Quality of Life and Interpersonal Communication among Nursing Professionals

Ravina Tandon¹, Dr. Pratima Kaushik²*

¹M.A Clinical Psychology, Amity Institute of Psychology and Allied Sciences, Amity University, Noida-125, U.P.

²Assistant Professor, Amity Institute of Psychology and Allied Sciences, Amity University, Noida-125, U.P.

*Corresponding Author Email: pkaushik@amity.edu; pratima.pandey@yahoo.co.in

ABSTRACT:

Background and aim: Nursing is a profession that can be both rewarding and challenging at the same time. With the numerous progressions in healthcare facilities and structures that are happening today and, in turn, affecting nurses, it is progressively vital to understand the factors affecting the nurses. For such reasons the study aimed to assess the quality of life and interpersonal communication among nursing professionals.

Hypothesis: For the present study the following hypothesis were made 1) there would be a significant difference between the quality of life (QOL) of senior and junior nursing professionals. 2) There would be significant difference between the interpersonal communication (IPC) of senior and junior nursing professionals. 3) There will be a significant relationship between quality of life and interpersonal communication among junior nurses. 4) There will be a significant relationship between quality of life and interpersonal communication among senior nurses.

Methods: the study population consisted of 120 registered nurses, purposive sampling was used to select the samples, and data were gathered administering background Performa scales on quality of life and interpersonal communication inventory. Results: the correlation between quality of life and interpersonal communication among nurses age ranging from 20-39. Correlation came out to be -0.387, which is significant. The correlation between quality of life and interpersonal communication among nurses age ranging from 40-59, showed 0.176 correlation coefficient, although there is positive correlation between quality of life and interpersonal communication among senior nursing professionals but it is not significant. When comparison was made between the experience of quality of life among senior and junior nurses, age ranging from 20 to 39 and 40 to 59 respectively. We can find that mean score of junior nurses on quality of life scale was 86.9 (SD= 6.25) and mean score of senior nurses on quality of life scale was 86.44 (SD= 5.95). T-test value was 0.824 which is not significant. Similarly when comparison was made between the experience of interpersonal communication among senior and junior nurses, age ranging from 20 to 39 and 40 to 59 respectively. From the table we can find that mean score of junior nurses on interpersonal communication was 67.5 (SD= 13.61) and mean score of senior nurses on interpersonal communication was 68.54 (SD= 12.43). T-test value was 0.994 which is not significant.

Conclusion and recommendations: significant association was found between quality of life and interpersonal communication age ranging from 20-39, The correlation between quality of life and interpersonal communication among nurses age ranging from 40-59, showed 0.176 correlation coefficient, i.e. positive correlation between quality of life and interpersonal communication among senior nursing professionals but it is not significant. The findings indicate urgent need of actions that can be taken by hospital administrations to improve the QOL and interpersonal communication of nurses.

INTRODUCTION:

According to Ward, 2014 nursing is a profession that can be both rewarding and challenging at the same time. Since nurses represent the majority of the workforce, they are often targeted by hospitals as a way to cut down their healthcare costs. Nurses play a very important role in the medical industry. Known for their most caring traits, nurses have now developed their own reputation and identity in the health care area. But despite being recognized and valued, nurses still have to face several difficulties and challenges in their profession. The term quality of life tends to cover a variety of areas such as physical, mental, psychological, social and spiritual well being, personal functioning and general limitations. The concept of quality of life has a solid bearing on mental health and mental health can give quality of life (SEARO, 1984) Quality of life of a person of course would be influenced by various huge positive and negative life occasions. The family and the environment of the family overall may be one gathering of components that could conceivably adversely influence the nature of family life (Verma, 1986). The way a family confronts different circumstances and adapts to related issues is liable to mirror the nature of family life which straightforwardly influences the personal satisfaction of different relatives. Communication we can characterize the exchange of information, contemplations and sentiments among individuals utilizing speech or different means. Remedial practice includes the oral communication of public health officials and medical attendants from one viewpoint and the patient or his relatives on the other. It is a two way process. The patient passes on their reasons for alarm and concerns to the nurses and helps them make a right nursing judgment. The nurse takes the data and thus transmits other data to the patient with attentiveness and delicacy as to the way of the infection and advises with treatment and a restoration arrangement for wellbeing advancement. Effective communication requires a comprehension of the patient and the encounters they express. It requires abilities and all the while the earnest plan of the nurses to comprehend what concerns the patient. To comprehend the patient just is not sufficient however the nurses must likewise pass on the message that he/she is understandable and adequate. It is an impression of the information of the participants, the way they think and feel and their capabilities (Papagiannis A 2010).

