CHAPTER
THREE
3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Design
The researcher
used descriptive survey research design in this study the use of this research
design is based on the fact that this research work seeks to evaluate the use
of universal precaution practice among workers in FETHA1.
3.2 Location of the Study
The study was carried out at Federal
Teaching Hospital Abakaliki, Ebonyi State. The hospital was formerly known as
Federal Medical centre Abakaliki. It is located in the south eastern part of Nigeria.
3.3 Target Population
The target population for this study
comprised all the health personnel in FETHA1. This is made up of doctors,
nurses, medical laboratory scientists and ward orderly. The total population of
this target group is 564.
3.4 Sample Size Determination
To determine the sample size for the
study, the researcher adopted the Yaro Yameni formula, which is used to derive
a sample for a population size that is relatively too large.
The formula is given as:
where
n = Sample size to determined;
N = Population size as given;
E = Acceptable error margin (in this case
0.05)
l = A
constant
3.5 Instrument for Data Collection
The researcher used a structured
questionnaire to generate data from the respondents. The questionnaire consists
of two section A and B. Section A Focused on the demographic data of the
respondent, while section ‘B focused on the questions raised in research
questions, and Likert’s five points scale was used to obtain information on
their attitude towards the implementation of universal precaution.
3.7 Validity and Reliability of Instrument
The validity and reliability of the
checklist using universal precaution was established by the project supervisor who
critically examined it and made necessary corrections after which it was
approved and used in a pilot study.
3.8 Method of Data Collection
The researcher administered copies of
the questionnaire to the respondent by herself. The completed copies were collected
after one week by hand to facilitate the return, minimize loss and reduce
disappointment.
3.9 Method of Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics was used to
analyze the data after collection. Percentages and means were used.
3.9.1 Ethical Consideration
The researcher sought and obtained
approval from the Ethical and Research Committee of the hospital, approval was
given to observe the health care workers that complied with universal
precaution. The information observed where treated with solemn confidentiality
and only for the purpose of the study. The researcher diligently and dutifully
analyzed the data collected
CHAPTER
FOUR
4.0 DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
TABLE
1: DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESPONDENTS.
|
S/N
|
AGE
RANGE
|
FREQUENCY
|
PERCENTAGE
|
|
1
|
21-30 YEARS
|
11
|
5.5
|
|
2
|
31-40 YEARS
|
83
|
42.5
|
|
3
|
41-50 YEARS
|
75
|
37.5
|
|
4
|
51 YEARS AND ABOVE
|
31
|
15.5
|
|
|
TOTAL
|
200
|
100
|
|
S/N
|
STATUS
|
FREQUENCY
|
PERCENTAGE
|
|
1
|
Nurses
|
141
|
70.5
|
|
2
|
Medical doctor
|
21
|
10.5
|
|
3
|
Laboratory workers
|
13
|
6.5
|
|
4
|
Word orderly
|
25
|
12.5
|
|
|
TOTAL
|
200
|
100
|
The
table above reveals that 5.5% of the health workers in FETHA1 are between 21
and 30 years old, 42.5% of them fall within the 31 to 40 years age bracket,
while 37.55% of them are between 41 and 50 years and another 15.5% of them are
51 years and above. Here, a greater proportion of them (42.5%) are between 31
and 40 years old.
The data reveal that 70.5% of the health
workers were nurses, 10.5% were medical doctors, 6.5% were laboratory workers,
while 12.5% were word orderly. Remarkably, a greater proportion of the health
workers in FETHA1 are nurses.
TABLE
2: On level of Knowledge of Universal
Precautions.
|
S/N
|
ITEMS
|
Yes
|
No
|
||
|
N
|
%
|
N
|
%
|
||
|
1
|
Have you heard about Universal
precautions?
|
161
|
80.5
|
39
|
19.5
|
|
2
|
Do you practice universal precautions?
|
171
|
85.5
|
29
|
14.5
|
|
3
|
Do you know what constitute universal
precautions?
|
129
|
64.5
|
71
|
35.5
|
|
4
|
Looking at the concept of universal
precautions do you think it is necessary?
|
175
|
87.5
|
25
|
12.5
|
Table two(2)
reflects the responses of he respondents on their level of knowledge of
universal precaution. The data revealed that 80.5% of them admitted having
heard about universal precautions, while 19.5% indicated they have never heard
about it. An impressive 85.% of the health workers in FETHA1 stated that they
practice universal precaution, while only 14.5% of them said they do not.
Again, 64.5% of that affirmed that they know what constitute universal
precautions, while 35.5% of them said they do not. Universal precaution was
considered to be necessary by 87.5% of the health workers, while 12.5% of them
noted that the concept is not really necessary. Overall, one would stay that
the health workers in FETHA1 have appreciable knowledge of universal
precautions as revealed by their responses.
