CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS/RESULTS AND DATA ANALYSIS

A total of 168 adult surgical patients were approached and 99.4% (n=167) returned the questionnaires

fully completed with a non-response rate of 0.6%. Most of the participants were; males (54.2%), age

group of 30-39yrs (32.1%) with mean age of(35yrs)3.02(SD=1.628).Most participants were married

(42.3%), business persons (38.7%), and had attended tertiary education (40.5%).Most participants

came from urban area (47.6%) and 82.1% were Christians. Therefore, this chapter presents the

research findings and analysis in the form of tables, and graphs.

4.1 DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS

Demographic characteristics of the respondents

Table 4.1: Demographic characteristics of the respondents

Characteristic of Categorical Number(n) Mean SD (%)

respondent Groupings
Gender: Male 91 54.2

Female 76 45.2

Not indicated 1 0.6

Age group: < 19 14 38285) 1.268 8.3

20-29 yrs 50 29.8

30-39 T 54 32.1

40 – 19yrs 25 14.9

50- 59 16 9.5

≥60 yrs 8 4.8

Not indicated 1 0.6

Marital status: Single 44 26.2

 Married 71 42.3

Divorced 23 13.7

Widowed 22 13.1

Separated 7 4.2

Not indicated 1 0.6

Religion Christian 138 82.1

Muslim 29 17.3

Not indicated 1 0.6

Education level: None 16 9.5

Primary 29 17.3

Secondary 54 32.1

Tertiary 68 40.5

Not indicated 1 0.6

Occupation: Professional 41 24.4

Business person 65 38.7

Farmer 28 16.7

Casual Labourer 31 18.5

Student 2 1.2

Not indicated 1

0.6

Area of Residence: Urban 80 47.6

Semi-Urban 34 20.2

Rural 52 31.0

Not indicated 2 1.2

Previously admitted: Yes 70 41.7

 No 97 57.7

Not indicated 1 0.6

The above table summarizes the demographic characteristics of the respondents.

The study showed that majority of the respondents were males 91(54%), and females

76(45%).71(42.3%) were married, 44(26.2%) never married, 22(13.1%) were widowed while

7(4.2%) were separated. Most of the respondents had attained college/tertiary level of education

68(40.5%) followed by Secondary education 54(32.1%), Primary 29(17.3%) and 16(9.5%) did not

attended any formal education.

The age of the respondents ranged from less than 19 years to 60 years and above. The age group

with more response was 30-39 years 54(32.1%) followed by 20-29years 50(29.8%)

Most participants 138(82.1%) were Christians followed by 29(17.3%)were Muslims.

Most participants 65(38.7%) were business persons, 41(24.4%)were professionals followed by

31(18.5%) were casual labourers, and 80(47.6%) were urban residents followed by 52(31.0%)were

from rural areas.

Table 4.2: Cross tabulation of Patients' Mean Responses on patients Expectations by Age
distribution

Age Total ANOVA

Variables
<19yrs 20-29yr 30-39yT 40-49yr 50-59yr >60yr mean F P

Kind 4.00(9.3%) 3.58(29.7) 3.43(30.7) 3.76(15.6) 3.56(9.5) 4.00(5.3) 3.61 1.321 0.256

Cheerful 4.07(9.0) 3.68(29.2) 3.57(30.6) 4.00(15.8) 3.94(10.0) 4.25(5.4) 3.78 1.887 0.099

Responsive3.86(8.9) 3.52(29.1) 3.59(30.2) 3.80(15.7) 3.94(10.4) 4.25(5.6) 3.62 2.772 0.020

Rude 2.64(10.2) 2.26(31.0) 2.11(30.8) 2.04(14.0) 2.19(9.6) 2.00(4.4) 2.19 0.641 0.669

Significant at p<0.05 and not significant at p>0.0

The table above is showing participants mean responses by age distribution on what patients were

expecting from nurses. In all age groups, patients were expecting nurses to be kind (m=3.61),

cheerful (m=3.78) and responsive (m=3.62).The study had revealed that there was no significant

differences among mean responses by age on what they expected from nurses (F=0.641, 1.321,

1.887, p>0.05) except responsiveness. It has been revealed that there was statistically differences

among mean responses by age on expectations that nurses should be responsive to patients concern,

F=2.772, p=0.020.

