referral to a specialist doctor or sick leave. The remaining patients met a doctor once a year (seven people), several times a month (six people) and once a month (four people). The surveyed patients most frequently visited the doctor once a quarter (45 people) and once a year (27 people), while the least numerous—once a month (18 people) and several times a month (nine people). During the COVID-19 pandemic, patients do not want to consult doctors unless they have urgent reasons [24].

Ninety four people consulted a doctor via telephone. Most patients were waiting for telephone consultation for more than 48 h (43 people); 28 people consulted a doctor the next day and 23 people—on the same day (including quick visits—11 people and waiting time exceeding 4 h—12 people). Two people used video calls via WhatsApp and Skype, their waiting time for consultation exceeded two days. Two people used Microsoft Teams and Zoom. The waiting time for a telephone consultation exceeding two days resulted in a poor evaluation of the healthcare facility.

#### 3.1.1. Accessibility

The D1–D7 variables presented in Table 2 were used in the assessment of accessibility. The descriptive statistics of these dimension variables are shown in Table 3.


**Table 3.** Descriptive statistics of Accessibility variables.

Patients are most satisfied with the HC facility's working hours (D4: x = 4.68). 91.9% of the respondents claim that the facility's working hours (from 8:00 to 20:00) are convenient for them. 87.9% of patients are also satisfied with the punctuality of the visits (D5: x = 4.38). Unfortunately, 27.3% of respondents have a problem with making an appointment with a GP of their choice (D2: x = 3.57) and 13.1%—with booking an appointment with any GP (D3: x = 4.03). As many as 42.4% of patients reported that they had a problem with contacting the HC facility via telephone or Internet (D6: x = 3.12). 54.5% of the respondents believe that they can easily ask questions after the visit (D7: x = 3.85). 35.4% of respondents did not know how to answer question D7 because they have never used this form of contact after the consultation. If they had doubts or wanted to ask the GP additional questions, they made another appointment. 69.7% of the respondents stated that they could obtain medical aid whenever needed, even in an emergency (D1: x = 3.86). The distribution of answers is presented in Figure 2.

**Figure 2.** Distribution of accessibility and effectiveness responses.