Those who work in the nursing field understand the vital role of having excellent interpersonal communication skills and the ability to truly listen to their patient and coworkers so that they can provide the best care to their patients and keep the doctors, nurses, medical specialists and other healthcare providers informed about the treatment and care of individual patients. Improper interpersonal communication leads to negative repercussions for the patient as well as for professionals. For the present study the following objectives were formulated to study the difference (if any) between senior and junior nurses on the dimension of Quality of life and to assess the difference between senior and junior nurses on the dimension of Interpersonal communication.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE:

Yu, Hung, Wu, Tsai, Wang, Lin (2008) led a cross-sectional examination to investigate the Quality of life and employment fulfillment and their connections among nurses. Members were 1,020 nurses who had worked for more than six months at seven healing centers in Yunlin and Chiayi provinces. Nine hundred and eleven polls were returned, with a reaction rate of 89.3%. The poll included three sections: demographic attributes and workplace, personal satisfaction, and occupation satisfaction. The results demonstrated that variables influencing employment fulfillment were backing from managers, number of patients watched over amid day time, wellbeing status, stress from evolving units, religion, work push, and working unit's suitability to one's interests(R(2) = 53.5%). Variables influencing personal satisfaction were occupation fulfillment, bliss of life, wellbeing status, work stretch, and age (R (2) = 51.0%). There was a positive relationship between employment fulfillment and personal satisfaction. Study presumed that nursing managers ought to make better workplaces to enhance nurses occupation fulfillment and encourage their retention in the nursing profession.

Weick (1990), as well as Cocklin (2004), discovered increasing situational stress led to more formal, progressive flow of information or speech exchange, with less input from the team and more formal communication. These two examinations from a aviation point of view may be compared with the patient handoff, which comes as one nurse may be winding down what may have been a extremely stressful shift, and the other is equipping up for her/his turn. In the event that the handoff happens in a stressful time, sharing of important persistent information may get to be more hierarchical in nature – more of a one way information transfer from the person perceived to be in an authoritative position, than a two-way trade of information between equivalent associates. This restricted stream of data may diminish opportunities to pick up errors or false hypothesis.

LeSergent, Haney (2005) had embraced a study to recognize stressful situation of rural hospital nurses and to inspect their stress level in connection to coping strategies, especially social support in UK. Eighty-seven medical attendants, matured 25-65 years, from rural hospitals finished the study. Results demonstrated that while the stressors were like those recognized in the writing for urban nurses and urban nursing understudies, the recurrence and criticality varied. Results additionally demonstrated a positive relationship between nursing stress and emotion focused and in the middle of stress and social backing.

Lu, While, Barriball (2005) far reaching audit of the empherical literature review revealed that nurses job satisfaction is identified with working conditions, connections inside the work put, the work itself, applause, recognition, compensation, improvement toward oneself and advancement, obligation and employer stability and initiative styles and authoritative arrangements. Medical caretaker's employment stress and hierarchical duty have solid associations with job satisfaction.

METHOD:

The aim of the study was to assess the quality of life and interpersonal communications among nursing professionals. To study 60 junior and 60 senior registered nurses were taken age ranging from 20-39 and 40-59. For this purposive sampling was used to select the samples, data was collected using questionnaires of quality of life by B.L. Dubey, Padma Dwivedi and S.K. Verma and interpersonal communication by Millard J. Bienvenu, Sr.

For the study the following statistics were used: Firstly the sum of all the data was taken out, after that mean and standard deviation was calculated. Then correlation was taken out and lastly T-test was calculated, the gathered data were coded and summarized in excel sheet and then analyzed.

RESULT:

Table 1.0 correlation between quality and interpersonal communication among junior nursing professionals (age range 20-39)

Age (N=60)

Tools

Mean

Correlation

20-39

QOL

86.9

6.25

-0.386*

20-39

IPC

67.5

13.61

Table 1.0 show the correlation between quality of life and interpersonal communication among junior nurses whose age ranging from 20-39 years. From the table it is clear that mean scores of quality of life among junior nurses was 86.9 (SD=6.25) and mean scores of interpersonal communication was 67.5 (SD= 13.61). The correlation coefficient was -0.386, which is significant at 0.01 levels. This suggests that quality of life and interpersonal communication among junior nurses was negatively significant, i.e., when quality of life is high, their interpersonal communication is low. The hypothesis suggesting that there will be a significant relationship between quality of life and interpersonal communication among junior nurses is accepted.

