Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirement for the
Degree Bachelor of Science in Nursing
Presented by
Intervening Variable
Community Profile
Age
Educational attainment
Length of residency
Nursing students
This study:
Staff of the health care establishments such as physicians, nurses, health care
Auxiliaries, and hospital maintenance personnel;
Patients in the health care establishments or receiving home care;
Visitors, comforters, and caregivers to health care establishment;
Personnel and workers providing support services and allied to health care
Establishments, such as laundries, waste handling and transportation;
Persons transporting hazardous health care waste;
Workers and operators of waste treatment and disposal facilities, i.e. sanitary
landfill including scavengers;
Persons at Risk
Apart from the risk to the patients and health care personnel, consideration
must be given to the impact of health care waste to:
The general public
The environment
In particular, attention should be paid to the possible pollution of the air, water
and soil including the aesthetic aspects.
Minimizing the risk to public health and the environment will require actions to
deal with health care waste within the health care establishment such as proper
waste segregation and minimization so that it does not enter the waste
stream requiring disposal.
Categories of Health Care Waste
1. General Waste - Comparable to domestic waste, this type of waste does not
pose special handling problem or hazard to human health or to the environment.
6.Geotaxis Waste - Geotaxis waste may include certain gyrostatic drugs, vomit,
urine, or feces from patients treated with gyrostatic drugs, chemicals, and
radioactive materials.
Related Studies
Several studies have been done to assess the management of
hazardous wastes in the Philippines and abroad. Soncuya et al, (1997)
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Design
Age
21 – 23 7 35 %
24 - 26 8 40%
27 - 29 3 15%
30 and above 2 10 %
Total 20 100 %
Table 1.1 Presents the Percentage Distribution According to Age. The table shows
that majority or 40% (8 nurses) of the total respondents were within the age range
of 24-26 years old. On the other hand, 35% (7 nurses) where within the age range
of 21 – 23 years old, 15% (3 nurses) belongs to the age range of 27 – 29 and 10%
(2 waste handlers) belongs to the age range of 30 and above. This result can be
attributed to the increasing trend of new nurses belonging to ages 21-29 most of
them just join the healthcare workforce upon graduation from nursing courses.
Table 1.2 Percentage Distributions According to Length of Service
Profile Frequency Percentage
Length of Service
3 years and below 18 90 %
4 years and above 2 10 %
Total 20 100 %
Age
21 – 29 3 10 %
30 - 38 3 10 %
39 - 47 10 33.33 %
48 - 70 14 46.67 %
Total 30 100 %
Table 2.1 Presents the Percentage Distribution According
to Age. It shows that majority or 46.67% of the total
community respondents belong to the age bracket of 48-
70. Out of 30 community respondents, 33.33% belongs
to ages 39-47, 10 percent belongs to ages 30-38 and
another 10% belongs to 21 – 29 age bracket.
Table 2.2 Percentage Distribution According to Educational attainment
•Waste segregation
•Treatment done to the waste before disposal
•Collection and transportation of waste
•Waste storage area and equipments
•Personal protective equipments/measures
•Hospital educational programs
Table 3.1 Mean Distribution According to Waste Segregation
Waste Segregation Mean Interpretation
3. Terminated IVF, blood and body fluids are properly 4.2 Highly Effective
separated from general wastes.
4. I always make sure that sharps are never mixed 4.7 Highly Effective
with non sharps.
5. I never find needles and syringes and other sharp 4.65 Highly Effective
waste mixed with infectious or general waste.
7. Bags and containers for infectious waste are 4.3 Highly Effective
properly marked with the international infectious
substance symbol.
Legend: 0 - 1.25= Poor 1.26-2.5= Less Effective 2.6-3.75= Effective 3.76-5.0= Highly
Effective
These results would mean that the respondents apply
waste minimization on their respective departments and
recycling is their main measure to achieve waste
minimization. Waste minimization is centered on the
elimination or reduction of the healthcare waste stream.
