Managing university records and documents in the world of governance, audit and risk: Case studies from South Africa and Malawi

There are enormous benefits for any organisation from practising sound records management. In the context of a public university, the importance of good records management includes: facilitating the achievement the university’s mandate; enhancing efficiency of the university; maintaining a reliable institutional memory; promoting trust; responding to an audit culture; enhancing university competitiveness; supporting the university’s fiduciary duty; demonstrating transparency and accountability; and fighting corruption. Records scholars and commentators posit that effective recordkeeping is an essential underpinning of good governance. Although there is a portrayal of positive correlation, recordkeeping struggles to get the same attention as that given to the governance. Evidence abounds of cases of neglect of recordkeeping in universities and other institutions in Sub-Saharan Africa. The apparent absence of sound recordkeeping provided a rationale for revisiting some universities in South Africa and Malawi in order to critically explore the place of recordkeeping in an organisation’s strategy in order to develop an alternative framework for managing records and documents in an era where good governance is a global agenda. The research is a collective case study in which multiple cases are used to critically explore the relationship between recordkeeping and governance. As qualitative research that belongs in the interpretive tradition of enquiry, it is not meant to suggest prescriptive solutions to general recordkeeping problems but rather to provide an understanding of the challenges and opportunities that arise in managing records and documents in the world of governance, audit and risk. That is: what goes on in the workplace; what are the problems; and what alternative approaches might address any existing problem situations. Research findings show that some institutions are making good use of their governance structures and other drivers for recordkeeping to put in place sound recordkeeping systems. Key governance structures and other drivers for recordkeeping identified include: laws and regulations; governing bodies; audit; risk; technology; reforms; and workplace culture. Other institutions are not managing their records and documents well despite efforts to improve their governance systems. They lack recordkeeping capacity. Areas that determine recordkeeping capacity include: availability of records management policy; capacity for digital records; availability of a records management unit; senior management support; level of education and training of records management staff; and systems and procedures for storage, retrieval and dispositions of records. Although this research reveals that the overall recordkeeping in the selected countries has slightly improved compared with the situation other researchers found a decade ago, it remains unsatisfactory and disjointed from governance. The study therefore proposes governance recordkeeping as an approach to managing records and documents in the world of governance, audit and risk. The governance recordkeeping viewpoint considers recordkeeping as a governance function that should be treated in the same manner as other governance functions such as audit and risk management. Additionally, recordkeeping and governance should be considered as symbiotic elements of a strategy. A strategy that neglects recordkeeping may not fulfil the organisation’s objectives effectively.

Pressure ulcer management in Oman: nurses’ knowledge and views

Background: Pressure ulcers (PrUs) have a significant impact on health system expenditure and patient’s quality of life. It is a global problem. Many studies were undertaken in regard to PrU prevention and management. In Oman, no studies have been conducted to investigate nurses’ knowledge on prevention and management of PrUs. The purpose of this descriptive sequential explanatory mixed-method study was to explore the nurses’ level of knowledge in relation to prevention and management of PrUs in Oman. Methods: A mixed method design was used and the study was conducted over two Phases. In Phase I, a questionnaire was developed to explore nurses’ knowledge on PrU, policy, and resources. The main section of the questionnaire was the Pieper-Zulkowski Pressure Ulcer knowledge test (PZ-PUKT) which tests the knowledge on PrU. Another two sections were developed including questions about wound policy and resources available for PrU prevention and management in Oman. The questionnaire was distributed to nurses who were working in surgical, medical, orthopaedic, CCU, and ICU wards/units in seven hospitals. In Phase II study, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 16 of the questionnaire respondents. Interviews took approximately 30 minutes, were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Qualitative data were analysed using the Knowledge, Attitudes and Practice (KAP) model as the a priori framework. Results: In Phase I, 478 questionnaires were analysed. The knowledge test results showed the overall mean percent score for correctly answered questions was 51% suggesting a low level of knowledge. There was a significant relationship between nurses’ knowledge and age (P=0.001) and between knowledge and years of experience (P=0.001) with knowledge increasing with age and years of experience. In Phase II, four themes were identified from the interviews: knowledge, attitude, and practice (framework themes) and perception of role. Findings indicated positive and negative attitudes towards the care of PrUs. Some nurses stated feeling rewarded when they see wounds improving while others said they could not work with patients independently because they lacked the knowledge and the skills needed. There was variation in the management of PrU between hospitals. Both studies indicated that the wound management policy did not include enough information to guide nurses. Conclusion: Overall the nurses’ level of knowledge on PrU was relatively low. Most nurses were not familiar with wound management policy or different PrU prevention and management strategies. Nurses are aware of the risk of PrUs and try their best to manage them with the available resources however more training is required.