TABLE 3: ATTITUDE
OF HEALTH WORKERS TOWARDS UNIVERSAL PRECAUTION
|
S/N
|
ITEMS
|
SA
|
A
|
D
|
SD
|
||||
|
Freq
|
%
|
Freq
|
%
|
Freq
|
%
|
|
%
|
||
|
5
|
UP
is a good measure for preventing disease transmission and cross infection.
|
122
|
61.0
|
73
|
36.5
|
05
|
2.5
|
00
|
00
|
|
6
|
Decontamination
and sterilization of all surfaces and instruments are necessary.
|
200
|
100
|
00
|
00
|
00
|
00
|
00
|
00
|
|
7
|
The
use of isolation technique in the treatment of clients with the infectious
diseases in necessary.
|
85
|
42.5
|
87
|
43.5
|
25
|
12.5
|
03
|
1.5
|
|
8
|
Recapping
of needless after use is good.
|
03
|
1.5
|
27
|
13.5
|
69
|
34.5
|
101
|
50.5
|
|
9
|
Promptly
seeking medical attention and counseling if exposed to contaminated material
is advisable.
|
125
|
62,5
|
75
|
37.5
|
00
|
00
|
00
|
00
|
Item 10: How conscious are you with
respect to universal precautions?
|
S/N
|
Response
|
Frequency
|
Percentage
|
|
a
|
Always conscious
|
95
|
47.5
|
|
b
|
Not always conscious
|
54
|
27.0
|
|
c
|
Rarely conscious
|
51
|
25.5
|
|
|
Total
|
200
|
200
|
Table three (3) shows the data on the
health workers attitude towards universal precautions. Here, 61.0% of them
strongly agreed that universal precaution is a good measure for preventing
disease transmission and cross infection. Another 36.5% merely agreed to this
statement, and 2.5% disagrees to this, while none of the health workers
expressed a strong disagreement to the statement. In item six (6), all the
respondents strongly agreed that decontamination and sterilization of all surfaces
and instruments are necessary. In item seven (7) on the table, 42.5% of the
health workers strongly agreed that the use of isolation technique in the
treatment of clients with infectious diseases is necessary, 43.5% agreed to
this statement, while 12.5% disagreed, and another 1.5% strongly disagreed to
the statement. In item eight (8), only 1.5% of the respondents indicated strong
agreement that recapping of needles after use is a good practice. Here, 13.5%
merely agreed to recapping of needles after use, while 34.5% and 50.5% of them
disagreed and strongly disagreed respectively to the statement that recapping
of needles after use is good. Item nine (9) reveals that 62.5% of the health
workers in FETHA1 strongly agreed that one should seek prompt medical attention
and counseling if exposed to contaminated materials, 37.5% agreed to this
statement, while none of them disagreed or strongly disagreed to this. Item ten
(10) reveals that 47.5% of the respondents stated that they are always conscious
of the universal precaution principles, 27.0% of them said they are not always
conscious, while 25.% noted that they are rarely conscious of the universal
precautions principles.
From the analysis on these items, it is
evident that health workers in FETHA1 exhibit a safety conscious attitude while
on duty, their attitude towards universal precautions is commendable.
Table
4: A Check list on availability or non-availability of materials for universal
precaution
|
S/N
|
List
of materials needed for universal precautions
|
Available
|
Non-available
|
||
|
Freq
|
%
|
Freq
|
%
|
||
|
1
|
Sufficient glovers
|
185
|
92.5
|
15
|
7.5
|
|
2
|
Glasses, goggles, masks, shields and
water proof gowns/aprons
|
169
|
84.5
|
31
|
15.5
|
|
3
|
Incinerator for disposing used needles
|
200
|
100
|
00
|
00
|
|
4
|
Puncture-resistant sharp disposal
containers at the point of use
|
141
|
70.5
|
59
|
29.5
|
|
5
|
Disinfectants for cleaning surface and
devices after use
|
179
|
89.5
|
21
|
105
|
The checklist on
table four (4) reveals that 92.5% of the health workers in FETHA1 acknowledged
that there are usually enough gloves for them to work with while on duty. Only 7.5
% of the health workers complained of insufficient gloves when they need them .Also,
85.5% of them indicated that glasses, goggles, masks, shields and water-proof gowns/
aprons are usually available when they need them. However 15.5% of them had a
different view when they stated that these materials are not always available
when they need them. All the respondents (100%) affirmed that there are always
incinerators where they dispose off used needles. On the availability or
no-availability of puncture-resistant sharp disposal containers, 70.5% of the
health workers acknowledge that those materials are always available at the
point of use, while 29.5% stated that those materials are not always available for
them to make use of . Disinfectants for cleaning surfaces and devices after
use, 89.5% of these workers admitted that these materials are always provided
and made available when they need them, while 10.5% indicated that these materials
not always available when they are needed. Overall, it could be stated that
materials needed for universal precautions are available at FETHA1,as revealed
by the responses of the respondents.