Clinical staff reported knowledge on the existence of clinical governance protocols or tools utilised in selected South African hospitals.

IF 2.9 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES PLoS ONE Pub Date : 2024-11-21 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0312340
Nomfuneko Sithole, Wezile W Chitha, Onke R Mnyaka, Akhona B A Ncinitwa, Sibusiso C Nomatshila, Xolelwa Ntlongweni, Kedibone Maake, Bongiwe E Mkabela, Ntiyiso V Khosa, Ziyanda B Ngcobo, Nombulelo Chitha, Khanyisile Masuku, Sikhumbuzo A Mabunda
{"title":"Clinical staff reported knowledge on the existence of clinical governance protocols or tools utilised in selected South African hospitals.","authors":"Nomfuneko Sithole, Wezile W Chitha, Onke R Mnyaka, Akhona B A Ncinitwa, Sibusiso C Nomatshila, Xolelwa Ntlongweni, Kedibone Maake, Bongiwe E Mkabela, Ntiyiso V Khosa, Ziyanda B Ngcobo, Nombulelo Chitha, Khanyisile Masuku, Sikhumbuzo A Mabunda","doi":"10.1371/journal.pone.0312340","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Clinical governance outlines duties and responsibilities as well as indicators of the actions towards best possible patient outcomes. However, evidence of outcomes on clinical governance interventions is limited in South Africa. This study determined knowledge of clinical staff about the existence of clinical governance protocols/tools that are utilised in selected South African hospitals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional study conducted among randomly sampled clinical staff at Nelson Mandela Academic (NMAH), St Elizabeth in the Eastern Cape Province and, Rob Ferreira (RFH) and Themba Hospitals in the Mpumalanga Province of South Africa. A self-administered survey questionnaire was used to collect demographic information and quality improvement protocols/tools in existence at the hospitals. Data were captured in Excel spreadsheet and analysed with STATA. Knowledge was generated based on the staff member's score for the 12 questions assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 720 participants were recruited of which 377 gave consent to participate. Overall, 8.5% (32/377) of the participants got none or only one correct out of the 12 protocols/tools; and 65.5% (247/377) got between two and five correct. The median knowledge scores were 41.7% (interquartile range (IQR) = 16.7%) in three of the hospitals and 33.3% (IQR = 16.7%) at NMAH (p-value = 0.002). Factors associated with good knowledge included more than five years of experience, being a professional nurse compared to other nurses, not working at NMAH as well as being a medical doctor or pharmacist compared to other staff. Overall, 74.0% (279/377) of the respondents scored below 50%; this was 84.4% (92/109) at NMAH and 66.3% (55/83) at RFH and this difference was statistically significant (p-value = 0.017).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite clinical governance implementation, there was low knowledge of clinical governance protocols/tools among clinical staff. Therefore, providing more effective, relevant training workshops with an emphasis on importance of local ownership of the concept of clinical governance, by both management and clinical staff is of great importance.</p>","PeriodicalId":20189,"journal":{"name":"PLoS ONE","volume":"19 11","pages":"e0312340"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS ONE","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312340","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Clinical governance outlines duties and responsibilities as well as indicators of the actions towards best possible patient outcomes. However, evidence of outcomes on clinical governance interventions is limited in South Africa. This study determined knowledge of clinical staff about the existence of clinical governance protocols/tools that are utilised in selected South African hospitals.

Methods: A cross-sectional study conducted among randomly sampled clinical staff at Nelson Mandela Academic (NMAH), St Elizabeth in the Eastern Cape Province and, Rob Ferreira (RFH) and Themba Hospitals in the Mpumalanga Province of South Africa. A self-administered survey questionnaire was used to collect demographic information and quality improvement protocols/tools in existence at the hospitals. Data were captured in Excel spreadsheet and analysed with STATA. Knowledge was generated based on the staff member's score for the 12 questions assessed.

Results: A total of 720 participants were recruited of which 377 gave consent to participate. Overall, 8.5% (32/377) of the participants got none or only one correct out of the 12 protocols/tools; and 65.5% (247/377) got between two and five correct. The median knowledge scores were 41.7% (interquartile range (IQR) = 16.7%) in three of the hospitals and 33.3% (IQR = 16.7%) at NMAH (p-value = 0.002). Factors associated with good knowledge included more than five years of experience, being a professional nurse compared to other nurses, not working at NMAH as well as being a medical doctor or pharmacist compared to other staff. Overall, 74.0% (279/377) of the respondents scored below 50%; this was 84.4% (92/109) at NMAH and 66.3% (55/83) at RFH and this difference was statistically significant (p-value = 0.017).

Conclusion: Despite clinical governance implementation, there was low knowledge of clinical governance protocols/tools among clinical staff. Therefore, providing more effective, relevant training workshops with an emphasis on importance of local ownership of the concept of clinical governance, by both management and clinical staff is of great importance.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
临床医护人员报告了对南非部分医院所使用的临床治理协议或工具的了解情况。
导言:临床治理概括了职责和责任,以及实现最佳患者治疗效果的行动指标。然而,在南非,有关临床治理干预成果的证据十分有限。本研究旨在了解临床医务人员对南非部分医院所使用的临床治理协议/工具的了解情况:在南非东开普省圣伊丽莎白的纳尔逊-曼德拉学术医院(NMAH)、姆普马兰加省的罗布-费雷拉医院(RFH)和特姆巴医院随机抽样的临床工作人员中开展了一项横断面研究。调查问卷采用自填方式,以收集人口信息和医院现有的质量改进方案/工具。数据采集于 Excel 电子表格中,并使用 STATA 进行分析。根据工作人员在 12 个评估问题上的得分得出知识:共招募了 720 名参与者,其中 377 人同意参与。总体而言,8.5%(32/377)的参与者在 12 个规程/工具中一个都没答对或只答对了一个;65.5%(247/377)的参与者答对了 2 到 5 个规程/工具。三家医院的知识得分中位数为 41.7%(四分位数间距 (IQR) = 16.7%),而北马里亚纳群岛医院的知识得分中位数为 33.3%(四分位数间距 (IQR) = 16.7%)(P 值 = 0.002)。与良好知识相关的因素包括五年以上的工作经验、与其他护士相比是专业护士、不在北玛丽亚医院工作以及与其他员工相比是医生或药剂师。总体而言,74.0%(279/377)的受访者得分低于 50%;其中,北玛丽亚医院为 84.4%(92/109),而瑞吉医院为 66.3%(55/83),这一差异具有统计学意义(P 值 = 0.017):结论:尽管实施了临床治理,但临床医护人员对临床治理规程/工具的了解程度较低。因此,举办更有效、更有针对性的培训讲习班,并强调管理层和临床医护人员对临床治理概念的自主权,是非常重要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
PLoS ONE
PLoS ONE 生物-生物学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
5.40%
发文量
14242
审稿时长
3.7 months
期刊介绍: PLOS ONE is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It provides: * Open-access—freely accessible online, authors retain copyright * Fast publication times * Peer review by expert, practicing researchers * Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact * Community-based dialogue on articles * Worldwide media coverage
期刊最新文献
Comparing the impact of contextual associations and statistical regularities in visual search and attention orienting. Shared decision making applied to self-management program for hypertensive patients: A scoping review protocol. Identification of gully erosion activity and its influencing factors: A case study of the Sunshui River Basin. Complex regional pain syndrome after distal radius fracture: A survey of current practices. Compound 4f, a novel brain-penetrant reversible monoacylglycerol inhibitor, ameliorates neuroinflammation, neuronal cell loss, and cognitive impairment in mice with kainic acid-induced neurodegeneration.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1