Impact of Introducing A Modified Community kit Teacher’s and Student’s Perspective
Mrs. Omana R. Shinde
Professor, Sadhu Vaswani College of Nursing, Pune, Maharashtra
*Corresponding Author Email: omanashinde@gmail.com
ABSTRACT:
Background: With the changing momentum in every field the community bag needs modification and up-gradation to the latest and economically sound and user-friendly. Anecdotal scenario encountered during practical examination of final year B.Sc Nursing, student in urban slum area of Pune. The student was given urine analysis procedure to perform for her patient in the family. As she started her procedure there were many technical problems she faced on seeing this panic situation the family member provided her with a glucometer. Material and Methods: Objectives: To design an innovative model of community health bag. To assess the perception of teachers and students regarding the user-friendliness. It is a comparative study design with one group post test. Faculty who has experience in community health nursing and third and fourth year graduate students were selected. Non probability purposive sampling technique was used. Structured three point Likert ’s scale used to assess the perception of students and faculty regarding the use-friendliness of the modified community bag. Discussions to develop an innovative design of community health bag with the experts in community health nursing department. The main suggestions were to make the bag more comfortable and efficient with all user-friendly articles like Urostix Glucometer, hand sanitizer, Heamoglobinometer, etc. Results: Paired t’ test revealed that at 39 degree of freedom, 5% significant limit of t’ is 2.02.the observed t’ value is 24.39 times. And At 9 degree of freedom at 0.05 level t’ value is 2.26 and the observed value is 2.96. Hence the modified bag is highly significant. Implication: By using newly designed community health bag, nurses can conduct home visits with modern tools in a decent and more organized way and better care can be given to the people in the community. Conclusions: One must do today’s job with today’s tools and if you are doing today’s job with yesterday’s tools, tomorrow you will be out of the business.
KEYWORDS: knowledge, disaster preparedness, family disaster kit.
INTRODUCTION:
Community health nursing is a synthesis of Nursing practice and public health practice applied in promoting and preserving the health of populations. Home visit is the back bone of community health nursing. The nursing bag is and has been a vital tool for public health and community health nurse since the early 1900s. The bag contains the fundamental content for a home visit, However the practice of utilizing a nursing bag has decreased. The reasons are many-changing trend in disease pattern, increasing health awareness in people, technological development and change in health services etc
Nursing education is based on theoretical and clinical exposure, so that the future nurse is well equipped while caring clients equally in hospital environment and in community settings. Hospital provide adequate supply of medicines and personal protective devices, whereas in community students have to be resourceful to provide need based adequate care. To meet this training needs of the students in view of attitude and perception of people in the community and the technical advancement the community bag needs modification and up gradation.
Nursing education aims to prepare graduates who are able to think critically and solve problems in a variety of practice settings. This requires active teaching strategies to promote meaningful learning, instead of relying traditional methods that students should be exposed to an environment that will stimulate them to acquire new knowledge which also encourage them to think critically.
|
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
The proposed design for this study is Exploratory and the Sample size was 40students (third year and fourth year students who has already used the traditional community bag during their clinical practice.) and ten clinical instructors who has experience in community health practice. Non Probability Purposive Sampling technique is used.
Tool consists of three point Likert’s scale to find out the perception of students and teachers regarding user-friendliness of traditional community bag/modified bag. The study was conducted during the community health posting in Tadiwala road from 1 st to 30th September 2015. Modified bag prepared and implemented during this posting. After the posting students and faculty had a meeting where user-friendliness of the modified bag was obtained consent taken from faculty and students.
Opinion of students and teachers were assessed by self constructed structured Likert’s scale with ten items and each item is assessed in three points such as very-user-friendly, Partially use-friendly and Not at all user-friendly with the scoring of 2,1 and 0 respectively.
RESULTS:
Student’s perception: (Table-1)
· Hand washing with soap and water in the community-82% students said it is partially user-friendly whereas 95% samples said hand sanitizer is very user-friendly.
· Vital signs assessment with clinical thermometer-87% revealed it is partially user-friendly,
· Whereas 100% suggested with digital thermometer is very user-friendly.
· Urine analysis with hot test—52% suggested it is partially user-friendly and 40% said not at all user-friendly.
· Whereas 100% suggested urostix is more user-friendly.
· Glucometer not available in the traditional bag. Whereas 100% suggested glucometer very effective in modified bag.
· Heamoglobinometer not available in traditional bag whereas 86% said it is very
· Use-friendly in modified bag.
· Snellen’s chart for vision test is not available in traditional bag but 86% suggested it is very user-friendly in modified bag.
· Health teaching aids- 70% said it is partially effective when students prepares whereas 87% suggested readymade ones are more effective.
· Family planning devices not available in the traditional bag. Whereas 86% suggested it is very user-friendly in modified bag.
· Referral chit pad not available in traditional bag. But 90% showed its importance to refer a patient from community to health centre, so it is very user-friendly.
