Journal List > Korean J Adult Nurs > v.26(5) > 1094581

TOOLS
Kwon, Chu, and Kim: Impact of Work Environment and Job Satisfaction on Service Quality among Staff in Elderly Facility
Original Article

Korean J Adult Nurs 2014;26(5):512-521.

Published online: NaN October 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7469/kjan.2014.26.5.512

Impact of Work Environment and Job Satisfaction on Service Quality among Staff in Elderly Facility

Kyong Ja Kwon1, Min Sun Chu2, Jung A Kim3,

1Department of Nursing, Hansei University, Gunpo

2Seoul Women's College of Nursing, Seoul

3College of Nursing, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea

Corresponding author: Kim, Jung A College of Nursing, Hanyang University, 17 Haengdang-dong, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, 133-791, Korea. Tel: +82-2-2220-0799, Fax: +82-2-2297-8613, E-mail: joyhippo@hanyang.ac.kr

Received 30 August 20137 October 2014       Accepted 9 October 2014

Copyright © 2014 Korean Society of Adult Nursing

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

This study examined the effect of work environment and job satisfaction on service quality among staff caring for the elderly.

Methods

A convenient sample was 192 staff members from 95 elderly facilities. Data collection occurred from June to July, 2011 using a self-administered questionnaire. Data was analyzed using SPSS/WIN 18.0.

Results

Among the subscales of Work Environment Scale, the self-realization score was the highest followed by workload, nervousness, and conflict. The mean score of job satisfaction was 71.43. Reliability was the highest followed by assurance, empathy, responsiveness, and tangibles. Predictive factors of service quality included self-realization work environment and job satisfaction.

Conclusion

Exploration of strategies to improve the recognition of self-realization work environment and job satisfaction will be necessary in order to increase of service quality among staffs in elderly facility.

Keywords: Elderly facility, Job satisfaction, Service quality, Work environment

REFERENCES

Abdelrazek F.., Skytt B.., Aly M.., El-Sabour M. A.., Ibrahim N.., Engström M.2010. Leadership and management skills of first-line managers of elderly care and their work environment. Journal of nursing management. 18(6):736––745.
crossref
Babakus E.., Yavas U.., Karatepe O. M.., Avci T.2003. The effect of management commitment to service quality on employees' affective and performance outcomes. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 31(3):272––286.
crossref
Buerhaus P. I.., Donelan K.., Ulrich B. T.., Norman L.., Dittus R.2006. State of the registered nurse workfore in the United States. Nursing Economic. 24(1):6––13.
Castle N. G.2001. Administrator turnover and quality of care in nursing homes. The Gerontologist. 41(6):757––767.
crossref
Cho G. L.., Jeong S.., McMilan M.., Conway J.., Higgins I.., Kwon K. J.2013. Future directions for care of older people in residential aged care facilities in South Korea.1st Annual Worldwide Nursing Conference. 100––105.
Cho S. H.2011. A survey of the empowerment of the self awareness effects on the quality of service the self-evaluation: Focused on Chungcheongnam-do the workers in the long term care facility for the elderly. Journal of Welfare for the Aged. 50:353––376.
Choi H. K.2007. A study on work stress, satisfaction, and dementia attitudes of social care work force of dependent elders. Korean Academy of Social Welfare. 59(3):175––199.
Friis S.1981. From enthusiasm to resignation in therapeutic community: A process evaluation of mental hospital ward with the Ward Atmosphere Scale (WAS). Journal of the Oslo City Hospitals. 31:51––54.
Harris-Kojetin L.., Lipson D.., Fielding J.., Kiefer K.., Stone R. I.2004. Recent Findings on Frontline Long-term Care Workers: A Research Synthesis 1999-2003. Office of Disability, Aging, and Long-Term Policy, US Department of Health and Human Services.
Im W. H.., Jung S. I.., Chae H. T.2009. Influences of social worker's professional identity on job satisfaction and quality of service in nursing home: Centered on social worker take charge of care service. Journal of Welfare for the Aged. 46:263––286.
Ivancevich J. M.2004. Human Resource Management. 9th ed.New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Kim H. J.., Kim H. K.2011. A study on the influences of the elderly long-term care worker's job stress on the organizational effectiveness. Journal of Welfare for the Aged. 51(Spring):191––213.
Kim J. S.., Kim J. K.., Han W. S.., Shim M. S.2012. Effects of national evaluation of long term care hospitals on hospital workers' work environment, job satisfaction and quality of service. Journal of Korean Public Health Nursing. 26(1):137––146.
Kostiwa I. M.., Meeks S.2009. The relation between psychological empowerment, service quality, and job satisfaction among certified nursing assistants. Clinical Gerontologist. 32(3):276––292.
crossref
Kwon J. A.2009. Clinical Nurses' Working Environment and Intention of Retention. Unpublished master's thesis, Hanyang University, Seoul.
Lee E. Y.2006. A study on the effects of nursing home employees' job stress on their quality of care service. Unpublished master's thesis, Ewha Womans University, Seoul.
Lee H. J.2011. The effects of work environment characteristic and job stress on the job satisfaction among caregivers. Journal of Welfare for the Aged. 51:125––144.
Lee S. K.., Park J. H.1996. A study on relationship between autonomy and group cohesiveness perceived by nurses and their job satisfaction, organizational commitment motivation and intend to stay on jobs. The Journal of Korean Nursing Administration Academic Society. 2(1):5––15.
Lock E. A.1976. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In. Dunnette M. D., editorHand book of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Randed Mcnally.
Moos R. H.1993. Work Environment Scale-From R Interpretive. . Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
National Health Insurance Cooperation. 2011. Long-Term Care Insurance key statistics. Retrieved June 27, 2012, from. http://www.nhic.or.kr/portal/site/main/menuitem.a6d1d03ecb101584ea0c3326b210101c.
Parasuraman A.., Zeithaml V. A.., Berry L. L.1988. SERVQ UAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing. 64(1):12––40.
Park T. Y.., Chae H. T.., Kim D. H.2009. A study on job analysis for elderly care facility workers using DACUM job analysis technique. Journal of Welfare for the Aged. 46:287––314.
Rossberg J. I.., Friis S.2004. Patients' and staff's perceptions of the psychiatric ward environment. Psychiatric Services. 55(7):798––803.
crossref
Ro̸ssberg J.., Eiring O.., Friis S.2004. Work environment and job satisfaction. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. 39(7):576––580.
crossref
Statistics Korea. 2013. 2013 Aging Statistics. Retrieved April 28, 2014, from. http://kosis.kr/customStatis/customStatis_01List.jsp.
Tourangeau A.., Cranley L.., Laschinger H. K. S.., Pachis J.2010. Relationships among leadership practices, work environments, staff communication and outcomes in longterm care. Journal of Nursing Management. 18(8):1060––1072.
crossref
Van den Berg T. I.., Landeweerd J. A.., Tummers G. E.., Van Merode G. G.2006. A comparative study of organizational characteristics, work characteristics and nurses psychological work reactions in a hospital and nursing home setting. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 43:491––505.
Zeithaml V. A.., Berry L. L.., Parasuraman A.1996. The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing. 2(4):31––46.
crossref
Zimmerman D. R.2003. Improving nursing home quality of care through outcomes data: The MDS quality indicators. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. 18(3):250––257.
crossref