Table 4.3: Cross tabulation of Participants' mean responses by gender distribution on

patients' expectations

Gender Total ANOVA

Variables
male female mean F P

Kind 3.56(53.7) 3.61(46.3) 3.61 0.568 0.452

Cheerful 3.76(54.2) 3.80(45.8) 3.78 0.101 0.750

Responsive 3.53(53.1) 3.74(46.9) 3.62 2.467 0.118

Rude 2.14(53.6) 2.25(46.4) 2.19 0.202 0.654

Note. Numbers in parentheses ( ) denote Percentage %. Significant at p<0.05

The table above is showing the mean participants responses by gender distribution on what they

were expecting from nurses. The study revealed that females had a higher mean response

(mean=3.61-3.80) than males' mean response (mean=3.56-3.76) in agreeing that they expected

nurses to be kind, cheerful, responsive and not to be rude. But, the study showed that there was no

statistically differences among mean responses by gender on patients' expectations, p>0.05.

Table 4.4: Cross tabulation of Patients' mean responses on patients' expectations by Religion

Religion Total ANOVA

Variables
Christians Muslims mean F P

Kind 3.55(81.3) 3.90(18.7) 3.61 3.265 0.073

Cheerful 3.74(81.8) 3.97(18.2) 3.78 1.540 0.216

Responsive 3.57(81.3) 3.90(18.7) 3.62 3.599 0.060

Rude 2.18(82.7) 2.25(17.3) 2.19 0.099 0.754

Note. Numbers in parentheses () denote Percentage %. Significant at p<0.05

The table above is showing participants' average responses on patients' expectations by religion

distribution. In religion categories, the study revealed that participants responses were in agreement

with expectations that nurses should be kind, cheerful and responsive(mean>3.61)and did not agree

that they expected nurses to be rude(m=2.19). The study also revealed that there was no statistically

differences among the mean responses by religion on patients' expectations (p>0.5).See table above.
Table 4.5: Cross tabulation of Patients' mean responses on patients' expectations by marital
status

Marital status Total ANOVA

Variables
single married divorced widowed separated mean F P

Kind 3.70(27.0) 3.52(41.4) 3.52(13.4) 3.82(13.9) 3.57(4.1) 3.61 0.583 0.675

Cheerful 3.86(26.9) 3.61(40.6) 3.78(13.8) 4.00(13.9) 4.29(4.8) 3.78 1.691 0.155

Responsive3.68(26.8) 3.51(41.2) 3.26(12.4) 4.05(14.7) 4.29(5.0) 3.62 4.018 0.004

Rude 2.36(28.6) 2.19(42.0) 2.22(14.0) 2.00(12.1) 1.71(3.3) 2.19 2.266 0.064

Note. Numbers in parentheses ( ) denote Percentage %.

The table above is showing participants responses on patients' expectations by marital status. All the

responses were above the mean score, meaning that they were expecting nurses to be kind, cheerful

and responsive except that they did not agree that they were expecting nurses to be rude. The study

revealed that there was no significant differences between the mean responses by marital status on

patients expectations except responsiveness of the nurses to patients concerns (F=4.018,p=0.004).

They expected nurses to be knowledgeable and competent, and 51(30.4%) agreed that they were
expecting nurses to be knowledgeable. Most participants 67(39.9%) agreed that they expected
nurses to be kind to patients, and 56(33.3%) were neutral.

Table 4.7: Correlation tables-Relationship between Patients' age, gender and level of
Education and Patients Expectations

Correlation between patients characteristics Pearson Chi Interpretation R

square
and patients expectations coefficient
(p)value
Kind: Age 0.740 Strong 15.618

