PATIENTS EXPERIENCES/CHALLENGES
Table : Participants’ responses on the Patients’ experience/challenges in the wards
Characteristics
N
Never (1) Sometimes(2) Usually(3) Always(5) Average
Response
Assistance in
bathing
86 12(7.1%) 29(17.3%) 20(11.9%) 25(14.9%) 2.67
support to
bathroom/toilet
106 8(4.8%) 62(36.9%) 8(4.8%) 28(16.7%) 2.53
Observation of
privacy
166 20(11.9%) 73(43.5%) 45(26.8%) 28(16.7%) 2.49
Nurses introduction 165 61(36.3%) 52(31.0%) 32(19.0%) 20(11.9%) 2.07
Nurses quick
response to pain.
135 3(1.8%) 48(28.6%) 37(22.0%) 47(28.0%) 2.95
How often was pain
controlled
160 1(0.6%) 60(35.7%) 42(25.0%) 57(33.9%) 2.97
Nurses effort
towards pain
control.
165 5(3.0%) 70(41.7%) 42(25.0%) 48(28.6%) 2.81
explanation about
procedures
166 28(16.7%) 71(42.3%) 39(23.2%) 28(16.7%) 2.40
consent to do
procedures
165 33(19.6%) 63(37.5%) 46(27.4%) 23(13.7%) 2.36
The above table shows participants responses on their experiences and challenges. It indicates
that patients had a positive experience because the scores in almost all variables are above
average score of 2.50 except in “nurses introduction” 41% (2.07), observation of patients’
privacy 50% (2.49), explanation about procedures to patients 48% (2.40) and asking for consent
from nurses 47% (2.36)” are below average score. This indicated that majority of the participants
experienced lack of privacy, inadequate explanation about procedures, treatment and nurses were
not asking for consent before doing the procedures. Also see figure below.
Figure: Average Patients responses on Experiences and Challenges
Most participants’ responses (59%) indicated that they had good experience in the control of
their pain and nurses’ quick response to their pain. 41% of the responses indicated that nurses
were not introducing themselves to patients while 48% and 47% indicated that nurses were not
usually explaining procedures to the patients and informed consent were not usually sought
respectively.
Table : Patients experiences
Experience Frequency Percentage
Positive 107 63.7
Negative 46 27.4
Most respondents appreciated the services they received since107 (63.7%) responded positively
indicating that they experienced good care, explanation of their condition, understanding staff,
good technology, improved nursing care and good drugs during their stay in the wards. However,
70%
60%
50%
40%
Assistance in bathing
support to
bathroom/toilet
Observation of privacy
Nurses introduction
30% 53% 51% 50% 59% Nurses quick response to
pain.
56%
48% 47%
20% 41%
10%
How often was pain controlled
Nurses effort towards pain
control Explanation about
procedures
Consent to do procedures
0% Experiences/challenges
59%
Average response
others 46 (27.4%) responded negatively since they claimed to have experienced rudeness from
the
nurses, poor communication; overcrowded wards; shortage of nurses; lack of equipment and
assumption of condition from the nurses, see table below
Table 4.15: Challenges encountered in the wards
challenge Frequency Percentage
Inadequate equipment 22 13.1
Long waiting list 9 5.4
Poor diet 5 3.0
Overcrowding 3 1.8
Few nurses 15 8.9
Rude nurses 28 16.7
Imagination of death 11 6.5
Poor communication 15 8.9
Most respondents encountered a challenge of rude nurses 28(16.7%) followed by inadequate
equipment 22(13.1%). 8.9% (n=15) reported that there was poor communication.
