RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: UNIVERSAL PRECAUTION PRACTICE AMONG WORKERS IN FETHA 1

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
S/N	ITEMS	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
S/N	ITEMS	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
S/N	List of materials needed for universal precautions	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.