Recycling is collecting waste and processing it into
something new. Many items in the hospital can be
recycled. Items such as organics, plastic, paper, glass
and metal can be recycled easily (DOH Manual). An
effective healthcare waste management considers the
basic element of waste minimization therefore it is
beneficial for all hospitals in Iligan City to implement such
measures.
Table 3.2 Mean Distribution According to Treatment of waste
Treatment of waste Mean Interpretation
10. Proper on-site treatment is done prior to the 4.2 Highly Effective
disposal of infectious waste.
11. Proper sterilization prior to the disposal of 4.2 Highly Effective
pathological wastes such as blood and body fluids is
done.
12. Proper encapsulation is done prior to disposal of 4.1 Highly Effective
sharps.
Over all Mean 4.16 Highly Effective
Legend: 0 - 1.25= Poor 1.26-2.5= Less Effective 2.6-3.75= Effective 3.76-5.0= Highly Effective
Legend: 0 - 1.25= Poor 1.26-2.5= Less Effective 2.6-3.75= Effective 3.76-5.0= Highly
Effective
Legend: 0 - 1.25= Poor 1.26-2.5= Less Effective 2.6-3.75= Effective 3.76-5.0= Highly
Effective
•It has an overall mean of 3.3 and interpreted as effective. These results would mean that
majority of the respondents find the availability of appropriate personal protective equipment to
be adequate. However, as observed waste handlers lack the use of protective gears which is
clearly given less importance. Among staffs who routinely handle health care waste, awareness
of the need for safety may decrease with time, which will increase the risk of injury. Periodic
refresher course is therefore recommended (DOH manual).
• It has an overall mean of 3.6 and interpreted as effective. Again these results would mean
that majority of the respondents find the availability of protective measures to be just adequate.
Table 3.6 Mean Distribution According to Hospital educational
programs
Hospital educational programs Mean Interpretation
22. I have undergone training program on hospital 3.45 Effective
waste management.
23. The hospital provides annual education on waste 3.5 Effective
management for employee.
24. I am taught about the color coding for waste 4.1 Highly Effective
segregation.
25. There is training on how to deal with injuries and 3.85 Highly Effective
exposure in handling healthcare wastes.
26. There are billboards and other propaganda 3.85 Highly Effective
materials on environmental sanitation to motivate
cleanliness
Over all Mean 3.75 Effective
Legend: 0 - 1.25= Poor 1.26-2.5= Less Effective 2.6-3.75= Effective 3.76-5.0= Highly Effec
• In an interview with their hospital waste manager, it was discovered during an interview that they only train
and educate newly hired employees. In developed countries, training programs and educational classes are
instituted repeatedly for all personnel and the content of these programs is specifically designed to different
personnel (Hospital waste management in Dhaka City, 2005).
•Based on the color coding for waste segregation lecture, The table shows that respondents clearly understand
the color coding system in waste segregation.
•Training on how to deal with injuries and exposure on handling healthcare wastes. Training should be
conducted following development and implementation of the management plan. In utilization of billboards and other
propaganda materials on environmental sanitation,
•The result shows that billboards and other propaganda materials are being utilized in promoting proper waste
disposal.
Problem IV: What is the status of the
healthcare personnel’s health awareness
and perception on hospital waste
management:
4.1 Health awareness
4.2 Perception
Table 4.1 Health awareness on
Hospital Waste Management Mean Interpretation
1. I have the knowledge of the definition of clinical 4.85 Strongly Agree
waste.
2. I am aware of danger exposed to myself by the 4.8 Strongly Agree
clinical wastes
3. I am aware of the danger exposed to others by the 4.75 Strongly Agree
clinical wastes
4. I am aware of the effects of the clinical wastes to the 4.75 Strongly Agree
environment
5. I am familiar with the waste management policy and 4.65 Strongly Agree
procedures for healthcare waste management.
6. I am familiar with the clinical waste management plan 4.65 Strongly Agree
by the hospital.
