Andersberg Din hälsocentral

Andersberg Din hälsocentral scores 76.6 out of 100, somewhat below the national average of 80.8, based on 77 responses (a 39% response rate, so results should be read with some caution). Patients rate most experience dimensions close to the national average, including care and treatment, respect and empathy, involvement, and information. Continuity is the weakest area at 68.9, below the national average of 70.4. The survey's own accessibility dimension stands out as notably strong at 89.1, well above the national average of 80.2, and 93.9% of calls were answered on first contact. However, waiting-time statistics show only 48% of patients received a medical assessment within 3 days, suggesting a gap between how accessible patients felt the centre was and this specific measured wait time.

Automatically generated summary, grounded in the figures on this page (the patient survey 2025).

Share of the region’s primary-care diabetes patients reaching the target value, from the Swedish National Diabetes Register (2024). The row on high blood-sugar level is the exception and instead shows the share above 70 mmol/mol.

Good blood-sugar control (HbA1c < 52 mmol/mol)

59 %

High blood-sugar level (HbA1c > 70 mmol/mol), lower is better

8 %

Blood pressure below 140/85 mmHg

59 %

Foot examination performed

70 %

Lipid-lowering treatment

63 %

This is regional context, not this health centre’s own figures.

Source: the Swedish National Diabetes Register via Vården i siffror.

Antibiotic prescriptions per 1,000 inhabitants in the region’s outpatient care. Strama’s target is at most 250 prescriptions per 1,000 inhabitants per year (2025).

Antibiotic prescriptions per 1,000 inhabitants

247

This is regional context, not this health centre’s own figures. Lower is better.

Source: the Public Health Agency of Sweden, antibiotics statistics.

Complaints to IVO about primary care in the region that were investigated on the merits, and how many were closed with criticism, in total 2018-2025.

Complaints investigated on the merits (total)

48

Of which closed with criticism

9

This is regional context, not this health centre’s own figures. IVO investigates only a small share of all complaints on the merits (most go to the patient committee), and the count also reflects the region’s size, so it is not a quality ranking. Small counts are suppressed at the source, so the figure is a lower bound.

Source: the Health and Social Care Inspectorate, IVO statistics database (table EKPSL09, primary care).

Vårdbetyg is built only on open, year-stamped sources. Some of what patients care about most is not in any open data per health centre. When that is the case we say so plainly instead of guessing.

• Whether a clinic offers or upsells private add-ons.
• How often it refers or passes you on instead of caring for you itself.
• Whether it profits from rebooking you.

A missing figure like this does notmean anything is wrong with this particular health centre, only that it can’t be measured fairly in open data. We never put a number or a judgement on something we can’t substantiate, and never single out an individual clinic on a guess.

Have a concern about a specific health centre? Your region’s patient advisory committee (patientnämnden) receives it free of charge, and serious deficiencies can be reported to IVO.