Gender 0.343 Weak 4.496

Education level 0.616 Strong 9.997

Cheerful: Age 0.506 Strong 19.247

Gender 0.754 Strong 1.901

Education level 0.753 Strong 8.399

Responsiveness: Age 0.178 Weak 25.652

Gender 0.442 Weak 3.746

Education level 0.011* Very weak 26.018

Harsh: Age 0.211 Weak 24.757

Gender 0.234 Weak 5.563

Education level 0.051 Very weak 20.833

Honesty: Age 0.477 Weak 19.690

Gender 0.544 Strong 3.081

Education level 0.001* No correlation 32.640

Empathetic: Age 0.504 Strong 19.270

Gender 0.218 Weak 5.762

Education level 0.456 Weak 11.878

Friendly: Age 0.544 Strong 18.656

Gender 0.925 Very strong 0.898

Education level 0.824 Very strong 7.480

Rude: Age 0.913 Very strong 12.092

Gender 0.793 Strong 1.685

Education level 0.925 Very strong 5.823

Knowledge and competent: Age 0.461 Weak 19.957

Gender 0.403 Weak 4.025

Education 0.116 Weak 17.974

Informed & explained to me: Age 0.390 Weak 21.129

Gender 0.567 Strong 2.946

Education level 0.376 Weak 12.910

Orientation to the ward: Age 0.431 Weak 20.438

Gender 0.597 Strong 2.773

Education level 0.368 Weak 13.017

Pearson Correlation: Significant at p<0.05.*categories column do differ significantly from each

other at the level of 0.05.

The table above is showing that there was positive relationship between patients' gender, age and

level of education and what they were expecting from nurses but there were no significant

differences among their responses, p>0.05.

Figure 4.l: Average response on Patients' expectations of nursing care

The above graph is showing the average responses on the participants' expectations of health worker

The majority expected nurses to be knowledgeable (86%) and also did not expect health worker to

be harsh and rude (44% respectively).

Table 4.8: Cross tabulation of Patients' mean responses on patients' experiences by age
distribution.

Age of the Respondents Total ANOVA

Variables
<19yrs 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 >60 mean F P

2.64(9.0) 2.31(27.4) 2.46(32.2) 2.60(15.7) 2.44(9.4) 3.25(6.3) 2.49 1.714 0.134

response 3.42(10.3) 2.71(27.9) 2.91(33.7) 2.71(11.6) 3.36(11.8) 3.80(4.8) 2.95 3.283 0.008
when

control 3.23(8.8) 2.79(27.6) 2.85(31.2) 3.12(16.4) 3.06(10.3) 3.86(5.7) 2.97 2.616 0.027

th pain 3.21(9.7) 2.65(28.1) 2.70(30.9) 2.84(15.3) 2.94(10.2) 3.38(5.8) 2.81 1.782 0.120

expectations 2.79(9.1) 2.72(28.8) 2.35(31.8) 2.60(16) 2.12(8.5) 2.87(5.8) 2.44 1.571 0.171
of health
worker

consent 2.29(8.2) 2.28(27.8) 2.35(32.6) 2.52(16.2) 2.65(10.8) 2.43(4.4) 2.36 0.664 0.651

Note. Numbers in parentheses ( ) denote Percentage %.

The above table is showing cross tabulation of patients' mean responses on patients' experiences by

age distribution. Respondents were asked to rate their responses on a four Likert scale. The study

revealed that age groups of 50-59years (m=3.36(11.8%)) and over 60 years m=3.80(4.8%) and

expressed that nurses usually responded quickly when they needed pain medications. The age

groups 40-49 years m=3.12(16.4%) and over 60years m=3.86(5.7%) expressed that they had good

pain control experience. The study revealed that there was statistically significant differences among

the mean responses by age on how quickly nurses were responding when they needed pain

medication (F=3.283, p=0.008) and how often their pain was controlled (F=2.616,=0.027). The

study also had revealed that participants were not usually asked for informed on sent by health

worker (m=2.36) and explanations on treatment and procedures were not usually given (m=2.44).
Table 4.9: Cross tabulation of Participants mean responses on patients' experiences by
gender.

Gender Total ANOVA

Variables
Male Female mean F P

Privacy 2.44(53.3) 2.54(46.7) 2.49 0.445 0.506

Nurse response when in pain 2.81(52.3) 3.11(47.7) 2.95 3.968 0.048

Pain control 2.85(52.8) 3.11(47.2) 2.97 3.547 0.062

Help with pain 2.72(52.9) 2.91(47.1) 2.81 1.740 0.189

Explanation of procedures 2.34(52.9) 2.47(47.1) 2.40 0.746 0.389

Asked consent 2.32(53.7) 2.40(46.3) 2.36 0.270 0.604

The numbers in parentheses () denotes percentages %. Significant at p<0.05.