7. I am aware of my duties and responsibilities in 4.75 Strongly Agree
maintaining proper waste management
8. I am able to identify various type of clinical wastes 4.65 Strongly Agree
9. I know how to segregate, contain and label the 4.6 Strongly Agree
clinical wastes properly
10. I know how to deal with any accident with clinical 4.3 Strongly Agree
spills, injury or exposure in handling healthcare wastes.
Over all Mean 4.67 Highly Effective
Legend: 0 - 1.25= Poor 1.26-2.5= Less Effective 2.6-3.75= Effective 3.76-5.0= Highly Effec
Table 4.1 shows the Mean Distribution of the Health Awareness on hospital waste management. It shows that the
respondents strongly agree on the statements with an over-all mean percentage of 4.675 and is interpreted as
highly effective.
Based on the knowledge about the definition of clinical wastes, 17 healthcare personnel rated it 5 (strongly agree)
and 3 healthcare personnel agree that they possess the basic knowledge to define clinical wastes. As most of
them just graduated from nursing courses, the knowledge is still fresh in their mind. Even though the
knowledge of the clinical wastes is vital, it is through day-to-day work experience that one gain a deeper
sense on this subject.
The following three statements are related in some way as they gauge the respondent’s awareness of the risk
exposed by the clinical wastes during the handling process. On the statement whether they understand the
risk exposed to them, 16 healthcare personnel rated it 5 (strongly agree) and 4 of them agree with it.
Understanding of such risk will increase their alertness in handling clinical wastes and this will improve the
efficiency of the system.
On their understanding of the risk exposed by the clinical wastes to others such as patients or the public 15
healthcare personnel rated it 5 (strongly agree) and 5 of them rated it 4 (agree). The awareness of such risk
should be incorporated into their mind as they need to deal with more and more patients. Risk assessment is
vital because it is a fundamental principle which rarely gets the attention it deserves.
Based on the awareness towards the effects of clinical wastes on environment, 15 healthcare personnel rated it 5
(strongly agree) and 5 healthcare personnel agree with the statement that clinical wastes will have significant
environmental impacts if they are not handled properly.
The next statements touch on waste management outlined by the hospital. The purpose of this is to determine
their familiarity with the policies, procedures and plan of the hospital on waste management. In both
statements 13 healthcare personnel rated it 5 (strongly agree) and 7 healthcare personnel agree that they are
familiar with the waste management policies, procedures and plan. It is vital that the hospital administration
brief the healthcare staffs on these issues.
Based on their awareness of duties and responsibilities in maintaining proper waste management, 15 healthcare
personnel rated it 5 (strongly agree) and 5 healthcare personnel agree with it.
The 8th scaled statement tests the respondents on their ability to identify various types of clinical wastes. 13 of the
healthcare personnel rated it 5 (strongly agree) and 7 healthcare personnel agree that they have the ability to
identify various types of clinical wastes.
The next statement is interrelated with the previous one which gauges the ability of identification. The processes
after the identification are segregation, containment and labeling. The statement will gauge the respondent’s
ability to perform the aforementioned processes. 12 healthcare personnel rated it 5 (strongly agree) and 8
healthcare personnel agree that they possess the ability to perform the tasks mentioned above. The ability to
perform the tasks is gained through work experience dealing with the clinical wastes.
Based on their readiness in handling any accidents related to clinical wastes such as spills or exposure, 6
healthcare personnel rated it 5 (strongly agree) and 14 healthcare personnel agree that they have the
Table 4.2 Perception on Hospital Waste Management
Mean Interpretation
Legend: 0 - 1.25= Poor 1.26-2.5= Less Effective 2.6-3.75= Effective 3.76-5.0= Highly Effec
Table 4.2 shows the Mean Distribution of the Perception on hospital waste management. It shows that the respondents strongly agree on the statements with an over-all mean percentage of 4.09 and
is interpreted as highly effective.