Table: Correlation Table between Patients’ characteristics and Experiences and challenges
Correlation between patients characteristics
and patients experiences
Pearson Chi
square
coefficient(p)
value
Interpretation
r
Provision of privacy: Age 0.542 Strong 13.778
Gender 0.037* Very weak 8.511
Education 0.079 Very weak 15.443
Nurses introduction: Age 0.251 Weak 18.217
Gender 0.057 Very weak 7.518
Education 0.053 Very weak 16.750
Response for pain med. Age 0.016* Very weak 28.965
Gender 0.264 Weak 3.977
Education 0.500 Strong 8.345
Control of pain: Age 0.032* Very weak 26.657
Gender 0.165 Weak 5.092
Education 0.872 Strong 4.546
Given explanation: Age 0.046* Very weak 25.271
Gender 0.823 Very strong 0.912
Education 0.347 Weak 10.049
Ask for consent: age 0.590 Strong 13.166
Gender 0.277 Weak 3.859
Education 0.702 Strong 6.376
Challenges: Age 0.573 Strong 309.750
Gender 0.396 Weak 65.310
Education 0.186 Weak 271.852
Pearson Correlation: -1=perfect negative correlation, +1=perfect positive linear correlation, 0=
no correlation, <0.5=weak correlation and >0.5 strong correlation, significant at p<0.05.
*categories column do differ significantly from each other at the level of 0.05.
PATIENTS’ SATISFACTION WITH NURSING CARE
Table 4.17: Cross tabulation of participants mean responses on patients’ satisfaction
variables Age of the Respondents Total
mean
ANOVA
<19yrs 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 >60
F P
Welcome on admission 3.36(8.5) 3.47(30.6) 3.23(30.2) 3.28(14.7) 3.38(9.7) 4.38(6.3) 3.39 1.791 0.118
Approach to examinations 3.50(8.9) 3.43(30.5) 3.21(30.4) 3.48(15.8) 3.13(9.1) 3.63(5.3) 3.35 0.619 .685
Talking to patients 3.21(8.9) 3.46(30.1) 3.17(29.9) 3.60(16.3) 3.56(10.3) 4.14(5.3) 3.41 1.394 0.229
Listening to patients
concern
3.07(7.7) 3.41(30.1) 3.25(30.5) 3.67(15.9) 3.80(10.3) 3.88(5.6) 3.43 1.400 0.227
Treated as individual 3.43(8.8) 3.21(28.3) 3.15(30.1) 3.52(16.2) 3.63(10.7) 4.80(5.9) 3.34 1.321 0.258
Willingness to respond 3.93(8.8) 3.41(29.0) 3,23(29.2) 3.60(15.7) 3.94(11) 4.00(5.6) 3.51 2.039 0.076
Information provided 3.50(8.5) 3.31(28.1) 3.25(29.3) 3.96(16) 3.95(10.9) 4.25(5.9) 3.51 2.709 0.022
Pre-operation care 4.07(9.2) 3.65(28.3) 3.62(30.4) 3.96(16) 4.13(10.7) 4.13(5.3) 3.79 1.451 0.209
Respect for privacy 4.29(10.3
)
3.27(29.9) 3.13(28) 3.88(16.6) 4.19(11.5) 4.50(6.2) 3.55 5.683 0.000
Pain management 4.58(10) 3.71(29) 3.54(29.3) 4.12(16.4) 3.81(9.7) 4.38(5.6) 3.83 3.065 0.011
Would dressing 4.38(8.2) 4.45(31.2) 4.04(29.5) 4.56(16.3) 4.25(9.7) 4.38(5.0) 4.31 1.501 0.174
Anxiety alleviation 3.86(9.1) 3.59(29.5) 3.28(29.6) 3.92(16.4) 3.69(9.9) 4.13(5.5) 3.60 1.642 0.152
The numbers in parentheses () denotes percentages %. Significant at p<0.05
The table above is showing mean responses of participants on level of satisfaction with the
nursing care by age distribution. The study revealed that patients were generally quite satisfied
with the nursing care provided with mean response of above (3.00). The elderly were very
satisfied with information provided (m=4.25), respect for their privacy (m=4.50) and pain
management (m=4.38). It also showed that the elderly were more satisfied with the nursing care
provided (m>4.00). All age groups were very satisfied with wound dressing (m>4.00). The study
showed that there were statistically significant differences in responses on the level of
satisfaction especially with information provided (F=2.709, p=0.022), respect for privacy
(F=5.683,p=0.000) and pain management(F=3.065, p=0.011).
