Advertisements

Quantity Surveying Project Topics

Performance Evaluation of Primary Health Care (PHC) Buildings in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT)

Performance Evaluation of Primary Health Care (PHC) Buildings in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT)

Advertisements

Performance Evaluation of Primary Health Care (PHC) Buildings in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT)

Chapter One

Aim andย Objectives

Aim

This study aims to evaluate the perception of users on the performance of selected PHC buildings in the FCT with a view to assess how well these healthcare buildings complies with best practices and help in the healing process of patients.

Objectives

The objectives of this study are to:

  1. Identify the standard performance criteria of healthcare buildings that aids healing of patients and positively influence users of PHC
  2. Evaluate the perception of users on the performance of selected PHC
  3. Compare the performance of the PHC studied in ii with the standards identified in i above to determine the areas requiring
  4. Outline specific steps to remedy the gaps in ii above to ensure the effective performance of the PHC buildings in accordance with the global

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

Improvedย healthย careย services,ย especiallyย theย Primaryย Healthย Careย (PHC)ย isย anย importantย area of concern for governments in developing countries. This is because improvement in PHC services (accessibility, availability, affordability, acceptability and adequacy) will pave the way for advancement in the quality of lives of the people (Shrestha,ย 2010).

Thisย presentย researchย studyย seeksย toย conductย aย post-occupancyย evaluationย onย theย performance of PHC buildings in the Federal Capital Territory, with a view to provide records about their state (functionality, build quality and impact). This is because it is an established fact that patientโ€™s health outcome have direct relationship with the design and environment of the health facilities where they are treated (Ibrahim, 2011; Dandajeh, 2011). This literature reviews attempt to support and provide the conceptual basis, research findings and policy review on this subject of BPE, healing environment and patientโ€™s health outcome in the PHC level.

ย Buildingย Performance

The Building Services Research and Information Association (BSRIA) (2011), Dandajeh (2011) and Jiboye 2012 define Building Performance Evaluation (BPE) as a form of Post-ย Occupancy Evaluation (POE) which can be used at any point in a building’s life to assess energy performance, occupant comfort and make comparisons with design targets. Furthermore, BSRIA findings suggested that there is significant evidence that buildings do not perform as well as was anticipated at the design stage; and the difference between anticipated and actual performance is known as the performance gap.

Building Performance Evaluation (BPE)

Advertisements

To support the continual improvement of the construction and procurement process, Post Project Evaluation (PPE) and Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) of building programmesย are mandatory (Scottish Government, 2012). BPE originated in the 1960s, and in 1964 theย Royal Instituteย ofย Britishย Architectsย (RIBA)ย planย ofย workย wasย establishedย toย includeย thisย BPEย aspect which enables architects to formally carry out post-project review of their design. But the drawback of this BPE then was that it did not capture the feedback from occupants of the buildings or in-use energy consumption. In 1972, a revision of the RIBA plan of work was madeย andย itย includedย theย feedbackย fromย occupantsย ofย building,ย henceย theย termย Postย Occupancy Evaluation (POE) was used. Therefore, Building Performance Evaluation (BPE) is a form of Post-Occupancyย Evaluationย (POE)ย whichย canย beย usedย atย anyย pointย inย aย building’sย lifeย toย assess energy performance, occupant comfort and make comparisons with designย targets.

Building Performance Evaluation Methodology

The Building Services Research and Information Association (BSRIA) (2011) has reported the use of various techniques for conducting POE studies by PROBE using a sequential step or methodology. The identified eight steps for conducting POE are:

Step 1: Understanding the building being evaluated. Here, the building design intent and technical performance specification for the building systems aresoughtย  be understood by the assessor. These information are contained in the brief and most time sought from the facilities team.

 

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

To achieve the three research objectives in chapter one, research methods and methodology seeks to provide the techniques employed for data collection, analysis, the strategy of choosing the methods and linking them with the results (Alalouch, 2009).