Based on the sufficiency of funds allocated to healthcare waste management 1 healthcare personnel rated it 5 (strongly agree), 12 rated it 4 (agree) and 7 rated it 3 (neither). It has an overall mean of
3.7 and interpreted as effective. The result shows that most of the respondents believe that adequate funds are allocated to the healthcare waste management to be able to sustain.
As to sufficiency of human resources allocated to healthcare waste management; 1 healthcare personnel rated it 5 (strongly agree), 18 rated it 4 (agree) and 1 rated it 3 (neither). It has an overall mean
of 4 and interpreted as highly effective. The result shows that man power allocated to healthcare waste management are sufficient enough to carry out their functions.
Based on the storage area security; 10 healthcare personnel rated it 5 (strongly agree), 8 rated it 4 (agree), 2 rated it 3 (neither). It has an overall mean of 4.4 and interpreted as highly effective. The
results show that the healthcare facility has a suitable secured area for waste storage. The area should offer protection from animals, and should not provide a breeding place or a food source
for insects or rodents.
Practices on waste collection & on-site transportation sufficiency; 2 healthcare personnel rated it 5 (strongly agree), 17 rated it 4 (agree) and 1 rated it 3 (neither). It has an overall mean of 4.05 and
interpreted as highly effective. Waste should not be allowed to accumulate at the point of production. Health care waste collection practices should be designed to achieve an efficient movement
of waste from points of generation to storage or treatment while minimizing the risk to personnel. The result shows that majority of the respondents believe that the practice on waste collection
and transportation is more than adequate for effective performance.
Based on the statement off-site healthcare waste treatment option is satisfactorily offered by the organization; 3 healthcare personnel rated it 5 (strongly agree), 9 rated it 4 (agree), 6 rated it 3 (neither),
2 rated it 2 (disagree). It has an overall mean of 3.65 and interpreted as effective. These results would mean that off-site healthcare waste treatment option is satisfactorily offered by the
organization.
In the security of final disposal site area; 5 healthcare personnel rated it 5 (strongly agree), 8 rated it 4 (agree), 7 rated it 3 (neither). It has an overall mean of 3.9 and interpreted as highly effective.
These results would mean that the respondents believe that the final disposal site area is secured enough.
Based on the statement that the facility has a proper waste management committee who develops a waste management plan for the facility, 4 healthcare personnel rated it 5 (strongly agree), 15 rated
it 4 (agree), 1 rated it 3 (neither). It has an overall mean of 4.15 and interpreted as highly effective. It shows that there is an existing waste management committee designated to develop a
waste management plan.
As to proper written guidelines or a written facility plan on healthcare waste management; 6 healthcare personnel rated it 5 (strongly agree), 13 rated it 4 (agree), 1 rated it 3 (neither). It has an overall
mean of 4.25 and interpreted as highly effective.
In the statement that the hospital provides enough trash bins in every area of the hospital that provides instructions on waste segregation; 7 healthcare personnel rated it 5 (strongly agree) and 13 rated
it 4 (agree). It has an overall mean of 4.35 and interpreted as highly effective. These results would mean that the respondents believe that the hospital provides enough trash bins in every area
of the hospital that provides instructions on waste segregation.
In observation of proper safety measures; 7 health workers rated it 5 (strongly agree), 12 rated it 4 (agree), 1 rated it 3 (neither). It has an overall mean of 4.3 and interpreted as highly effective. These
results would mean that the respondents believe that proper safety measures are being followed by the hospital.
Based on the statement that appropriate attention is given to waste management; 6 healthcare personnel rated it 5 (strongly agree) and 14 rated it 4 agree). It has an overall mean of 4.3 and
interpreted as highly effective.
In the statement that proper record keeping of the clinical wastes is done; 6 healthcare personnel rated it 5 (strongly agree), 8 rated it 4 (agree), 6 rated it 3 (neither). It has an overall mean of 4 and
interpreted as highly effective.