Table 1.1 correlations between quality and interpersonal communication among senior nursing professionals (age range 40-59)

Age(60)

Tools

Mean

Correlation

40-59

QOL

86.44

5.95

0.176

40-59

IPC

68.54

12.43

In table 1.1 show the correlation between quality of life and interpersonal communication among senior nurses whose age ranging from 39-59 years. From the table it is clear that mean scores of quality of life among senior nurses was 86.44 (SD=5.95) and mean scores of interpersonal communication was 68.54 (SD= 12.43). The correlation coefficient was 0.176, which is not significant. This suggests that quality of life and interpersonal communication among senior nurses was positively i.e., when quality of life is high, their interpersonal communication is also high. The hypothesis suggesting that there will be a significant relationship between quality of life and interpersonal communication among senior nurses is rejected.

Table 1.2 Comparison between senior and junior nurses on experience of quality of life.

Age

Mean

T-test

20-39

86.9

6.25

0.824

40-59

86.44

5.95

Table 1.2 compares the experience of quality of life among senior and junior nurses, age ranging from 20 to 39 and 40 to 59 respectively. From the table we can find that mean score of junior nurses on quality of life scale was 86.9 (SD= 6.25) and mean score of senior nurses on quality of life scale was 86.44 (SD= 5.95). T-test value was 0.824, which is not significant. This suggests that there is no significant difference between junior and senior nurses in experience of quality of life.

Table 1.3 Comparison between senior and junior nurses on experience of interpersonal communication.

Age

Mean

T-test

20-39

67.5

13.61

0.994

40-59

68.54

12.43

Table 1.3 compares the experience of interpersonal communication among senior and junior nurses, age ranging from 20 to 39 and 40 to 59 respectively. From the table we can find that mean score of junior nurses on interpersonal communication was 67.5 (SD= 13.61) and mean score of senior nurses on interpersonal communication was 68.54 (SD= 12.43). T-test value was 0.994 which is not significant. This suggests that there is no significant difference between junior and senior nurses in experience of interpersonal communication.

DISCUSSION:

The present research was carried out to determine the quality of life and interpersonal communication among nurse’s professionals. The sample size taken was 120 nurses’ professionals, age ranging from 20-39 and 40-59, all nurses completed and returned the questionnaire. In the present study the average of quality of life of nurses of age ranging from 20-39 came out to be 86.6, where as the average of interpersonal communication of nurses came out to be 68.5. Average of quality of life of nurse’s age ranging from 40-59 came out to be 86.44, whereas the average of interpersonal communication among nurses was 68.5.

Firstly, the correlation was taken out between quality of life and interpersonal communication among nurses age ranging from 20-39. Correlation came out to be -0.387, which is significant. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). This shows that the relationship between quality of life and interpersonal communication is inversely proportional i.e. quality of life is high and interpersonal communication is low. The results of this showed that younger nurses with less work experience, lower professional titles, and lower working positions experienced low interpersonal communication. Other possible reason could be that young nurses quality of life is better, but the work stress, their responsibilities to deal with different types of patient could have led to deterioration in their interpersonal communication, this could be seen as a venting out process by the young nurses, because they are constantly exposed with individuals who are suffering from different ailments, on the other hand they have to handle the caregivers as well, nurses are expected to utilize effective interpersonal communication, but nurses are bombarded with so much work pressure and other responsibilities that at a certain point they lose their temper and which impacts their interpersonal communication with not only the patient and caregivers but also with other colleagues.

When correlation was taken out between quality of life and interpersonal relationship among nurses age ranging from 40-59, showed 0.176 correlation coefficient, although there is positive correlation between quality of life and interpersonal communication among senior nursing professionals but it is not significant. More established senior nurses with a more noteworthy experience and a higher expert title in nursing experienced higher quality of life and interpersonal communication could be identified with what they have attained to in their lives. They may have accomplished a decent position, a higher professional title as they picked up experience, and they may have had a more noteworthy chance to begin (or have begun) a family. They may have earned the admiration from younger nurses as they ascended the stepping stool. In another words, they may have met the vast majority of the expectations of the society for being successful, also now they don’t have the working pressure they used to have in the starting of their jobs.

When comparison was made between the experience of quality of life among senior and junior nurses, age ranging from 20 to 39 and 40 to 59 respectively. We can find that mean score of junior nurses on quality of life scale was 86.9 (SD= 6.25) and mean score of senior nurses on quality of life scale was 86.44 (SD= 5.95). T-test value was 0.824 which is not significant. This suggests that there is no significant difference between junior and senior nurses in experience of quality of life.