Ibrahim (2007); De Jager (2007) and Dandajeh (2011) have all examined the use of adopting standard data collection instrument used in different places. In this case the AEDET and ASPECT evaluation toolkits for health care buildings. Their conclusions wereย thatย ifย aย validย questionnaireย existsย itย shouldย notย beย alteredย significantlyย asย thisย affects theย validityย andย reliabilityย ofย theย tool,ย butย minorย adaptationย toย theย languageย isย oftenย needed in order to make it understandable to the local culture or context. Therefore, the methods and methodology used for this study were tailored and adapted to the Nigerian context, especiallyย theย Nationalย Primaryย Healthย Careย Developmentย Agencyโ€™sย Minimumย Standards for Primary Health Care inย Nigeria.

Researchย Design

A descriptive cross-sectional survey research design method is suitable and used for this study. Asika (2010) and Osuala (2005) had advocated that a cross-sectional descriptive survey method is used for research studies where the behavior of one or more of the variables are to be observed all at once in one shot study without interference, manipulation or control.

Studyย Population

Theย populationย ofย studyย isย aย censusย ofย allย itemsย orย subjectsย thatย possessย theย characteristics or that have knowledge of the phenomenon being studied (Asika, 2010). The quality of healthcare design and its environment imparts on the medical staff, patients and visitors ofย PHCs.ย Therefore,ย theย medicalย staff,ย patientsย andย visitorsย areย theย targetย populationย across the six PHC buildings used as the study site for this research study. The medical staff comprise of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, community health extension workers (CHEW) andย laboratoryย scientists.ย Whileย theย patientsย consideredย areย bothย theย outย patientsย andย those on admission. The visitors are the people visiting the PHC either to see the patients on admission, or as carers to the patients at the time of conducting thisย research.

Sample Size and Samplingย Procedure

ย Sampling Frame

The available records of the target population from each of the selected PHCs was usedย to draw a sample frame for this study. This is shown in tables 3.1 โ€“ย 3.4.

CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter contains the detailed presentation of the data collected from the questionnaires. Theseย dataย wereย furtherย analyzedย andย discussedย inย anย attemptย toย achieveย theย aimย andย objectives of thisย study.

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ย Summary ofย Findings

The aim of this study as identified in section 1.4 was to evaluate the perception of the users on the performance of PHC buildings in the FCT with a view to assess how well these healthcare buildings complies with best practices and aid the healing process of patients. To achieve this aim, four specific objectives were identified also in section 1.4. And to achieve the aim and objectives, this study utilized adapted version of AEDET Evolution toolkit to assess the performance of six PHC buildings in the FCT. A summary of the findings are provided as follows:

Tencriterionย whichย wereย summarizedย intoย threeย criteriaย ofย Functionality,ย Buildย quality and Impact were identified from literature as standard healthcare performance parameters that aids patients outcome and positively influence other users towards PHC services. These criterion are: Use, Access, Space, Performance, Engineering, Construction, Character and Innovation, Form and Materials, Urban and Social Integration,ย andย Staffย andย Patientย ย Theย firstย objectiveย whichย isย toย identify thoseย standardย buildingย performanceย criteriaย thatย aidsย healingย ofย patientsย andย positively influence users of PHC buildings is achieved by theseย findings.

The second and third objectives of this study which is to evaluate users perception of the performance of selected PHC buildings and compare them with identified standards was achieved by the followingfindings:

The functionality of the assessed PHC buildings which was addressed by the criteriaofย use,ย access,ย andย spaceย wasย generallyย perceivedย toย beย poor. It meansย that the way the PHC buildings are designed do not provide enough space for the medical staff to perform their duties and operate the healthcare systems and facilities housed in them. Users of the PHC buildings have difficulties in moving around the premises and its surroundings do not provide variety of means of transport. The rooms and space sizes provided in the building are not enough to handle the projected workloads (beds, waiting spaces, storage, etc). Parking areas for visitors are not adequate and well sign-posted, and the routes are not well litย at night. The consequences are that medical staff are hindered from performingย their duties of effective and efficient services to patients and will be stressed with workloads among other problems. Also, this will cause difficulties for patients, especially those with disabilities to have access to the premises which in turn causes stress and affects their satisfaction of the building. Visitors will beย stressed and there are tendencies for accidents around the PHC

The build quality of the assessed PHC buildings which was addressed by the criteria of performance and engineering, was generally perceived to be poor. It means that the PHC buildings are not easy to move around by staff and carry out activitiesin their departments, it is difficult to clean because of the way it i

designed and they do not have durable finishes. The medical staff respondents specifically do not agree that the PHC are fit for their purpose and that the components of the building are of high quality. Also, there are no emergency backup systems to minimize disruptions during work operations. The consequences are that patients will not receive the appropriate attention, services andย treatmentsย requiredย fromย theย medicalย staff.ย Thisย isย becauseย theย moraleย ofย these medical staff are low due to limited spaces to carry out their activities and lack of enough equipment to workย with.