As to the observance of clinical waste management to the standard procedure; 5 healthcare personnel rated it 5 (strongly agree), 14 rated it 4 (agree), 1 rated it 3 (neither). It has an overall mean of 4.2
and interpreted as highly effective.
Regarding proper dissemination of policies regarding waste segregation in a clear manner to visitors and patients; 6 healthcare personnel rated it 5 (strongly agree), 10 rated it 4 (agree), 4 rated it 3
(neither). It has an overall mean of 4.1 and interpreted as highly effective.
Problem V: What is the status of the
neighboring community’s health awareness
and perception on hospital waste
management:
5.1 Health awareness
5.2 Perception
Table 5.1 Awareness on Hospital Waste Management
Mean Interpretation
1. I have the knowledge of the definition of clinical 4.96 Strongly Agree
waste.
2. I have sufficient knowledge about the health risk of 4.93 Strongly Agree
the clinical wastes to the environment.
3. I have sufficient knowledge about the health risk 4.96 Strongly Agree
exposed to myself by the clinical wastes.
4. I have sufficient knowledge about the health risk 4.96 Strongly Agree
exposed to others by the clinical wastes
5. I have sufficient knowledge about the protective 4.83 Strongly Agree
measures against healthcare wastes.
6. I am aware of the possible transmission routes of 4.8 Strongly Agree
diseases from clinical wastes.
7. I am aware that proper disposal of waste is important. 4.86 Strongly Agree
8. I am aware that proper rules and regulations should 4.83 Strongly Agree
be implemented regarding waste management.
Over all Mean 4.89 Highly Effective
Legend: 0 - 1.25= Poor 1.26-2.5= Less Effective 2.6-3.75= Effective 3.76-5.0= Highly Effec
Table 5.1 shows the Mean Distribution of the health awareness of community respondents on
hospital waste management. It shows that the respondents strongly agree on the statements with
an over-all mean percentage of 4.89 and is interpreted as highly effective.
Based on the knowledge of the definition of clinical waste, 29 households rated it 5 (strongly agree);
only 1 household rated it 4 (agree). It has an overall mean of 4.96 and interpreted as highly
effective. These results would mean that majority of the community respondents have the
knowledge about the definition of clinical waste.
The following three statements are related in some way as they gauge the respondent’s awareness
of the risk exposed by the hospital wastes. As for the knowledge about the health risk of the
clinical wastes to the environment, 29 households rated it 5 (strongly agree); only 1 household
rated it 3 (neither). It has an overall mean of 4.93 and interpreted as strongly agree.
Based on the knowledge about the health risk exposed to self, 29 households rated it 5 (strongly
agree); only 1 household rated it 4 (agree). It has an overall mean of 4.96 and interpreted as
strongly agree.
Based on the knowledge about the health risk exposed to others, 29 households rated it 5 (strongly
agree); only 1 household rated it 4 (agree). It has an overall mean of 4.96 and interpreted as
strongly agree.
As for the knowledge about the protective measures against healthcare wastes, 26 households rated
it 5 (strongly agree); 3 households rated it 4 (agree); only 1 household rated it 3 (neither). It has
an overall mean of 4.83 and interpreted as strongly agree. These results would mean that they
are fully aware of the risk involved with hospital wastes and are capable of protecting themselves
against exposure.
In the awareness of the possible transmission routes of diseases from clinical wastes, 25
households rated it 5 (strongly agree); 4 households rated it 4 (agree); only 1 household rated it
3 (neither). It has an overall mean of 4.8 and interpreted as strongly agree.
In the awareness of the importance of proper waste disposal, 26 households rated it 5 (strongly
agree); 4 households rated it 4 (agree). It has an overall mean of 4.86 and interpreted as strongly
agree.
In the awareness of proper implementation of waste disposal according to rules and regulations, 25
households rated it 5 (strongly agree); 5 households rated it 4 (agree). It has an overall mean of
4.83 and interpreted as strongly agree.