Table 1.
Characteristics of the Participants (N=192)
Characteristics Categories n (%) or M±SD
Age (year)   45.94±10.01
20~29 14 (7.3)
30~39 29 (15.1)
40~49 77 (40.1)
≥0 72 (37.5)
Gender Male 10 (5.2)
Female 182 (94.8)
Marital status Single 34 (17.7)
Married 158 (82.3)
Education level High school 15 (7.8)
College 84 (43.8)
University 58 (30.2)
Graduate school 35 (18.2)
Occupational position Chief of the facilitty 42 (21.9)
Staff nurse 78 (40.6)
Social worker 35 (18.2)
Others† 37 (19.3)
Job experience (year)‡ (n=188)   2.39±0.74
≤1 30 (15.9)
＞1~≤2 54 (28.8)
＞2~≤3 104 (55.3)
Region Seoul 41 (21.4)
Gyeonggi-do 121 (63.0)
Others § 30 (15.6)
Facility size (resident number) ≤10 4 (2.1)
＞11~≤30 29 (15.1)
＞31~≤50 37 (19.3)
＞51~≤99 58 (30.2)
≥100 64 (33.3)

† Physical therapist (15), occupational therapist (6), nurse aid (16);

‡ It is the Work experience since August 2007;

§ Busan (1), Incheon (6), Daejeon (1), Chuncheongnam-do (11), Gyeongsangnam-do (11).

Table 2.
Summary of Descriptive for the Study Variables (N=192)
Variables Subscale Numbers of items M±SD† M±SD‡ Rank
Work environment Self-realization 4 14.52±2.29 3.63±0.57 1
Workload 2 6.42±1.23 3.21±0.62 2
Conflict 2 5.01±1.08 2.51±0.54 4
Nervousness 2 5.44±1.40 2.72±0.70 3
Job satisfaction   20 71.43±9.83 3.57±0.49
Service quality Tangibles 4 15.69±2.37 3.92±0.59 5
Reliability 5 20.31±2.81 4.06±0.56 1
Responsiveness 4 15.71±2.71 3.93±0.67 3
Assurance 4 16.19±3.22 4.05±0.57 2
Empathy 5 19.64±2.30 3.93±0.57 3
Total 22 88.03±10.51 4.00±0.47

† M±SD is (summation of items);

‡ M±SD is (summation of items / numbers of items).

