Patient satisfaction with the quality of care provided by student nurses at Ndola Teaching Hospital in Ndola, Zambia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Patients’ satisfaction with the care provided by student nurses indicates that students are able to meet the patients' needs, which could also be an indicator of the quality of nursing education received by students and quality of care offered by future nurses. Quality of care influences patient satisfaction and also boost the morale of the care givers.Methods: This was a descriptive quantitative cross sectional study done on 100 randomly selected patients from four admission wards at Ndola Teaching Hospital. The data was collected using a validated semi-structured questionnaire and analyzed with the Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 25. A p-value of ≤ .05 was considered statistically significant using Chi square test.Results: The results showed that patients (79%) were dissatisfied with the nursing care provided by student nurses. The cause of dissatisfaction was low quality of care received (48%), lack of student supervision (60%), poor student patient interactions (68%) and level of training (75%). Patient satisfaction had a significant association with availability of supervisors (p = .010), level of training (p = .002), number of students per ward (p = .011) and student interactions (p = .001).Conclusions: Patients are not satisfied with the care provided by student nurses due to poor quality of care provided as students are not guided, and overcrowding in the wards making patients uncomfortable being exposed to a lot of unqualified staff, These findings will help educators to identify areas of improvement in student clinical learning to enhance quality care. Therefore it is recommended that training institutions should strengthen clinical supervision of student nurses by faculty members and senior nurses to enhance the quality of care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".