Table: Cross tabulation of Participants’ mean Responses on the level of satisfaction
with nursing care by gender distribution
Variables Gender Total mean ANOVA
Male Female
F P
Welcome on admission 3.40(54.5) 3.37(45.5) 3.39 0.035 0.851
Approach to examinations 3.33(53.8) 3.39(46.2) 3.35 0.136 0.713
Talking to patients 3.36(53.6) 3.46(46.4) 3.41 0.294 0.588
Listening to patients concern 3.38(53.5) 3.49(46.5) 3.43 0.406 0.525
Treated as individual 3.35(54.8) 3.32(45.2) 3.34 0.028 0.893
Willingness to respond 3.60(55.7) 3.40(44.3) 3.51 1.276 0.260
Information provided 3.56(55) 3.45(45) 3.51 0.342 0.559
Pre-operation care 3.80(54) 3.79(46) 3.79 0.003 0.955
Respect for privacy 3.70(56.4) 3.39(43.6) 3.55 2.655 0.105
Pain management 3.80(53.8) 3.87(46.2) 3.84 0.175 0.676
Would dressing 4.34(54.2) 4.27(45.8) 4.31 0.293 0.589
Anxiety alleviation 3.50(52.8) 3.71(47.2) 3.60 1.290 0.258
The numbers in parentheses () denotes percentages %. Significant at p<0.05
The table above is showing the mean responses on the level of satisfaction with nursing care by
gender distribution. The study revealed that all gender categories were quite satisfied with
nursing care with mean response of above 3.00. Patients were very satisfied with wound dressing
with mean response of 4.31. But the study revealed that there were no statistically significant
differences in responses by gender distribution on level of satisfaction of nursing care, p>0.05.
Table: Cross tabulation of Participants’ mean responses on the level of satisfaction
with nursing care by level of education distribution.
Variables Level of Education Total
mean
ANOVA
Not attended Primary Secondary Tertiary
F P
Welcome on admission 3.69(10.6) 3.48(18.2) 3.23(30.8) 3.41(40.5) 3.39 0.932 0.427
Approach to examinations 3.50(10.2) 3.48(18.2) 3.23(30.8) 3.39(40.7) 3.35 0.553 0.647
Talking to patients 3.27(8.9) 3.68(18.7) 3.26(31.3) 3.44(41.1) 3.41 0.936 0.425
Listening to patients concern 3.69(10.6) 3.99(19.1) 3.28(31.4) 3.32(38.9) 3.43 1.788 0.152
Treated as individual 3.06(9) 3.62(19.3) 3.30(32.2) 3.31(39.5) 3,34 0.957 0.415
Willingness to respond 3.38(9.4) 3.86(19.5) 3.49(32.2) 3.39(39.0) 3.51 1.316 0.271
Information provided 3.50(9.7) 3.93(19.8) 3.40(31.2) 3.42(39.2) 3.51 1.526 0.210
Pre-operation care 3.38(8.7) 4.17(19.6) 3.64(31.2) 3.85(40.5) 3.79 2.908 0.036
Respect for privacy 3.50(9.6) 3.93(19.6) 3.30(30.0) 3.61(40.8) 3.55 1.753 0.158
Pain management 3.87(9.9) 4.07(18.8) 3.66(30.9) 3.85(40.4) 3.83 0.981 0.403
Would dressing 4.00(9.2) 4.50(18.1) 4.27(31.8) 4.33(41.0) 4.31 1.066 0.365
Anxiety alleviation 3.75(10.1) 3.83(18.6) 3.35(30.3) 3.66(41.0) 3.60 1.276 0.284
The numbers in parentheses () denotes percentages %. Significant at p<0.05
The table above is showing the mean responses of participants on level of satisfaction with
nursing care by level of education distribution. All participants showed that they were quite
satisfied with nursing care with mean response of above 3.00. All participants were very satisfied
with wound dressing (m=4.31). The study showed that there were no statistically significant
differences in responses on the level of satisfaction with nursing care by level of education
distribution except the pre-operative care(F=2.908, p=0.036).