The Impact of the assessed PHC buildings to users was addressed by the criteria of Character and Innovation, Form and Materials, and Urban and Social Integration.Itย wasย generallyย perceivedย thatย theย locationsย ofย theย PHCย buildingsย was goodย andย areย sensitiveย toย neighborsย andย passers-by.ย Butย theย PHCย buildingsย areย not interesting to look at and without artworks; they do not raise patientโ€™s hope to be cared for and reassuring atmosphere. The consequences are that these buildings are not serene and conducive for the healing process of

The staff and patient environment of the assessed PHC buildings was generally perceived to be poor. Patients in PHC buildings cannot choose to have visual privacy,do not have private place to be with others, cannot be alone and the toilet / bathrooms are not located logically and convenient to use. The spaces where patients spend time do not have enough windows for clear views and the premises are not calming and interesting to them. Patients and staff do not have access to usable landscaped areas to easily see plants, vegetation and other features. There areย noย provisionsย forย varietiesย ofย artificialย lightingย patternsย thatย areย appropriateย for day and night in the PHC buildings and users cannot easily control the artificial lighting and temperature even though they can easily open the windows /ย doors.

Conclusions

Healthcare buildings are said to aid healing and improve the outcomes of patients when they provide facilities that supports healing process such as provision of privacy, well positioned adequate windows, plants, landscape, sound insulation between rooms, durable finishes, art work, well defined and attractive lobbies, receptionย andย subย waitingย areas.ย Theseย willย createย sereneย andย conduciveย environment for the hospital buildingย users.

Findings from this study reveals that the design of PHC buildings in the FCT is such that the provided spaces, use and access are inadequate. These deficiencies constrains and restrict the activities of the medical staff who carry out healthcare functions inside and around the building. In turn, health services to patients are hindered and visitors are dissatisfied with PHC services and its environment. Discoveries from this study concludes that the PHC building components are not of high quality, do not have durable finishing and the engineering systems do not have back-ups to accommodate workloads during power outages. These in turn lowers the morale of medical staff due to limited spaces to carry out their activities and lack of enough equipment to work with.

Evidencesย fromย theย findingsย inย thisย studyย confirmsย thatย althoughย theย locationsย ofย theย PHC buildings are sensitive to neighbors and passers-by, they are not interesting to look atย and without artworks. They do not raise patientโ€™s hope to be cared for, multiple occupancy rooms, poor bathroom, toilets facilities and lack of access to usable landscaped areas to easily see plants, vegetation and other features are among the common problems associated with these PHC studied. The consequences are that these healthcare buildings are not serene and conducive for the healing process ofย patients.

This research study has contributed to knowledge by providing a record of the performance of PHC buildings towards the healing of patients. In addition, it has also provided a toolkit for PHC building performance evaluation in Nigeria and shown that the provisions for PHC facilities by the National Primary Healthcare Development Agencyโ€™s (NPHCDA) Minimum Standards for Primary Healthcare is not sufficient to attract patronage from users.

Recommendations

Basedย onย theย findingsย andย conclusionsย fromย thisย study,ย theย followingย recommendations areย made:

Themainย recommendationย isย thatย theย Nationalย Primaryย Healthcareย Development Agencyโ€™sย (NPHCDA)ย Minimumย Standardsย forย Primaryย Healthcareย andย theย Ward Minimumย Healthcareย Packageย uponย whichย theย designย ofย PHCย inย Nigeriaย isย based should be updated and reviewed to reflect modern trends in healthcare architecture.