Table 5.2 Perception on Hospital Waste Management
Mean Interpretation
1. I am satisfied with how the hospital manages their 4.8 Strongly Agree
waste over the past years.
2. The hospital waste are properly stored or covered. 4.76 Strongly Agree
3. The hospital’s final disposal site area is secured. 4.76 Strongly Agree
4. The hospital conducts proper awareness about 4.66 Strongly Agree
healthcare waste to the community.
5. Staff of the health care establishment is able to 4.53 Strongly Agree
explain to incoming patients and visitors the health care
waste management policy.
6. Hospital wastes are properly contained which 4.7 Strongly Agree
prevents environmental odors from affecting the
neighboring community.
7. Community concerns are properly addressed by the 4.56 Strongly Agree
hospital about healthcare waste management.
Over all Mean 4.68 Highly Effective
Legend: 0 - 1.25= Poor 1.26-2.5= Less Effective 2.6-3.75= Effective 3.76-5.0= Highly Effe
Table 5.2 shows the Mean Distribution of the perception of community respondents on hospital
waste management. It shows that the respondents strongly agree on the statements with an
over-all mean percentage of 4.68 and is interpreted as highly effective.
Based on the perception on their satisfaction of how the hospital manages their waste over the past
years, 24 households rated it 5 (strongly agree); 6 households rated it 4 (agree). It has an
overall mean of 4.80 and interpreted as highly effective. These results would mean that they are
satisfied by how the hospital manages their waste disposal.
In their perception of proper storage and covering of hospital wastes, 24 households rated it 5
(strongly agree); 5 households rated it 4 (agree); only 1 household rated it 3 (neither). It has an
overall mean of 4.76 and interpreted as highly effective.
As for the perception on the security of final disposal site of wastes, 23 households rated it 5
(strongly agree); 7 households rated it 4 (agree). It has an overall mean of 4.76 and interpreted
as highly effective.
As for the conduction of proper awareness about healthcare waste to the community, 24 households
rated it 5 (strongly agree); 2 households rated it 4 (agree); 4 households rated it 3 (neither). It
has an overall mean of 4.66 and interpreted as highly effective. These results would mean that
proper awareness regarding healthcare waste is being perceived by the community.
Based on the perception that staff of the health care establishment is able to explain to incoming
patients and visitors the health care waste management policy, 22 households rated it 5 (strongly
agree); 2 households rated it 4 (agree); 6 households rated it 3 (neither). It has an overall mean
of 4.53 and interpreted as highly effective.
.In proper containment of hospital wastes to prevent environmental odors from affecting the
neighboring community, 21 households rated it 5 (strongly agree); 9 households rated it 4
(agree). It has an overall mean of 4.70 and interpreted as highly effective. These results would
mean that they are not affected with environmental odors from healthcare waste.
As for the Community concerns regarding waste disposal are properly addressed by the hospital, 27
households rated it 5 (strongly agree); 13 households rated it 4 (agree). It has an overall mean
of 4.56 and interpreted as highly effective. These results would mean that concerns of the
community are being addressed by the hospital.
Problem VI: Is there a significant relationship
between health awareness and waste
management practices of health workers.
Table 6.1 Correlation of the Health awareness of health workers and waste
management practices
Variables R Interpretation Hypothesis
Segregation = .306 Not significant Accepted
Table 6.1 shows the Correlation of the health awareness of health workers and waste
management practices. Out of 6 waste management practices; segregation, treatment,
collection and transportation, personal protective equipment and hospital educational programs
failed to establish relationship with health awareness of health workers. Only storage area and
equipment shows relevance to the awareness of health workers which has a level of
significance of =.472. It shows that the hypothesis of this practice is rejected; hence, accepting
the alternative hypothesis that there is a significant relationship between health awareness and
storage area and equipment.
This means health workers gives much awareness on the storage area and equipment
they use. The better is their waste storage practice means that they have higher awareness on
the safety protective measures. Health workers have high level of awareness on the impact of
medical waste on occupational health as well as environmental issues. To minimize the risk to
public health and the environment it is imperative to have a proper storage area and
equipments so that injury and infection can be prevented (WHO, 1999).