Table no: 1 Student’s Perception regarding community bag
|
Items |
Traditional bag |
Modified Bag |
||||
|
Very User friendly |
Partially user-friendly |
Not at all user friendly |
Very User friendly |
Partially user-friendly |
Not at all user friendly |
|
|
Hand Washing |
|
33 (82%) |
7 (17%) |
38 (95%) |
2 (5%) |
-- |
|
Vital signs |
3 (7%) |
35 (87%) |
3 (7%) |
40 (100%) |
-- |
-- |
|
Urine analysis |
3 (7%) |
21(52%) |
16 (40%) |
40 (100%) |
-- |
-- |
|
BSL analysis |
0 |
7 (17%) |
33 (82%) |
39(97%) |
1(2%) |
-- |
|
Hb analysis |
-- |
13 (32%) |
27 (67%) |
34 (86%) |
6 (15%) |
-- |
|
Vision test |
-- |
-- |
-- |
38 (95%) |
2 (5%) |
-- |
|
Dressing materials |
25 (62%) |
14 (35%) |
1 (2%) |
37 (92%) |
3 (7%) |
-- |
|
Health teaching Aids |
4 (10%) |
28 (70%) |
8 (20%) |
35 (87%) |
5 (20%) |
-- |
|
Family planning Aids |
4 (10%) |
27 (67%) |
9 (22%) |
34 (86%) |
6 (15%) |
-- |
|
Referral chits |
|
|
40 (100%) |
36 (90%) |
4 (1%) |
-- |
Table no:2 Faculty’s Perception regarding community bag
|
Items |
Traditional bag |
Modified Bag |
||||
|
Very User friendly |
Partially user-friendly |
Not at all user friendly |
Very User friendly |
Partially user-friendly |
Not at all user friendly |
|
|
Hand Washing |
4 |
6 |
-- |
10(100%) |
-- |
-- |
|
Vital signs |
5 |
5 |
-- |
10(100%) |
-- |
-- |
|
Urine analysis |
2 |
7 |
1 |
10(100%) |
-- |
-- |
|
BSL analysis |
6 |
2 |
2 |
10(100%) |
-- |
-- |
|
Hb analysis |
7 |
3 |
-- |
10(100%) |
-- |
-- |
|
Vision test |
6 |
2 |
2 |
10(100%) |
-- |
-- |
|
Dressing materials |
4 |
5 |
1 |
8 (80%) |
2 |
-- |
|
Health teaching Aids |
5 |
5 |
-- |
8 (80%) |
2 |
-- |
|
Family planning Aids |
1 |
3 |
6 |
9 (90%) |
1 |
-- |
|
Referral chits |
1 |
3 |
6 |
9 (90%) |
1 |
-- |
Teachers opinion is that modified community bag is very user friendly in the areas of hand washing, vital signs, urine analysis, BSL analysis, Hb analysis, and vision test to give proper family centered need based care in the community. (Table-2).
Table: 3 Comparison of Students and Faculty perception regarding modified community bag
|
Perception analysis |
mean |
SD |
SE |
Table value |
P>0.05 |
|
Student’s Perception |
30 |
7.8 |
1.23 |
24.39 |
2.02 |
|
Faculty’s Perception |
4.6 |
4.92 |
1.55 |
2.96 |
2.26 |
Paired t’ test revealed, that at 39 degree of freedom, 5% significant limit of t’ is 2.02.the observed t’ value is 24.39 times the standard error Hence the modified bag is highly significant. (Table-3).
Teachers:
At 9 degree of freedom t’ value is 2.26 and the observed value is 2.96. So the modified bag is highly significant at 0.05 levels. (Table-3).
DISCUSSION:
Community health practice requires lots of flexibility, patience, communication skills and good interaction with the people. Many time they say that they are not getting any services, students are only collecting the needed information and going so participation from the people are becoming lesser and lesser. Moreover whatever service students are giving is also time consuming because of many traditional methods and short comings. Most of the family has digital thermometer, glucometer and nebulizer at home. As the trends are changing the service provided by the health care professionals also needs to change.
The present study proved that students must need user-friendly articles to perform some of the basic procedure in the community to give comprehensive health care services to the people in the community.
ACKNOWLEGEMENT:
First of all I would like thank all the staff members of MET Dept. Aundh, Regional Centre, Pune, Management and Principal faculty of Sadhu Vaswani College Of Nursing and the third and fourth year students and faculty for their participation which made an integral part of present study and also I thank all my family members.
REFERENCES:
1. Stanhope M and Lancaster J. (2000) Community and public health nursing. Philadelphia: Mosby publications
2. Park JE and Park K. (2000) Essentials of community health nursing. Jabalpur: Banarasidas Bha Sreeraj S. (2002) Innovations are inevitable.
3. Basvanthappaa, B.T (2009), Community Health Nursing, Jaypee Publication
4. Davis. P., Madigan, A. (1999). Homecare nursing bag: How safe is the homecare Nursing journal of India. IXXXXIII (12): 273.4. Public Health Nursing and Health Visiting, Vol 26 Issue 1
6. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2011 Dec;29(4):196-7
7. Public Health Nursing, Volume 26, Issue 1, pages 106–109, January/February 2009
8. Canadian Family Physician October 2000 vol. 46 no. 10 2044-2048
9. Canadian Family Physicianwww.cfp.ca 2014 Jan; 32(1):39-45; quiz 45-7. doi: 10.1097/NHH.0000000000000003.
10. www.ijird.com ,March, 2015Vol 4 Issue 3
11. International Journal Of Innovative Research and Development, Page 267
12. Brewster, M. (1901). Nurses' settlement district bag. The American Journal of Nursing, 1 (10), 769–77
Received on 28.11.2018 Modified on 29.12.2018
Accepted on 29.01.2019 ©A&V Publications All right reserved
Asian J. Nursing Education and Research. 2019; 9(2):197-199.
DOI: 10.5958/2349-2996.2019.00041.7