The Minimum Standards for Primary Healthcare document should integrate the following specific recommendations in future designs of PHC buildings in the FCT:

Separate parking for disabled people should be provided close to the entrances of the building. This will assist them in having full access to thehospital

Pedestrian access routes in the PHC buildings should be constructed to be attractive and suitable for wheelchair users and people with other

The number of PHC users have increased and as such, adequate numberofย equipmentย storageย spacesย shouldย beย providedย forย theย use of the medical

Toilets/bathrooms should be located logically, conveniently and discretely in the building to avoid bad odour from human

Adequate sized windows for clear views should be provided in the staff and patientโ€™s areas because it is established fact that people prefer places with proper

Lobbies, sub reception areas and sub waiting areas should be designed to be attractive and well defined particularly in staff and patients

Provision for art, plants and flowers in the building should be encouraged and this will make the building serene and conducive for healing

The engineering equipment provided in the PHC buildings should haveback-upย systemsย andย provisionย ofย alternativeย sourcesย ofย power to enhance the services rendered to patient by the medical

As a recommendation for further studies, an energy measurement performance evaluation of PHC buildings using NHS Environmental Assessment toolkit (NEAT) should be

REFERENCES

  • Abbas, M. Y., & Ghazali, R. (2011). Physical Environment: The major determinant towards theย creationย ofย aย healingย environment.ย ELSEVIER:ย SciVerse,ย Procediaย ย Socialย andย Behavioral Sciences 30ย (2011).
  • Abbas, Y. M., & Ghazali, R. (2012). Quality Physical Environment in Paediatric Wards:Designerโ€™s Creation Versus Usersโ€™ Satisfaction. SciVerse ScienceDirect: Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 35 ( 2012 ), 221 โ€“ 229.
  • Abbaszadeh, S., Zagreus, L., Lehrer, D., & Huizenga, C. (2006). Occupant satisfaction with indoorย environmentalย qualityย inย greenย buildings.ย Proceedingsย ofย Healthyย Buildingsย ,ย 365-370.
  • Abdulraheem, I. S., Olapipo, A. R., & Amodu, M. O. (2012). Primary health care services in Nigeria:ย Criticalย issuesย andย strategiesย forย enhancingย theย useย byย theย ruralย communities.ย Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology Vol. 4(1),ย 5-13.
  • Adeyemo, D. O. (2005). Local Government and Health Care Delivery in Nigeria A Case Study. J. Hum. Ecol., 18(2):, 149-160.
  • Alalouch, C. R. (2009). Hospital Ward Design: Implications for Space and Privacy.
  • Ananth, S. (2011). Hospitals Creating Optimal Healing Environments. Exlore: Journal of Science and Healing.
  • Ananth, S., & Smith, K. (2008). Hospital Initiatives: A Pilot Survey Of Healing Programs.
  • Exlore: Journal of Science and Healing, 333-334.
  • Anjali , J. (2006). The Impact of Light on Outcomes in Healthcare Settings. The Centre for Health Designs.
  • Asika, N. (2010). Research Methodology in the Behavioural Sciences. Longman Nigeria Plc.
  • Asuzu, M. C. (2004). The necessity for a health systems reform in Nigeria. Journal of Community Medicine & Primary Health Care. 16 (1),ย 1-3.
  • Atata,ย R.ย F.,ย Ibrahim,ย Y.ย K.,ย Akanbi,ย A.ย A.,ย Olurinola,ย P.ย F.,ย &ย Sani,ย A.ย (2006).ย Prevelenceย of Nosocomialย Infectionsย inย aย tertiaryย Healthcareย Institutionsย inย Nigeria:ย Aย Retrospectiveย Study. Journal of Applied and Environmental Sciences, 22 – 215.
  • Choi , J.-H., Beltran, L., & Kim, H.-S. (2012). Impacts of indoor daylight environments on patientย averageย lengthย ofย stayย (ALOS)ย inย aย healthcareย facility.ย Buildingย andย Environmentย 50ย , 65-75.
  • Codinhoto, R., Tzortzopoulos, P., Kagioglou, M., Aouad, G., & Cooper, R. (2008). The Effects of The Built Environment On Health Outcomes: Research Report. HaCIRIC: Health and Care Infrastructure Research and Innovation.

Advertisements

WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!