Table: PATIENTS’ SATISFACTION WITH NURSING CARE PROVIDED
Characteristics
N
Not at all
satisfied (1)
Barely satisfied
(2)
Quite
satisfied(3)
Very
Satisfied(4)
Completely
Satisfied (5)
Average
Response
Nurses welcomed
on admission
166 9(5.4%) 22(13.1%) 51(30.4%) 60(35.7%) 22(13.1%) 3.42
Nurses approach
to examination
164 8(4.8%) 25(14.9%) 54(32.1%) 55(32.7%) 22(13.1%) 3.35
Patient treatment
as an individual
163 10(6.0%) 29(17.3%) 46(27.4%) 52(31.0%) 26(15.5%) 3.34
Nurses
willingness
164 7(4.2%) 25(14.9%) 43(25.6%) 56(33.3%) 33(19.6%) 3.51
Information
provided
164 13(17.7%) 16(9.5%) 47(28.0%) 50(29.8%) 38(22.6%) 3.51
preparation for the
operation
163 7(4.2%) 8(4.8%) 35(20.8%) 75(44.6%) 38(22.6%) 3.79
Pre-operative
teaching
164 7(4.2%) 11(6.5%) 43(25.6%) 59(35.1%) 44(26.2%) 3.74
Respect for
privacy
164 12(7.1%) 21(12.5%) 39(23.2%) 48(28.6%) 44(26.2%) 3.55
Helping with pain 164 13(7.7%) 37(22.0%) 59(35.1%) 50(29.8%) 4(2.4%) 3.83
Helping with
turning in bed.
156 10(6.0%) 12(7.1%) 31(18.5%) 59(35.1%) 44(26.2%) 3.74
Helping with bed
making
164 14(8.3%) 9(5.4%) 14(8.3%) 64(38.1%) 63(37.5%) 3.93
Helping with
wound dressing
162 3(1.8%) 3(1.8%) 23(13.7%) 45(26.8%) 88(52.4%) 4.31
Alleviation of
anxiety.
166 11(6.5%) 19(11.3%) 41(24.4%) 50(29.8%) 45(26.8%) 3.60
The table above is showing level of patient’s satisfaction with nursing care. It shows that
majority of respondents were quite satisfied with nursing care with a mean response of above
3.00. Most respondents 88(52.4%) were more satisfied with wound dressing with mean response
of (mean=4.31) followed by bed making 38.1% (n=64) with mean response of (mean=3.93).
Table: Correlation Table: Relationship between Patients’ characteristics and Satisfaction
Correlation between patients characteristics
and patients satisfaction
Pearson Chi square
coefficient(p) value
Interpretation
r
Welcome on admission: Age 0.639 Strong 17.212
Gender 0.083 Very weak 8.234
Education 0.028* Very weak 22.920
Approach to patients: Age 0.859 Very strong 13.422
Gender 0.659 Strong 2.419
Education 0.555 Strong 10.702
Attention to concerns: Age 0.406 Weak 23.781
Gender 0.303 Weak 10.061
Education 0.392 Weak 16.620
Treated as individual: Age 0.652 Strong 20.851
Gender 0.464 Weak 4.854
Education 0.292 Weak 12.688
Provision of information: Age 0.150 Weak 17.022
Gender 0.794 Strong 3.594
Education 0.792 Strong 14.134
Preparation for operation: Age 0.896 Very strong 12.539
Gender 0.629 Strong 2.590
Education 0.199 Weak 15.837
Respect for privacy: Age 0.001* No corr 45.051
Gender 0.258 Weak 5.299
Education 0.096 Very weak 18.698
Help with pain: Age 0.365 Weak 21.564
Gender 0.992 Very strong 0.263
Education 0.280 Weak 14.339
Help with bedmaking: Age 0.063 Very weak 30.468
Gender 0.359 Weak 4.367
Education 0.085 Very weak 19.136
Wound dressing: Age 0.735 Strong 15.706
Gender 0.857 Very strong 1.327
Education 0.538 Strong 10.897
Anxiety alleviation: Age 0.410 Weak 20.777
Gender 0.365 Weak 4.314
Education 0.661 Strong 9.483
Note: Pearson Correlation: -1=perfect negative correlation, +1=perfect positive linear
correlation, 0= no correlation, <0.5=weak correlation and >0.5 strong correlation, significant at
p<0.05.*categories column do differ significantly from each other at the level of 0.05.