Problem VII: Is there a significant relationship
between perception and waste management
practices of health workers.
Table 7.1 Correlation of the perception of health workers and
waste management practices
Table 8.1 shows the Correlation of the health workers profile variables
to their health awareness; all of 2 items from respondents’ profile are
known to have no significant relationship to their health awareness.
These are the following items: Age, which has level of significance of
=.047 (not significant); and length of Service with level of significance
of .168 (not significant). It shows that respondents profile does not
make a difference to their health awareness. Regardless of age and
length of service their health awareness stays the same as most of the
respondents are nursing graduates and the rest are waste handlers so
both have a background on the risk involved with improper waste
disposal.
Tables 8.2 Correlation of the Health workers profile
variables to their Perception.
Variables R Interpretation Hypothesis
Age = .122 Not significant Accepted
Table 8.3 shows the Correlation of the neighboring community profile variables to
their Health awareness, 2 out of 3 items from respondents’ profile variables are known
to have a significant relationship to their health awareness. These are the following
items: Age, which has level of significance of =.357; and Length of residency with the
level of significance of =.448. It also shows that the hypotheses of these items are
rejected. While, Educational attainment is known to have no significance and its
hypothesis is accepted since it is stated that both variables have no significance.
The impression is that the longer their stay in the community and the higher
their age, the greater is their awareness of the need for proper waste disposal to
promote and maintain a healthy environment in the community. It is highly noted that
with increasing age and length of stay comes with knowledge and experience.
Tables 8.4 Correlation of the neighboring community profile
variables to their perception.
Variables R Interpretation Hypothesis
Age = .381 Significant Rejected
Table 8.4 shows the Correlation of the neighboring community profile variables
to their perception, 2 out of 3 items from respondents’ profile variables are known to
have a significant relationship to their health awareness. These are the following
items: Age, which has level of significance of =.381; and Length of residency with
the level of significance of =.567. It also shows that the hypotheses of these items
are rejected. The remaining item Educational attainment is known to have no
significance and its hypothesis is accepted since it is stated that both variables
have no significance.
This finding shows that the longer their stay in the community and the
higher their age makes their perception on hospital waste management greater. It is
highly noted that with increasing age and length of stay comes with knowledge and
experience.
Problem IX: Is there a significant relationship
between the profile of health workers and
their waste management practices:
9.1 Age
9.2 Length of services
Table 9.1 Correlation of the Waste Management Practices to
their Age.
Variables R Interpretation Hypothesis
Segregation = .107 Not significant Accepted
Table 9.1 shows the Correlation of the waste management practices to their age; all of
6 items from respondents’ waste management practices are known to have no
significant relationship to their age. These are the following items: Segregation which
has level of significance of =.107; Treatment which has level of significance of =.274;
Collection/transportation which has level of significance of =.156; Storage area and
equipment with the level of significance of =.111; Personal protective equipment with
level of significance of =.152; Hospital programs with level of significance of =.226. It
also shows that the hypotheses of these items are accepted since it stated that both
variables have no significance. Respondents age does not make a difference to the
waste management practices, since majority of the respondents are generally young.
Table 9.2 Correlation of the Waste Management Practices to
their Length of service.
Variables R Interpretation Hypothesis
Segregation = .125 Not significant Accepted
Table 9.1 shows the Correlation of the waste management practices to their Length of
service; all of 6 items from respondents’ waste management practices are known to have
no significant relationship to their age. These are the following items: Segregation which
has level of significance of =.125; Treatment which has level of significance of =.204;
Collection/transportation which has level of significance of =.212; Storage area and
equipment with the level of significance of =.241; Personal protective equipment with level
of significance of =.096; Hospital programs with level of significance of =.327. It also shows
that the hypotheses of these items are accepted since it stated that both variables have no
significance. Length of service does not make a difference to the waste management
practices, since majority of the respondents are young their length of service and
experience are also not that long.