The above table is showing the mean responses of participants on patients' experiences by gender.

The study showed that females had higher mean responses (m>3.11) than males (m<2.85) on the

responses that nurses were sometimes respecting their privacy (m=2.54were usually responding

quickly when they needed pain medication(m=3.11),their pain was usually controlled (m=3.11);

nurses were sometimes helping them with pain(m=2.91);nurses were sometimes providing

explanations on treatments and procedures and asked consent from patients. The study revealed that

there were no significant differences in their responses by gender distribution except on the

experience that nurses were responding quickly when they needed pain medication(F=3.547,

p=0.048)
Table4.10: Cross tabulation of Participants mean responses on patients' experiences by
religion

Religion Total ANOVA

Variables
Christians Muslims mean F P

Privacy 2.47(81.8) 2.59(18.2) 2.49 0.406 0.525

Nurse response when in pain 2.86(79.1) 3.32(20.9) 2.95 5.511 0.020

Pain control 2.93(82.1) 3.15(17.9) 2.97 1.379 0.242

Help with pain 2.77(81.4) 2.97(18.6) 2.81 1.114 0.293

Explanation of procedures 2.34(80.5) 2.69(19.5) 2.40 3.163 0.077

Asked consent 2.30(80.5) 2.62(19.5) 2.36 2.692 0.103

The numbers in parentheses () denotes percentages %.Significant at p<0.05

The table above is showing mean responses on patients' experiences by religion. It showed that the
Muslims had higher mean responses than Christians. There was statistically significant differences
between mean responses on the experience that nurses were responding quickly when patients
needed pain medication(F.5.511,p=0.020), but there was no significant differences in heir responses
on how often their pain was controlled; how often their privacy was respected and how often nurses
were providing information on treatment and procedures.

Table 4.11:Cross tabulation of Participants responses on patients' experiences by marital

status.

Marital status Total ANOVA

Variables
single married divorced widowed separated mean F P

Privacy 2.40(24.9) 2.55(43.8) 2.13(11.9) 2.86(15.3) 2.43(4.1) 2.49 2.064 0.088

Nurse response 3.00(22.6) 2.80(45.0) 2.88(11.6) 3.37(16.1) 3.17(4.8) 2.95 1.691 0.156
when in pain

Pain control 3.00(25.9) 2.80(40.8) 3.00(13.9) 3.38(14.9) 3.14(4.6) 2.97 1.980 0.100

Help with pain 3.00(27.2) 2.63(40.4) 2.70(13.4) 3.09(14.7) 2.86(4.3) 2.81 1.831 0.125

Explanation of 2.56(276) 2.25(40.1) 2.17(12.5) 2.73(15.0) 2.71(4.8) 2.40 1.891 0.114

procedures

Asked consent 2.28(25.2) 2.30(41.9) 2.30(13.6) 2.76(14.9) 2.43(4.4) 2.36 1.116 0.351

The numbers in parentheses () denotes percentages %.Significant at p<0.05

The table above is showing mean responses of participants on the patients' experiences. The study

showed that there were no significant differences among the participants responses by marital status

distribution, p>0.05.The study revealed that the single, divorced, widowed and separated had their

mean responses (m>3.00),showing that they usually experienced that nurses were responding

quickly when they were in pain and their pain was usually controlled. The study showed that there

were no statistically significant differences in responses on patients' experiences' by marital status

distribution, p>0.05

Table 4.12: Cross tabulation of Participants mean responses on patients' experiences by level
of education