PATIENTS’ PERCEPTION OF NURSING CARE
Table 4.22: Patients Perceptions of quality of nursing care
Perception Frequency percentage
Good 68 40.5
Fair 30 17.9
Excellent 27 16.1
Poor 19 11.3
satisfactory 20 11.9
40.5% (n=68) of the respondents agreed that the nursing care they had received during their stay
in the ward was good, while 11.3% (n=19) perceived that nursing care was poor.
Table: Patients’ recommendations
Recommendation frequency percentage
courtesy 19 11.3
Motivate nurses 21 12.5
Early theatre preparation 4 2.4
Improve communication 22 13.1
Good care 11 6.5
Improve on meals 1 0.6
Supply enough linen 6 3.6
Reduce congestion 5 3.0
Add more nurses 38 22.6
Add equipment 17 10.1
Most respondents 38(22.6%) recommended that the nursing staff should be added. Others, 13.1%
(n=22) noted that there was communication breakdown among patients and nurses. 10.1%
(n=17) recommended that the hospital management should consider adding more equipment.
Table: Correlation Table: Patients’ characteristics against Perception of nursing care
Characteristic Excellent Fair Good Poor Satisfactory
r P
Gender 16.2% 18.0% 40.7% 11.4% 12.0% 9.118 0.104
Age 16.2% 18.0% 40.7% 11.4% 12.0% 26.323 0.391
Religion 16.2% 18.0% 40.7% 11.4% 12.0% 7.385 0.194
Marital status 16.2% 18.0% 40.7% 11.4% 12.0% 22.756 0.301
Occupation 16.2% 18.0% 40.7% 11.4% 12.0% 43.817 0.002*
Education 16.1% 17.9% 40.5% 11.3% 11.9% 49.447 0.000*
Area of residence 16.3% 18.1% 40.4% 11.4% 12.0% 9.636 0.473
Admission History 16.1% 17.9% 40.5% 11.3% 11.9% 49.386 0.000*
*Categories column do differ significantly from each other at p< 0.05.
The table above is showing that there was positive relationship between patients’ characteristics
and perception of nursing care but there were no significant differences from each other except
on the variables of patients’ occupation, educational level and history of admission at p<0.05.
Table : Correlation Table: Relationship between Patients’
Expectations and Satisfaction
Correlations
Nurses inform and explain
to me about my
medication, and treatment
procedures
Information
provided about my
condition and
treatment
Nurses inform and
explain to me about my
medication, and
treatment
procedures
Pearson Correlation
1
.192*
Sig. (2-tailed) .014
N
166 163
Information provided
about my condition and
treatment
Pearson Correlation .192*
1
Sig. (2-tailed) .014
N
163 164
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Indicate that strength of association between expectation variables and
satisfaction variables is high (p = 0.014), and that the correlation coefficient
is significantly different from zero (P < 0.05)
Correlations
Nurses are
kind
How nurses were/are
willing to respond to my
concerns/requests
Nurses are kind Pearson Correlation
1
.176*
Sig. (2-tailed) .024
N
167 164
How nurses were/are
willing to respond to my
concerns/requests
Pearson Correlation .176*
1
Sig. (2-tailed) .024
N
164 164
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Indicate that strength of association between expectation variables and satisfaction variables is high (p
= 0.024), and that the correlation coefficient is significantly