Chapter V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
3.4 The respondent’s insight towards waste storage area and equipments
has an over-all mean percentage of 4.18 translated as highly effective. 4
out of 5 items are rated with scales of 3.76-5.0, which means that proper
waste storage materials are disseminated in different areas in the
hospital. Containers for sharps are all puncture-proof and properly fitted
with covers. However, most of the hospital can’t provide enough funds for
the container bags. For this reason, containers for waste are not
immediately replaced.
Findings of the Study
3.5 The respondent’s insight towards personal protective
equipments/measures has an over-all mean percentage of 3.45
translated as effective which means that the respondents find the
availability of appropriate personal protective equipment to be adequate.
However, as observed waste handlers lack the use of protective gears
which is clearly given less importance.
6.1 Health awareness in relation to waste management practices: 1 item from the
independent variable, Waste storage area and equipments is known to have
significant relationship to health awareness. On the other hand, 5 items which are
Waste segregation, Treatment done to waste, Collection and transportation of
waste, Personal protective equipments and measures, and Hospital educational
programs do not show any significance.
1. It was discovered during an interview with their hospital waste manager that they
practice the color-coding system but is not sufficient enough to sustain it due to lack of
budget and supplies. However, they were able to develop means on how to manage
their healthcare waste through separation of infectious waste from non- infectious
waste.
2. It is observed that waste handlers lack the use of protective gears which is clearly
given less importance. Appropriate personal protective equipment in handling waste
such as heavy-duty gloves, and boots are not made available. These findings suggest
that readily available personal protective equipments are crucial to ensure their use.
Protective measures such as soap are provided but not regularly, and immunization
against hepatitis b and tetanus infection are not provided.
3. Garbage bags are not immediately replaced with new ones of the same type after
disposal of waste because there are not enough funds for the container bags.
CONCLUSION
4. Respondent’s have undergone training regarding hospital waste
management. However, in an interview with their hospital waste manager,
it was discovered that they only train and educate newly hired employees.
5. Although wastes are properly sorted in the hospital, the local government
garbage collectors do not follow proper segregation and disposes it in the
city dump site - a practice that defeats the purpose of waste segregation
in hospitals.
6. Waste storage area and equipments is known to have a significant
relationship to the health awareness of health workers.
7. Collection and transportation of waste, Waste storage area and
equipments, Personal protective equipments and measures, and Hospital
educational programs are known to have significant relationship to health
workers perception.
8. Neighboring community profile variables namely age and length of
residence are known to have a significant relationship with their health
awareness.
9. Neighboring community profile variables namely age and length of
residence are known to have a significant relationship with their
perception on hospital waste management.
Recommendations
Considering the results and conclusions made, the
researchers offer the following recommendations:
1. Hospitals should conduct regular orientation on the
hospitals waste segregation and waste management
policies to patients and new staff.
2. Ensure worker safety through education, training and
proper personal protective equipments.
3. Reactivate committees and hold monthly meetings to
discuss and address issues related to updates on
waste management and environmental health
awareness.
Recommendations
4. Ensure proper dissemination of information through
supervisors/managers of each department and discussed to
their members. Hold event such as Waste Management Week
or an Infection Control Week once a year.
5. Consider training for all garbage collectors by the DOH, because
there is a need for education as to the hazards of improper
disposal of healthcare waste.
6. The city government should propose a separate dumpsite for all
healthcare wastes and set limit to public access to decrease the
risk of epidemics of infectious diseases. Other recommendation
for future research would be to determine the waste generation
rate of hospitals in Iligan City.
Gregorio T. Lluch Hospital Waste Management
Gregorio T. Lluch Hospital Waste Management
Gregorio T. Lluch Hospital Waste Management
Gregorio T. Lluch Hospital Waste Management
St. Mary’s Maternity and Children’s Hospital