Level of Education Total ANOVA

Variables
Not attended Primary Secondary Tertiary mean F P

Privacy 2.63(10.2) 2.76(19.4) 2.17(28.3) 2.60(42.1) 2.49 3.691 0.013

Nurse response 3.13(11.8) 3.14(17.3) 2.72(29.4) 3.00(41.5) 2.95 1.553 0.204

when in pain

Pain control 3.70(10.1) 3.07(18.7) 2.85(31.8) 2.97(39.4) 2.97 0.810 0.490

Help with pain 2.94(10.2) 2.86(17.9) 2.69(31.3) 2.85(40.6) 2.81 0.524 0.666

Explanation of 2.69(10.8) 2.38(17.3) 2.35(31.8) 2.39(40.1) 2.40 0.527 0.665

procedures

Asked consent 2.44(10) 2.50(18.1) 2.22(30.8) 2.39(41.1) 2.36 0.624 0.601

The numbers in parentheses (O denotes percentages %. Significant at p<005

The table above is showing the mean responses of participants on patients' experiences by level of

education distribution. The study showed that the participants who did not have formal education

and those with primary education had experienced that nurses usually responded quickly when they

were in pain (m=3.13, 3.14) and their pain was usually controlled (m=3.70,3.07) respectively. There

were no significant differences in their responses on patients' experiences by level of education

distribution p>0.05.
 Assistance in bathing

support to bathroom/toilet

Observation of privacy

Nurses introduction

Nurses quick response to pain.

How often was pain controlled

Nurses effort towards pain control

Experiences/challenges Explanation about procedures

Consent to do procedures

Figure 4.2: 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 4.14: 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,
 37
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=15reported that there was poor communication.

Table 4.16: Correlation Table between Patients' characteristics and Experiences and
challenges

Correlation between patients Pearson Chi Interpretation R

characteristics square
and patients experiences coefficient(p)
value
Provision of privacy: Age 0.542 Strong 13.778

Gender 0.037* 8.511

Education 0.079 15.443

Nurses introduction: Age 0.251 18.217

Gender 0.057 weak 7.518

Education 0.053 Very weak 16.750

Response for pain med. Age 0.016* weak 28.965

Gender 0.264 3.977

Education 0.500 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:-I=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.

4.4 PATIENTS'SATISFACTION WITH NURSING CARE

Table 4.17: Cross tabulation of participants mean responses on patients' satisfaction

Variables Age of the Respondents Total ANOVA

<19yrs 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 >60 mean F P

come on 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

admission

proach to 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

examinations

ng 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

ning to patients 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

em

ted 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

ngness to 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

respond

mmation 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

provided

aperation 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

act 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

Imanagement 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

mld 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

mery 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=3.065p=0.011).
Table 4.18: Cross tabulation of Participants' mean Responses on the level of satisfaction with
nursing care by gender distribution
Gender Total mean ANOVA
Variables
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 3.38(53.5) 3.49(46.5) 3.43 0.406 0.525

concern
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

Pin 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

11

The numbers in parentheses () denotes percentages %. Significant at p<005

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 4.19: Cross tabulation of Participants' mean responses on the level of satisfaction with nursing
care by level of education distribution.

Level of Education ANOVA

Total
Variables Not
Primary Secondary Tertiary mean F P
attended

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
3.50(10.2) 3.48(18.2) 3.23(30.8) 3.39(40.7) 3.35 0.553 0.647
examinations

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
3.69(10.6) 3.99(19.1) 3.28(31.4) 3.32(38.9) 3.43 1.788 0.152
concern

Treated as individual 3.06(9) 3.62(19.3) 3.30(32.2) 3.31(39.5) 3,34 0.957 0.415

Will agedness to
3.38(9.4) 3.86(19.5) 3.49(32.2) 3.39(39.0) 3.51 1.316 0.271
respond

formation 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

Fain 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 %o. 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 4.21: Correlation Table: Relationship between Patients' characteristics and Satisfaction

Correlation between patients characteristics Pearson Chi square 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

Anention 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 bed making: 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: -l=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.
4.5 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

405%(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 4.23: 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 4.24: 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.

Download
Table 4.25: Correlation Table: Relationship between Patients' Expectations and
Satisfaction
Correlations

Nurses inform and Information

explain to me about my provided about my
medication, and condition and
treatment procedures treatment

Nurses inform and Pearson Correlation 1 .192

explain to me about Sig.(2-tailed) .014

my medication, and
N 166 163
treatment procedures

Information provided Pearson Correlation 192° 1

about my condition Sig.(2-tailed) .014

and
N 163 164
treatment

*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 How nurses were/are

kind 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 Pearson Correlation .176° 1

willing to respond to my Sig.(2-tailed) .024

concerns/requests 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 different from zero (P <0.05)