Similarly when comparison was made between the experience of interpersonal communication among senior and junior nurses, age ranging from 20 to 39 and 40 to 59 respectively. From the table we can find that mean score of junior nurses on interpersonal communication was 67.5 (SD= 13.61) and mean score of senior nurses on interpersonal communication was 68.54 (SD= 12.43). T-test value was 0.994 which is not significant. This suggests that there is no significant difference between junior and senior nurses in experience of interpersonal communication.

CONCLUSION:

In the present study the average quality of life of nurses of age ranging from 20-39 turned out to be 86.6, where as the average of interpersonal communication of nurses turned out to be 68.5. Average of quality of life of medical attendants age extending from 40-59 turned out to be 86.44, though the average of interpersonal communication among attendants was 68.5.

The correlation between quality of life and interpersonal communication among junior medical attendants whose age extending from 20-39 years. The mean scores of quality of life among junior attendants was 86.9 (SD=6.25) and mean scores of interpersonal communication was 67.5 (SD= 13.61). The relationship coefficient was -0.386, which is significant at 0.01 level. This proposes that quality of life and interpersonal communication among junior medical attendants was negatively significant, i.e., when quality of life is high, their interpersonal communication is low. The hypothesis suggesting that there will be a significant relationship between quality of life and interpersonal communication among junior medical attendants is accepted.

The relationship between quality of life and interpersonal communication among senior attendants whose age range from 39-59 years. The mean scores of quality of life among senior medical attendants was 86.44 (SD=5.95) and mean scores of interpersonal communication was 68.54 (SD= 12.43). The relationship coefficient was 0.176, which is not significant. This suggests that quality of life and interpersonal communication among senior medical attendants was positive i.e., when quality of life is high, their interpersonal communication is also high. The hypothesis suggesting that there will be a significant relationship between quality of life and interpersonal communication among senior attendants is rejected.

Comparison was made between the experience of quality of life among senior and junior medical attendants, age running from 20 to 39 and 40 to 59 respectively. We can find that mean score of junior medical caretakers on quality of life scale was 86.9 (SD= 6.25) and mean score of senior attendants on quality of life scale was 86.44 (SD= 5.95). T-test value was 0.824, which is not significant. This suggests that there is no noteworthy significant difference between junior and senior medical attendants in experience of quality of life. Similarly comparison of experience of interpersonal communication among senior and junior medical attendants, age running from 20 to 39 and 40 to 59 respectively. The mean score of junior medical attendants on interpersonal communication was 67.5 (SD= 13.61) and mean score of senior medical caretakers on interpersonal communication was 68.54 (SD= 12.43). T-test value was 0.994 which is not significant. This proposes that there is no significant distinction between junior and senior medical attendants in experience of interpersonal communication.

Quality of life and interpersonal communication is an important components of individuals work life, it is found that there are many factors that affect the quality of life and interpersonal communication of nurses. Extreme work burden require consideration from administration particularly in light of the fact that safe workplaces are lawfully needed. Lessening the impact of ecological stressors, for example, workload, staffing, and assisting nurses to adjust priorities may be viable interventions. Endeavors to manage the sources of stress and their results need to be made at individual, interpersonal, and hierarchical levels. At an individual level, medical attendants may keep on developing self efficacy toward oneself through expert training and continuing education. At an interpersonal level, social support from colleagues ought to be managed at the current levels.

REFERENCES:

1. LeSergent CM, Haney CJ. Rural hospital nurse's stressors and coping strategies: a survey. Int J Nurs Stud. 2005 Mar; 42(3):315-24.

2. Lu H, while A, Barriball L. Job satisfaction among nurses: a literature review. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2005; 42(4): 211–227.

3. Papagiannis A. Talking with the patient: fundamental principles of clinical communication and announcement of bad news. Medical Time Northwestern Greece. 2010; 6(Supplement):43–49

4. Searo (1984) Indicators of Mental Health. Report on a WHO/UNISEF. Inter Country Workshop, S E/Ment/79.

5. Verma S.K (1986) Identifying Indicators of Quality of Family Life. International Conference, Health Policy: Ethics and Human Values, New Delhi.

6. Weick, K.E. (1990). The vulnerable system: An analysis of the Tenerife air disaster. Journal of Management, 16, 571-593.

7. Yu YJ, Hung SW, Wu YK, Tsai LC, Wang HM, Lin CJ. Job satisfaction and quality of life among hospital nurses in the Yunlin-Chiayi area.Hu Li Za Zhi. 2008 Apr; 55(2):29-38.