Table 3.
The Work Environment, Job Satisfaction and Service Quality according to General Characteristics of the Participants (N=192)
Variable Categories Work environment Job satisfaction Service quality
Self realization Workload Conflict Nervousness
M±SD t or F (p) M±SD t or F (p) M±SD t or F (p) M±SD t or F (p) M±SD t or F (p) M±SD t or F (p)
Age (year) 20~29 3.61±0.52 0.94 3.07±0.61 0.56 2.21±0.61 3.24 2.75±0.61 2.62 72.69±11.52 0.17 3.98±0.35 0.22
30~39 3.49±0.55 (.420) 3.21±0.67 (.638) 2.33±0.57 (.023) 2.55±0.61 (.052) 71.64±9.7 (.910) 3.95±0.67 (.878)
40~49 3.63±0.54   3.18±0.61   2.56±0.50   2.63±0.65   70.85±9.84   3.99±0.41  
≥0 3.70±0.61   3.28±0.61   2.59±0.53   2.90±0.53   71.74±9.71   4.04±0.47  
Gender Male 3.28±0.61 2.04 2.90±0.61 1.64 2.55±0.55 -0.25 2.45±0.68 1.27 73.22±12.48 -0.56 3.93±0.59 0.43
Female 3.65±0.72 (.042) 3.23±0.61 (.101) 2.51±0.54 (.802) 2.74±0.70 (.204) 71.34±9.70 (.576) 4.01±0.46 (.667)
Marital status Single 3.81±0.54 2.00 3.32±0.65 1.14 2.35±0.51 -1.84 2.68±0.61 -0.44 72.94±8.90 0.95 4.13±0.45 1.63
Married 3.59±0.57 (.047) 3.19±0.61 (.253) 2.54±0.54 (.066) 2.74±0.72 (.658) 71.10±10.02 (.340) 3.97±0.48 (.156)
Education level High schoola 3.32±0.60 8.59 3.03±0.35 2.87 2.67±0.45 0.46 2.67±0.74 1.16 67.14±0.85 5.66 3.75±0.51 3.24
Collegeb 3.48±0.53 (＜.001) 3.14±0.67 (.038) 2.49±0.51 (.706) 2.70±0.68 (.324) 69.13±0.88 (.001) 3.98±0.50 (.023)
Universityc 3.73±0.52 a, b＜d 3.20±0.60   2.50±0.61   2.66±0.67   73.20±0.96 a, b＜d 3.99±0.44 a＜d
Graduate schoold 3.96±0.55   3.47±0.55   2.50±0.52   2.93±0.72   76.10±10.83   4.20±0.39  
Occupational position Chief of facilitya 3.96±0.55 6.26 3.53±0.60 7.51 2.59±0.56 2.34 3.00±0.77 4.21 75.92±9.46 5.66 4.16±0.36 2.53
Staff nurseb 3.49±0.53 (＜.001) 3.26±0.56 ( (＜.001) 2.58±0.53 (.074) 2.76±0.62 (.007) 68.36±9.28 (.001) 3.92±0.47 (.059)
Social workerc 3.63±0.53 a＞b 2.96±0.69 a＞c, d 2.33±0.56   2.46±0.65 a＞c 72.97±8.37 a＞b 3.93±0.49  
Othersd 3.60±0.58   3.01±0.50   2.43±0.48   2.62±0.73   71.68±10.79   4.07±0.55  
Job experience ≤1a 3.56±0.56 3.82 3.15±0.64 2.91 2.38±0.73 1.24 2.75±0.70 1.73 67.89±8.27 5.88 3.89±0.56 1.16
＞1~≤2b 3.50±0.57 (.023) 3.08±0.68 (.057) 2.47±0.53 (.290) 2.58±0.76 (.180) 69.33±9.59 (.003) 3.98±0.49 (.316)
＞2~≤3c 3.75±0.53 b＜c 3.32±0.55   2.55±0.48   2.79±0.66   73.74±10.00 a, b＜c 4.05±0.44  
Region Seoula 3.72±0.51 5.11 3.32±0.61 3.27 2.51±0.51 0.01 2.82±0.68 0.91 71.41±9.26 3.44 4.07±0.56 2.14
Gunggidob 3.54±0.54 (.007) 3.13±0.59 (.040) 2.51±0.57 (.996) 2.73±0.69 (.401) 70.38±9.79 (.034) 3.85±0.58 (.120)
Othersc 3.89±0.69 b＜c 3.41±0.69   2.50±0.44   2.59±0.75   75.75±9.87 b＜c 3.99±0.64
Table 4.
Impact Factors on Service Quality (N=192)
Variables B β t p VIF
Education -0.22 -.02 -0.38 .702 1.18
Self realization 1.66 .35 3.96 ＜.001 1.93
Workload 0.32 .04 0.48 .632 1.47
Conflict -0.95 -.09 -1.29 .198 1.36
Nervousness 0.39 .05 0.64 .523 1.45
Job satisfaction 0.33 .30 3.46 .001 1.83
R2=.38, Adj.R2=.36, F=15.22, p＜.001, Durbin-Watson=1.97
TOOLS
Similar articles